Wirehead Studios

In the 1990s yes, and they were there, the US knew that because they along with the French, Soviets, Chinese and Germans helped supply them with those weapons. 2002 was a considerably different story, Hanz Blix said before the shooting started that he believed that the weapons were likely destroyed, yet the US invaded anyway. Hell, even Saddam himself recently said that the weapons were destroyed, although its not the most credible source, but the man has little to lose by saying so at this point.

I'll reiterate one thing, if Bush came out and supported this action on the basis of Human Rights not the utter raping of Iraq's natural resources, I would be behind him. But as with most politicians he lied to justify his actions and then covered up the lie with rhetoric about human rights that had no follow through. THATS the problem

As for letting the Iraqis decide, that's doubtful since an open trial would embarrass most of the international community, and its really hard to let a people decide while they are still having guns pointed at them by one side or the other.

This thread isnt about motives of the war, it is about Saddams capture, the whole motive argument has been worn out by all sides, in truth I am tired of hearing about why or why not, on the war. So lets try to get back on topic before it becomes a flame war.

So Saddam has been captured, now what happens to him?  Where should he be tried at?  Who should try him?  What do we do to prevent retailitory actions because of his capture?  What should he be charged with?

im willing to concede there may have been no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but others should be willing to concede Saddam had alot of time and advanced warning to hide or sell them off if he did infact have them.
 Really lets stop pretending that there would be any set of circumstances or evidence that would have convinced those opposed to the war to support it. Sure you could argue that there was support for the war in afghanistan because were attacked first but even then there were protests all of the world. While most goverments of the world were officially supportive of that effort you still had social groups and politcal comentators from europe and the middle east calling it "petty" and "racist" so lets not pretend a good cause for the war would have gotten it support.
  After a few years now i am extremly tired of war. I spent  8 months fearing a folded American flag would show up at my sister in laws doorstep to tell her and my 2 year old niece that my brother was dead. I am how ever pleased extremely pleased that Saddam was removed from power and if you cant see the good in that than i proubly wont lose any sleep over it.

Saddam had alot of time and advanced warning to hide or sell them off if he did infact have them.

Uhhh, that was the point remember? Saddam was simply not supposed to have them. If he didn't have them, and wasn't producing them, then there was no reason to disarm him since there was nothing to disarm him of. That was the justification for which you went to war. Pre-Emptive Strike Doctrine requires two points, one is those WMD the second is that there is an imminent threat. So far neither of those were met

Really lets stop pretending that there would be any set of circumstances or evidence that would have convinced those opposed to the war to support it.

As an opponent of the war I've given you the circumstances that would convinced me to support the war

Sure you could argue that there was support for the war in afghanistan because were attacked first but even then there were protests all of the world.

Yes but they weren't in the millions like the anti-Iraq protests. For the most part people saw Afghanistan as justified because it was a defensive war, Iraq on the other hand with its complete lack of WMD and large quantities of oil was not seen as a defensive war but as a brutal act of imperialism by a declining empire that had overstretched itself over they years and had its economy fluster

While most goverments of the world were officially supportive of that effort you still had social groups and politcal comentators from europe and the middle east calling it "petty" and "racist" so lets not pretend a good cause for the war would have gotten it support.

Notice how you said most governments. Politicians around the world are a conglomerate of liars, manipulators and thieves, i see absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be supportive when their public is not. There were only two countries that had supported the war where the polls showed INITIALLY that there was support for the war, the UK and the US.  It was both petty and racist, since I don't see the US getting involved in helping human rights in Africa these days... oh yeah I forgot the commander and chief said we can only help protect human rights in places where the US has a national interest, so those africans better start finding oil under their tundras or else they aren't going to get  any help.

I do see the good, but I am not blinded by the realities surrounding it. You got a good result out of an evil act, but don't expect the good to last that long if your initiall intentions were not

In a nutshell, we did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Correct?

I think the whole point about the WMD was not that we couldn't prove he had them, he couldn't prove he got rid of them.  That's how it was justified to me anyway, and that's good enough.
If I was bound by treaty to dismantle my WMD, I would make damn sure I recorded it neatly to show everybody.   Or at least do a decent job of lying.
Also, the acts of aggression, like trying to shoot down American patrol planes (legal to be there as per before mentioned treaty), would make me think a war was justified.
The only question in my mind about it is why did we wait so long?
Just some rambling thoughts - not really here to participate, but just felt like saying something.
I don't think I'd argue that there wasn't any self-interest going on here though, but if the right results were acheived, I guess I don't care why it happened.

I think the whole point about the WMD was not that we couldn't prove he had them, he couldn't prove he got rid of them. That's how it was justified to me anyway, and that's good enough.

