So it seems they got Saddam.

You missed the point Chip. I'll take responsibility for not super-clearly drawing every line to connect the giant dots.

Freedom does not just exist no matter how much you will it to be. There are costs to freedom because throughout all of history someone has sought to take freedoms away from people. The tax of freedom is sacrifice. Sure those who die in the pursuit and protection of freedom don't really find much personal comfort and never have the opportunity to enjoy the rewards of their sacrifice. BUT YOU DO! so, would you rather all those peope not have died throughout history in the attempt at freedom? a freedom that many millions now have and millions upon million more will have. How do unalienable human rights taste to you. How much are you willing to sacrifice for the many whose world is void of human rights?

I agree that many do not willingly sacrifice their lives. While it is unfortunate, it not something that can be avoided as long as there are tyrants who use innocents as pawns in their effort to bind, restrict and control people.

And before you get all giddy about making some comment like "you mean like the republican party" Remember to be serious about this...

Who fought to protect your freedoms today Chip? Police officers, military, laawmakers, family, friends, every faceless human who respects your right and the right of others to live in peace and comfort. How many on top of that contributed to the environment in which you live to make it more comfortable and condusive to civil, intellectual and emotional security. Now think how easliy that all breaks down if not protected every day...at least people try to do their best, because that is all we can hope for. Sorry that some die needlessly...we are, after all, HUMAN.

So now Haliburton is the reason that we arent sure if it was good to capture Saddam?

ok..so we had no business in Iraq.

Did we just throw darts at a map and decided to attack the next country on which our dart landed?

See, my question asks you to logically follow some things we do know...criminal(known) = bad, saddam = criminal(known).

Now I hear that we had no business in Iraq. Are we not allowed to protect the rights and interests of freedom-loving people (see above post) by apprehending criminals?

Who protected you today chip? You'll never know what misfortune may have come upon you if others were not risking life and reputation to secure your freedoms.

In very simple terms, yes the capture of Saddam was good. The fall of his regime was good. Saddam was a bad man.

Its not that simple though. Ask, why now? Now is because we were duped into this whole WOMD thing. If you have followed it closely you will remember the current administration came out saying they were wrong and there proabaly werent any. That was buried as quickly as it was said. One minute they said that and the next they were in front of the UN contradicting themselves. Invading Iraq has nothing to do with freedoms in America.. unless you are talking about our freedom to drive gas guzzling vehicles.

If you now want to do the terrorist equasion then the current administration has also come out saying there wasnt a connection and they blew that too. Yippee, Saddam is caught. Where is Osama? They pulled the bait and switch on the American people and most of us took it hook line & sinker.

Osama and Al Queda (sp?) were the threat on America. THEY were the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Not Saddam.

Misnomer,

You clarification about how things went down was for everyone else, but not me. I followed the situatons very closely and know exactly how it happened.

I am not talking about American rights..I am talking about HUMAN rights. There is only one thing that any person has to accept if they want to believe in Human rights: The are absolutes :There is good and bad, right and wrong, and some things are without question.

as stated in the <edit remove "US constitution">Declaration of Independence, written by a famous Humanist, the rights to life and liberty are unalienable. This isnot just an American construct, but a natural law that applies to all men and women. Human law (US, French, any governing document) should seek to protect this natural law. When human law fails to protect natural law then we have problems.

No kidding Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. Check all the records...never did a single government official ever state that it was the case. Somebody started that rumor because they weren't paying attention to statements about "the consequences of inaction against a known criminal and LIKELY enemy.

See, thats the business we had in Iraq. George Bush didnt want to look back like clinton and say "boy, I coulda dun sumthin about that." He took a calculated risk because the cost of inaction could be too great.

Champie, I don't know who you are or why you think you can start and end every sentence with "Chip" as if you think through text you can corner someone and bully them, but no one asked for an argument or accusations on your part, and you clearly are looking for a fight. Strangely similar to how our president picks fights with anyone different from America. It's strange how people blindly follow our president, and some even become just like him. Do some homework on the nature of this war from start to finish, and stop trying to push people around--you aren't a familiar enough player (to me, at least) to be casually causing fights and pointing fingers at others. Nice to meet you.

Daemioth, I'm just trying to focus the debate so that everyone knows what issues I am addresing. Sorry that I am too specific for you.

As far a familiarity is concerned, I was not aware that you had to know me to judge or respond to my stements. I try to be very clear about the "argument" (meaning presentation of ideas, not "looking for a fight" I am making.

If you feel uncomfortable exchanging ideas with me because you dont know everything about then I am led to beleive that you really aren't looking for a discussion.

