h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Della, I sure do feel real bad about someone posting under a s/n that is the same as yours. Wow, just imagine if someone started sending out email under your professional account.

Posted 6 Hours Ago by Della the Cat Woman: Accept no sneaking lying pro-war imitations!
<>
When did I ever say that? Don't be silly, Sarge.

You didn't exactly say it Della. However logic dictates that you believe it. Let's go point by point. You let me know the point you think I'm wrong.


Given (1) that Della believes that the invasion was illegal and should not have happened.

Given (2) that after 12 years of sanctions Saddam was still very secure in his position. The Syrian and Jordanian borders are too porous for sanctions to be anything but a joke.

Given (3) that Saddam's military and security forces were too effective to allow the Iraqi people to overthrow him from the inside.

Given (4) that Saddam's cruelty and mass murder were an intrigal part of his government

Conclusion (1)Saddam would remain in power until being removed by a foreign power or natural causes (although it would merely leave his son in power)

Conclusion (2) Della would have had Saddam not be attacked which would leave conclusion (1) and given (4) in place.

Conclusion (3) Della would rather live under Saddam's government than let a foriegn government violate her border. As Della's way would have left Saddam in power

There is one fatal flaw in my logic;
Assumption (1) That Della's convictions are steady enough that she would be just as adament about Sovreignity, international law and all the rest if her family lived here and the fedayeen had dragged wraith out of the house and chopped his head off in the middle of the street, for saying he thought SH should shave his mustache.

Della darling I never decieved you. My positions have been pretty steady. You might have only heard the parts where I disagree with the current administration and thought more than you should have. My main point here has been that there is a bit of good to have come out of this war (whatever the legitimacy of its origion) and the potential for much more. That nothing I have done or been ordered to do was illegal. How hard is that.

I offered your son and ES an olive branch, an offer to finally turn this into a clean fight. The very next thing I get are further insults and to top it all off, the wraith sends email using MY .mil account. What do you want from me Della? There is a line and they crossed it. Yes, I unloaded with both barrels. It was the least they deserved.

Bouncy- Border patrol is extremely difficult here. It was impossible when both countries were party to the smuggling. Iraq sold more oil illegally than it did through "Oil for Food" Half the cars I see on the road have plates on them from EU countries (stolen and imported) anything and everything you can imagine is available on the black market. From pirate copies of the latest hollywood movie, to Chinese missiles.
The Euphrates and Tigris support thousands of small farms, which are cultivated much as they were during Hammurabi's day. Building materials here are available, but poor quality. I think Saddam's palace would not be able to pass building code in a western country.

An, will check your link offline.

Sgt. I'm just itching to get out there with you cousin!

Oh, so, Dave's little trick was meant to punish *me* for Wraith's temerity in checking your bona fides! Where is the logic in that? (BTW, the whole silly stunt raises interesting questions for me as to Dave's identity, his occupation (student - yeah...) and his connection with you, Sarge.) Wraith is an independent person - so why attack me? He's an adult. Is it that you know that he would just have laughed at you, whereas I got a bit paranoid? He was, as I said, investigating your email address, which you had invited us to do, I'd like to remind you, and he found something interesting - something which enabled him to do what he did - send *one* email... to test his theory, I gather. It's not the same thing!
Regards your absurd 'logic'...
The 'fatal flaw' is that I don't accept premises 2,3 and 4. Or rather, I accept 4 a little bit, but not 2 or 3.
<>
All the talk about Syria or Iran next, makes me wonder if their 'porous borders' are a preparing-for-war story not disimilar to "Iraq's WMD". I notice all the porous border stories have come along just in time to "explain" the nonexistent WMD.
Neither do I accept premise nr 3. The Iraqi people could have overthrown Saddam any time they had wanted to. Even one motivated assassin who got herself a job as a maid in any of the 'palaces' could have got rid of him.
The atrocity stories we've been hearing for the last year blow my mind - not least because while Saddam was *your* (the United States') monster, and Rummy posed shaking hands with him in 1983, we never heard a whisper of any of them.
The poor little Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators - remember that story? The guy from Hill & Knowlton who dreamed that one up, should have got a medal. Hey, maybe he has a Congressional Medal of Honor
tucked somewhere to show the grand-children when the present administration and his Pappy aren't around to insist on secrecy...

Well said Della.

The invasion of Iraq is illegal. That is an accepted, acknowledged fact.

http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

So now the last desperate defence of the invasion, touted by those who lack the foresight to understand the world around them, is that the end justifies the means. Well - all those people who think that one country has the right to sit in moral judgement over another - I wonder how they feel about the US running a concentration camp.

It's been two years now. 600 people have been languishing in an American run concentration camp on leased land in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Their human rights are denied on a daily basis. Many have never been charged, or even adequately identified.

Does anybody, including sargentFlipper, really believe that this sort of behaviour gives the US a right to invade another country for moral reasons?

No it has been widely speculated for years that Iraq was busting its sanctions and gettimg materials in and out. Though I cant remeber any stories about weapons being smuggled out.

<>
Speculated by whom, BB? Rummy and co is all I know!