So the international community has to start working on proving a negative? Hell at that point I'd ask that the United States proves that it is not abusing human rights, if not, the rest of the world should be able to invade them! Not everyone in the world keeps great records of their crimes like the Nazis

In a nutshell, we did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Correct?

We got a good result from a bad act

thats sorta like "if a plan is stupid, but works, it isnt stupid" .. in the same vein, if you got a good result then it wasent a bad act?

Last attempt to keep it on track, thank you.

How is this off-topic? We're looking into the reasoning behind the actions, which IMO are as important as the actions themselves.

I don't think it really matters what happens to Saddam. He as a figurehead of an Iraqi leader is broken, and it doesn't seem like the Iraqi people miss him much. However, a country with no government and a small police/military force will inevitably collapse. We should keep the troops there, just so that there is an enforcing presence in the country - even if it isn't their own - until they can be self-sufficent as a country again.

thats sorta like "if a plan is stupid, but works, it isnt stupid" .. in the same vein, if you got a good result then it wasent a bad act?

Goodwin's Law aside...With that  method I can easily say that the exploitation of the Jews as well as their mass slaughter was a GREAT IDEA! It helped dig the German economy out of a bad slump, and helped Hitler's rise to power, it was a win win situation for the German people, and it worked! therefore it must not have been a bad act.

However, a country with no government and a small police/military force will inevitably collapse. We should keep the troops there, just so that there is an enforcing presence in the country - even if it isn't their own - until they can be self-sufficent as a country again.

Agreed, unfortunately with the amount of censorship and stupidity (like a lack of education in arab customs) found in the conduct of the Armed forces will mean it'll be a very rough ride for the US as an occupier. The harder the US tries to apply its assimulationist policies (which didn't even work at home) to the Iraqis the harder they'll hit them back.

Continued support of this effort depends on one thing, whether or not they continue shooting, and whether or not US citizens continue seeing black bags coming off of the back of planes (which is footage Bush is enforcing the ban on currently). Since it'll take at least 5 years to get that country into a stable economic situation, 5 years which are doubtful to be peaceful for American troops.

As a cynic my prediction comes as follows, it depends on whether or not they can get a stable flow of oil from the region soon. If the oil wells continue being attacked and production continues fluctuating the effort will most likely be abandonned. You'll see a repeat of the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan, where a light local regime was put into place that only lasted 6 weeks. If the production does continue and at a relatively stable rate, there will be extra incentive by the white house to remain in the region and tap the resource it has. Unfortunately I seriously doubt this is going to shift the Iraqi economy back to pre-1990 standards regardless of what happens. But then, if your going to be a slave, you might as well at least be the slave in a house with better food, and the US is offering the only good tasting food at the moment.

geh, i hate it when ppl take what i say out of context, you know what i meant and in what context i meant it.

ANYHOWS, technically it still wasent a good result because in the end Hitler and the German economy was destroyed anyways.. but thats way O/T :offtopic

Heh, good point.  
However, the US isn't under an obligation to prove so.  Iraq was, under the Post Gulf War treaty they signed.  It's not enough that they say they did what the treaty told them to do, they needed to prove that they did.  
Continuing the human rights in the US thing, I'd say yes.  If we really couldn't prove out record of human rights, then I'd say that the UN would be moraly obigated to do something about it.  But we do have records that we attempt to improve our treatment of people, and we don't stonewall any human rights inspecters who want to come and look at what we do.
I wasn't saying that Iraq should have kept better records of their crimes - I'm saying they needed to keep records of what they agreed to keep records of - the elimination of their known stockpile of WMD.  This alone was reason enough to elicit military action.  
I'm also curious to know your views towards Britain and the other countries that supported this operation both in words and deeds.  The US wasn't alone over there, but there doesn't seem to be any reaction to any other nation.

I would like to know one concrete instance where the "International Community" has done squat to improve human rights around the world with any lasting effect.

I would like to know one concrete instance where the "International Community" has done squat to improve human rights around the world with any lasting effect.

The courts that are set up all over Africa that are trying War Criminals right now, the Peacekeepers that were sent to the Congo, Angola, Rwanda and many other African countries. The ineffciency of the system is mainly the result of the United States doing everything in its power to ensure that no country signs on to the Rome Statute and join ICC. The international community is at least trying to develop a basis for an order on human rights rather than sovereignty.  I had a really good academic article on this particular topic, its lying somewhere in this great pile of mess, If I find it I'll put it up.  The point of interest was that the current administration told Belgrade that if they have the capability to extract Milosovich they should do so since its in their mutual interest. Unfortunately Serbia is in no position to pull their version of the Hague Statue (which is the act that allows for the invasion of Hague in case an American is tried for War Crimes).

However, the US isn't under an obligation to prove so.