What is the purpose of this particular forum?

So, I'll just give you a litte background on myself.

I feel that anyone who can engage in this type of forum with some level of civilty and in the spirit of question and response is ok by me, even if we have differing views. I admit that I was less civil in an earlier post, and maybe that set an argumentative tone. As far as chip is concerned, I have read other posts by him and I beleive him to be clever and intelligent (yes, both). Perhaps that is why I have encouraged his responses.

I am sorry that I cn only be as familiar to this group as I am, but that is how it is when you first join. If I never posted because you didnt know me, then you would never know me. If I conceded to poor construction and presentation of someones point of view then I should just keep my mouth shut anyway.

How should I have handled myself better to please you?

Champie,

The U.S. Constitution is the U.S. Constitution. We do not govern the world. Oh, and by the way, its flawed.

First is says "All MEN are created equal" and it was written in a time when african americans weren't considered people.

The Constitution is a living document.

You can't paint America and Bush as the great humanitarians. If this was true of Republicans then Schwarzenegger would not be cutting services here in California to the poor, disabled and elderly.

I could go on but you are obviously one of those more interested in beating everyone on the head trying to get them to see you are correct than having real dialog.

Remember something. We are all human and to be human is to be fallible.

Misnomer,

You confused too things,,the constitution and the Humanist Philosophy <edit> inspired <edit> declaration.

Yes, the Constitution is a living document that is flawed. However, it does not say that all men are created equal. The Declaration is a document created by the Humanist Jefferson. The philosophy in that document is not flawed (logically). It does claim inalinabe rights and that all peope have the right to be governed in accordance with those rights.

I never stated that the constitution governs all people of the world. I stated that the constitution is a balance between the natural law of unalienable rights and the human law that seeks to protect every individuals rights. This can be applied to all people in the world who seek to both have freedom and protect freedom.

Also, republican is just a conveinent term used to simplify a set of ideas, ideals, and principles. You are right that we are all human and fallible, therefore I argue that all those who clasify themselves as republicans are likely to differ in viewpoints regading many subjects, and even act in opposition to their supposed stated ideology.

My point is, if you look at the situation in Iraq from a Humanist point of view, there is real reason to support the effort. If you want to look at it politically then your conclusions will be limited to a funneled perspective.

Schwarzenager has little to do with the current debate.

Now, as far as beating someone over the head, I'm not sure you have it right, but I will entertain discussion about how my contributions to this dialogue have demonstrated a forceful close-minded attitude.

also, humanitarian is not Humanist

I never said that anyone was a humanitarian. Frankly I think that humanitarianism is nice, but it makes for lousy foreign and national policy

Okay Champie... and I'll say this real slow so maybe you'll understand what I'm saying.

I

think

you're

a

misled

stooge

for

the

republican

party

who's

been

sold

a

bunch

of

baseless

crap

wrapped

in

"patriotism."

Have a nice day

remember that this thread started as "Saddam captured, good or bad"

I may have digressed at times, but I feel that I am the only one who has offered and answer and explanation

Champie, how do you figure that starting a war that's been sold to the American people on completely false pretenses in which tens of thousands of innocent people are killed is in ANY WAY in line with humanist priciples? (I happen to be a humanist).

nice chip

ok.

Relieving an oppressed people from a violent dictator.

How it was sold to the American people is just marketing. From a Humanist perspective it can be considered just.

As far as thousands of Innocent people..well, isnt that a result of war? If the war can be considered just, then deaths must be accepted, both innocent and not innocent.


Is there something I'm missing...some major tenent of Humanist thinking that contradicts what I am saying?

I suspect that sincce you are a humanist your reponse will be enlightening

by the way, I was thinking that a better description of me would be something like:

a

thoughtful

individual

who

contemplates

many

perspectives

on

different

issues

and

tries

to

make

the

most

sensible,

rational,

and

compassionate

conclusion

possible

while

realizing

that

others

may

do

the

same

and

share

their

perspective

constructively

and

with

understanding

that

they

too

could

benefit

from

a

spirited

discussion.

And

I

try

not

to

call

people

names

like

stooge

Why thank you Just connecting the "giant dots" for ya! I just happen to strongly disagree with you. That doesn't make me a moron. So if that's the tact you want to take, be prepared to get the same in return.

The simple fact is that this was sold as part of the war on terrorism, and as a preemptive response (bit of an oxymoron there) to an imminent threat to our national security. That was a bald faced lie, and now that everyone knows it, suddenly the Bush administration is engaging in a bit of revisionist history by claiming it's about "freeing" the Iraqi people. That's all well and good, but are we going to invade every country in which human rights are being trampled? Somehow I doubt that.