So now the last desperate defense of the invasion, touted by those who lack the foresight to understand the world around them, is that the end justifies the means. Well - all those people who think that one country has the right to sit in moral judgement over another - I wonder how they feel about the fact that the current US president tricked his way into power.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2

Does anybody, including sargentFlipper, really believe that this sort of behaviour and its acceptance by the american people, gives the US a right to invade another country for moral reasons?

Fancy that Empty, posts a link that features what Della continues to refer to as my "little obsession", how ironic is that?

Anyway here are two links that suggest that Iraq was indeed busting sanctions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/175829.stm

http://www.channel4.co.uk/news/2003/04/week_4/27_baghdad.html

I am listening to TV1 news - and here is a news item I heard 10 seconds ago...
Three teenagers have been released from Guantanamo Bay after more than a year in the camp. At the time of their "arrest" they were described by the Americans as "among the most dangerous". I guess somehow, they just aren't any more!

The greatest travesty of justice will be if the United states is never held accountable for Guantanamo Bay. If they just trickle the prisoners home two by two until the place is empty and then just deny the whole thing until the issue just fades away by attrition.

It's quite possible.

Quite possible and horribly likely!

Seems to be becoming a common thing here. If we don't like what someone says we simply deny their exsistance. I don't exsist, now Dave doesn't exsist. Anyone who agrees 100% with EVERYTHING Della Wraith and ES say is an expert and anyone who disagrees with a single aspect of their rambling is an entire list of names.

"The atrocity stories we've been hearing for the last year blow my mind - not least because while Saddam was *your* (the United States') monster, and Rummy posed shaking hands with him in 1983, we never heard a whisper of any of them."

Good God. Give me a break. Go back to just before your return to this thread. Look at the posting where I left a half dozen or so links to AI. They go back years. Reports and news stories about what went on inside Iraq and the amount of oil flowing out and illegal goods flowing in were there. Not on the front page. Just because you paid no intention does not mean they don't exsist.

Apple don't fall too far from the tree over there, does it?

According to you Della, there were no materials or goods getting through the Iraq sanctions?

dave

No punishment intended Della. I wasn't aware of any restrictions on name usage. Are there any? I just love your name.

dave

The sanctions benefit the despot and starve the people. Often integral to organised crime the barriers often are impervious to aid and foof and completely porous to:

gold bullion and precious stones
dollars
all manner of addictive substances
human traffic: prostitution
weapons and associated artifacts including ITC kit
oil
logistic kit including vehicles and parts.
"white collar" services: money laundering; engineering expertise.

This has been the case everytime a sanction is imposed.

The sanctions benefit the despot and starve the people. Often integral to organised crime the barriers often are impervious to aid and food and completely porous to:

gold bullion and precious stones

dollars

all manner of addictive substances
human traffic: prostitution

weapons and associated artifacts including ITC kit

oil

logistic kit including vehicles and parts.

"white collar" services: money laundering; engineering expertise.

This has been the case everytime a sanction has been imposed.

Since everybody but Dave seems to have missed my post on this subject, and since I feel quite strongly about the subject for reasons that will be evident from my previous post, and since Loopy seems to get to post the same thing twice, I'll repost my opinion on the worth of sanctions. I fully expect that there will again be no response to my reasoning:

"Is there historical precedence for the case of sanctions, or an embargo actually having the desired effect? It seems to me that the idea of sanctions is like a siege. Only in the Iraq case, we didn't want to starve the defenders (rightly so, I might add). But if we're not going to starve the defenders to death, how is the siege ever going to work? Why do the siege in the first place?

dave"

Dave:

if you are planning to pretend to be someone else, you probably should change your habit of signing your posts. It sort of spoils the effect.
Now, to answer your question: South Africa. Pretty classic example.

I'm surprised you had to ask the question actually. But then, I've got good friends in South Africa(black and white) who went through apartheid and sanctions (and a hell of a lot more) and came out the other side, so it seems pretty obvious to me. Here they are: http:// www.suntimes.co.za/2000/06/04/insight/in01.htm

You know, it's pretty well known that South Africa was dabbling with Nuclear Weapons. And we all know about the human rights record of the old regime. I wonder. If George had been in power a little earlier, would Chris and Nozipho have been bombed?

I say try sanctions any day. They work.

Sorry, I see the link in the previous post didn't work. I'll try again:

http://www.suntimes.co.za/2000/06/04/insight/in01.htm

Let me ask another question. Is there a case where sanctions have failed?

Let me pose an obvious response: no. There are cases were they haven't worked yet, but that doesn't mean they won't work in some future date.

So if the question is not whether or not they work, but how fast they work, is there ever a situation where the rate of sanctions renders them ineffective? A crisis situation?

(NB: I'm not suggesting the Iraq falls under this category, I'm just wondering if there ever is a situation which would warrant this, or has warranted this).

dave

Very likely, yes. But then the really, really important question is "who decides and how?" This question has yet to really be decided by anyone but George W. Bush. His answer seems to have been "George W. Bush however he wants", which really isn't satisfactory, I don't think. And that's where this comes in, as posted above:

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/pdf/Commission-Report.pdf