It has made quite a few obligations in the field of human rights. Maybe not the Geneva Convention (if I remember correctly the US didn't sign the whole agreement just parts of it) but it does have that obligation, and if we start to live in a world where people prove negatives, people would be spending more time proving the fact that they've met their obligations than actually doing anything else.

It's not enough that they say they did what the treaty told them to do, they needed to prove that they did.

The resolution you refer to said that they Iraqis had to provide the documents regarding their weapons program. They did so before the war, they didn't have to prove their own disarmerment since that was up to the international community to decide on the basis of the provided documents. In this case the international communities decision appears to have been the correct one, that Iraq did indeed disarm.

I'm saying they needed to keep records of what they agreed to keep records of - the elimination of their known stockpile of WMD. This alone was reason enough to elicit military action.

No, they were supposed to turn over the documents that they had destroyed them, not create them. Kind of hard to make documentation of something you've already destroyed or sold off. I could see the accusations of falsifying records now...

I'm also curious to know your views towards Britain and the other countries that supported this operation both in words and deeds. The US wasn't alone over there, but there doesn't seem to be any reaction to any other nation.

Blair screwed up, and he's going to pay a high political price for it, since he required the conservative vote in order to get his call for war to come through, his own party voted against him. Blair is as responsible for this as Bush, and the UK has a track record thats similar to the US in the middle east, its not good. The rest of the support was rather inconsequencial, Spain's leadership can look forward to not being relected in their next election, Burlesconi[sic] has Italy by the balls so its not likely he'll lose. Poland has always been pro-US and they needed debt relief so its no surprise they sent troops. The rest of the countries offered moral support some of which was coerced out of them with threats of cuts to economic aid, about the only country that resisted those threats was Turkey but they know they are worth more to the Americans than could be lost over something like Iraq.

On the issue of Saddams capture i believe he should be judged solely by the Iraqis. I think it will be good for them to be done with him on thier own terms. If the United states of the united nations were to try him i think the real issues would fall victim to the mentioned groups political interests.
 Further more i dont believe any international court is necessary or  politically realistic given the circumstances.

If the United states of the united nations were to try him i think the real issues would fall victim to the mentioned groups political interests.

For once I agree with you, Saddam should be tried publicly and without any help from either the UN or the US. Of course that isn't a possibility since he knows too much about too many politicians dirty laundry. The ICC is still a viable option since it is an independent body, but it should be convened in Iraq, the same way that they are doing for War Crimes Trails in Africa

Further more i dont believe any international court is necessary or politically realistic given the circumstances.

Well if you want to continue producing Saddams and not having any capability of dealing with them, then by all means drop the international courts. War Criminals run wild protected by a 500 year old traditions of Sovereignty of state heads. But then there would be quite a few Americans on that chopping block too if it was signed

good luck with that.

Thanks ^_^

Interesting that nobody rebuked my little observation about governments not being held innocent until proven guilty.  This leads me to a point about the ICC that Devlar brought up.

The reason the US does not wish to sign onto the ICC is that it is the only remaining superpower in the world.  It is basic human nature that the powerful are envied by the less powerful, and hatred also accompanies such jealosy.  They want what the more powerful have, and at the same time loathe them for having such power.  That they dare wield this power infuriates them even moreso.  The reason the US will not sign onto the ICC is because it would become a kangaroo court in which Communist, Socialist and Totalitarian regimes would bring charge after charge after charge against the US for no other reason than to inflict harm.  There is no guarantee that the ICC would be just or fair in its deliberations.  In fact, it is more logical to assume the obvious.  This is where a sharp philisophical difference arises between the US and smaller nations.  The US is constantly asked for aid from lesser countries and then sharply rebuked whenever it acts in its own national interests.  When it does not provide aid it is bashed for being isolationist, and when it acts for itself it is bashed for being expansionist/imperialist, yet it is always OK for smaller countries to act in THEIR own self-interests.  What people around the world fail to realize is that the US is NOT just someone's global cop and sugar-daddy to come crying to whenever their own governments fail to insure the security of their own people.

Anyone who stands alone, and stands proud doing so understands what it is to be hated.  Nothing you ever do can be considered "right" to certain people.  As long as humans are humans, this formula of power-envy-hatred will continue.  The US is being strategically wise for its own survival by not signing into such a circus court.  It is also bears witness to the memory of history.  The US started out as a colony, where it was taxed and oppressed by a foreign power in which it had no representation.  The idea of a foreign government or governments dictating to the US what to do or arbitrarily bringing its people to trial for crimes they may or may not have committed, depending on who's pulling the strings at the court, is in complete opposition to the principles the country was founded under.  Mistrust of government was a rule - not the exception - following the American Revolution.  The answer to my observation - why the same "innocent until proven guilty" rule is not applied to governments as well as individuals is simple:  power corrupts, and corrupt people seek power.  Governments are never to be trusted defacto.  The ICC can and WILL use its power through corrupt individuals and regimes to undermine the United States and make it a subject instead of a sovereign nation.  While some consider this a good thing, the US does not, and until someone mightier than the US comes along and makes it decide otherwise (or some politician is elected who decides to sign onto this) then the US will continue to be the lone superpower, and exercise its will as it sees fit, be it for the good or ill of others.