So in answer to your original question, yes... it's probably a good thing ultimately that Hussein is out of power and in custody. But at what cost? Time will tell what the long term impact on the region will be, and if what's happening there now is any indication, it doesn't look good. You don't make a picnic safer by whacking a hornet's nest with a stick.

If you trace the history of the major players in the Bush administration back a bit you'll find that most of them (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Card, Rumsfeld, etc...) were/are all members of a thinktank called "The Project For A New American Century" (Jeb Bush is also a member) who produced an opus in September of 2000 called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" that advocates using our military might to solidify our position as the preeminent power in the world, and suggests invading Iraq to topple Hussein as a stepping stone to remaking the entire middle east.

Let's look at some other facts shall we? There's a lovely bit of video of Colin Powell speaking in 2001 (before 9/11) following a meeting with a middle eastern leader (can't recall who... the president of Turkey I believe) in which he states that the sanctions appear to working just as designed and there is absolutely no evidence that Iraq was making any attempt to reconstitute its WMD programs (a clear indication that the administration already knew that the so called "evidence" they paraded before the UN was patently false).

Then 9/11 happened and the PFNC hawks got handed the perfect excuse to sell their invasion plans by blatantly and calously manipulating the shock, horror, (and most importantly) fear of the American people for their own political ends.

It never had anything to do with WMD. It never had anything to do with the UN resolutions. It never had anything to do with freeing the Iraqi people. It had everything to do with the imperialist aspirations of the far far far right wing.

And frankly I'm amazed that anyone as articulate (and presumably intelligent) as yourself bought into it hook line and sinker.

So you can continue to argue the point with me if you like, but you're not going to change my opinion. Bush and his cronies are the real "evil doers."

ok...I did refer to the constitution as the Humanism inspired document that Jefferson wrote....oops

so I edited that post and marked it clearly as an edit. I dont want to get charged with unlawful revision of ideas. I just made a mistake. Thankfully nobody died, I hope

With regards to your statement, Champie:

"Daemioth, I'm just trying to focus the debate so that everyone knows what issues I am addresing. Sorry that I am too specific for you. "

And yet, you single Chip out when you make rhetorical statements like these, making a "point" by pointing fingers:

"Who protected you today chip? You'll never know what misfortune may have come upon you if others were not risking life and reputation to secure your freedoms."

You also say to me:

"As far a familiarity is concerned, I was not aware that you had to know me to judge or respond to my stements. I try to be very clear about the "argument" (meaning presentation of ideas, not "looking for a fight" I am making."

And yet a few copy and pastes show you are the one to judge others, and make faulty accusations that suggest you -are- looking for a fight, and not "presenting ideas" as you suggest:

"congratulations on being anti-war. You are successful at allowing criminals and tyrants who laugh at your stance continue to kill, maime, torture, abuse, and exploit millions of people.

You also dismiss the millions of lives that have been sacrificed for a greater good. ..."

Who is "you"? You are either deliberately engaging a certain individual, or your writing skills are off and you mean to write "one" rather than "you;" of course, that is highly unlikely.

You've yet to defend the war on Iraq with anything but rhetoric and bullying.

The point remains.... apparently the Republican party and the Bush family in particular had no problem with Hussein before 1991....

So now we've captured Hussein. I'm not going to say that's a horrible thing.... but what's the cost? We've fought a massive war with numerous casualties on both sides during a time when our economy was NOT stable enough to afford it. And for what?

Freeing the Iraqi people? Funny.... Iraq is a republic. (Has been for some time... one of the few in the region actually.) Are you going to say that Hussein, bad as he was, is somehow worse than having yet another Shi'ite theocracy in the middle east? (I'd say you need to read some history there.)

The entire pretense of this war was bogus. 'Regime change' wasn't even an issue until AFTER the shooting started and it dawned on somebody that the weapons used to justify the war weren't going to be found because they didn't exist, (and the administration knew it.) So now we get 'Regime Change.' Hawked loudly by the Ministry of Information. (AKA Fox News.)

Yep. That gets people to ignore all sorts of things... like blatantly lying to Congress and the american people. (Remember the uranium cake? How about Al-Quaeda ties? WMD?) Like using the entire situation to take friends of the administration who happen to be felons and make them even richer. (Haliburton.) Like sending american troops in to die over a president's personal ambition ('Well I've gotta get re-elected SOMEHOW') and personal vendetta. ('Well daddy couldn't do it.... so I'm damned well gonna...')

The entire situation is so totally screwed up it isn't funny.

Daemioth,

here i go...this is in response to things that you have siad...I want to make it clear that I am not "pointing fingers" but addressing specifically what you said, and making it clear in writing that I am capable of doing so in a clear manner so as to not upset the delicate nature of this thread.

In repsonse to this:


I reply: I was speaking with chip. I agree that I singled him out at first, but because I believed that he was willing to respond. I also agree that I was argumentative at first, and maybe even a bit dramatic. I concur, but do not apologize for the engagement.

Next:


Christopher said that he has always been anti-war. I mention his name in that reponse and I beleived that referring to Christopher was enough in that 3 paragraph reponse to indicate clearly that it was a response to the things he said. If my writing ability is so bad that you could not discern that, then I do apologize, becasue it seems that you can indeed read.

ok, last thing:


Bullying, I would disagree, but I do admit above that I was argumentative at the beginning. You are also correct that my contributions hee ae more rhetorical than analytical. Please let me know when you have compiled a list of every true thing that you absolutely know to be true about the Middle East, the US governement, and humanity in general..then we can have a true analytical discussion. Since I dont have that list I wil stick to philosophical and use my rhetorical skill to present them. I'm sorry that I can't engage in such discussions as, "Haliburton is giving kickbacks to the White House...etc, etc, because we dont know that is the case. We dont know many things, and that is my point. We need to decide what principles guide us through our decisions because we cant rely on total factual knowledge and precognition to make a decision.

No worries Champie. I enjoy a good debate. No need to apologize for speaking your mind.

It's all good. I elaborated more on my position. See above. I think you're using the same revisionist argument to justify the war that the administration is, and while there may be some benefits as an end result to bringing down Hussein, the kind of logic you're using isn't sound. You could use the same reasoning to claim that killing every living thing on the planet would be good because it would end all disease. The ends don't justify the means.

Chip, I meant to respond to your post, but I have to hit the road for work. I just want to say that you are correct in with the information that you have presented. And there is no doubt that government and big business are complex, convoluted, greedy, and tricky. Like a great movie, we cannot understand al the pieces, parts, subplots, characters, etc, until the end when it all comes together in a denouement.

Unfortunately in real life we do not have the luxury of a scripted climax that explains everything. In the case of Iraq I have chosen to await some satisfactory understanding of the "play" this is ongoing. We have no access to the true "source" documents because there arent any. I cant begin to explain how limited our perception is.

I remember the whole Powell thing. He clarified many times that with new relevent information is beleived that force againt Iraq might be necessary. Did the hawks get to him? Possibly, but we dont know. Why would we believe that it is a right-wing conspiracy when it is just as likely a reality that Iraq was a bad player that needed to be dealt with?

Again, you have made solid informed statements that I will not disagree with, but I don't beleive that they only lead to the conclusions you present.

Anyway, I was trying to stay away from that kind of discussion because I was hoping for a more philosophical debate about what is good and what is bad when it comes to Saddam and Iraq.

Thanks Chip, I hope my directed thanks at you doesnt offend anyone

thanks chip.

By the way, this discussion is making me think very deeply about "how things go down" with governement and war. The statements made by Chrisopher, Daemioth, CHIP and others have not been ignored. Every day we have the opportunity to rethink and define in new ways what we see and claim to know. Usually we see what we want to see, package it up in our minds and feed off that incomplete notion of how things are.

Only through a forum like this does Daemioth get to meet me for the first time and not like me one bit. And that's ok because now he knows me (so he thinks).

And then I get to meet Chip, who is a smart guy and kinda clever. And in the end we were writing smileys at each other and he was calling me Champ (maybe a little wishful thinking)

And lets not forget Eggy who started all this and has been watching the whole time, I am sure.

I am happy that Saddam is captured because that brings one more reason for hope to desperate people who have been hurt by this war. Even if our government is corrupt and greedy, there is more potential today than there was yesterday for peaceful living. The ends dont justify the means, but an effort toward freedom for any oppressed people is one good step. Next, we can battle our own government....one thing at a time...

I was waiting for the miniature flamewar to die down
I dont really have much to add. I mostly agree with everything chip says on these forums so I'll spare you a lengthy, redundant rant.
I don't like Bush at all and I think the war is an excuse to get free oil, revitalize your economy or some other hidden agenda.
I basically posted this to find out how many people would go "woot! yay us! down with the evil bad guys du jour!" and how many people would actually use their brains in replying. I'm pleasantly surprised with the outcome, even if it involved a mini-flamewar that I had very much anticipated
SL tends to attract some very interesting and intelligent people. Let's hope this will not change.

If I was not right about anything else..lol, at least I got that one right.

good work eggy