The reason the US will not sign onto the ICC is because it would become a kangaroo court in which Communist, Socialist and Totalitarian regimes would bring charge after charge after charge against the US for no other reason than to inflict harm.

So far no totalitarian/communist government has signed on to the ICC, only democracies have. China was going to sign last year but they wanted it to be on NEW war crimes commited in China after the signing, the court didn't agree to it. The reason why the US doesn't want to sign isn't because its the only superpower, China within 5 years will have an economy and a military larger in both areas, its because the US is the only super power that still throws its weight around. The throwing of that weight leads to the support of men like Saddam Hussein, or currently the monarchy in Saudi Arabia and Kuwaiit (which are both brutal monarchs). The American government, especially the pentagon is worried that signing it on to the ICC would result in massive charges (rightfully) of war crimes from the developing world.

The US started out as a colony, where it was taxed and oppressed by a foreign power in which it had no representation.

Now it does it to others, mild irony of the modern world.

The idea of a foreign government or governments dictating to the US what to do or arbitrarily bringing its people to trial for crimes they may or may not have committed, depending on who's pulling the strings at the court, is in complete opposition to the principles the country was founded under.

Depends on which founding father of the US you side with, if your like me and side with Jeffereson who was a firm believer in Human Rights this is a good idea. Also its not a foreign government, its a mass of judges which would include US judges if the US decided to join. The idea is you delegate the responsibilty for trying people for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide to a larger body because these are crimes that affect everyone not just specific states. You are innocent until proven guilty in the court

the US will continue to be the lone superpower, and exercise its will as it sees fit, be it for the good or ill of others.

Thus perpetuating violence against Americans all over the world. I'm not sure whether or not your stating that, that is your attitude on the topic but I hope not, since that is the attitude that gave you the first world trade center attacks, oaklahoma, the lebanon attack, 9/11 and virtually every other terrorist attack on Americans since the end of the second world war. The sad thing is its the people that suffer for the idiotic behavour of their politicians, but as long as your politicians keep acting the way they do you shouldn't expect any change in this reaction. We can only hope that the terrorists start aiming at the legislatures rather than at civilians

I do hope you are not including me personally in this statement;  if so you misunderstand me.  I am making an observation of how things are, not condoning any ills perpetuated by the US government, though we may differ on exactly what those ills may be.  If you misunderstand my loyalties and where they lie, I will define them.  I am loyal to two things:  God and myself.  I am no spokesbird in defense of US foreign policy if I believe it is in error.  There are many faults that the US has, and I have no reason to spell them out as others are already more than adequately eager to do so.  I am merely echoing the opposing viewpoint that my experiences and observations from living in this particular land at this time will allow.  My personal views on this are simple:  Politics respects only power and deals in the currency of manipulation.  Anything else is secondary in the minds of men who wield such power.  This has not changed for thousands of years, since man first learned how to scheme.  As for trusting the justice of the ICC, even those with the best intentions now cannot account for the intentions of those who will follow.  The US also has a doctrine of innocent until proven guilty, yet still the guilty walk free and the innocent are condemned daily.  Such is the inevitability of any system.  Corruption and alterior motives abound.  History's greatest lesson is that ideals always break down to corruption in the end.  Societies collapse, then new ones rise in their place to start over again.  The cycle is old, and familiar to me.  I saw no justice dealt by men in days of old.  I see no justice in this day either.

As for the attitudes of the US causing violence to be perpetuated against it, I find it very interesting indeed that since the "War on Terror" began no attack has been carried out on US soil since 9/11.  However, Al Qaida has hit Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia...  all those countries opposed to the US invading Iraq.  The footsoldiers of terror know nothing of political ideals, and those who command them care only for their own aims.  You cannot reason with evil.  You cannot negotiate with it.  You can only stand up against it, look it in the eye, and destroy it.  If you deal from a position of weakness and appeasement you will reap the rewards of your meekness.  Oppression does not rule the strong, and while might does not make right, it must be used to ensure that wrongdoing cannot be perpetuated.  I understand the terrorists, Devlar.  I understand blind hatred as well as hatred "for a cause".  I understand it better than anyone here ever could because I at one time also thought this way.  I still harbor much hatred and anger in my heart, something I wrestle with constantly and do my best to control, and hopefully it is something I can overcome entirely someday.  It is not an easy thing to carry, but I do understand the mind of the enemy.  Believe me when I tell you that the people carrying out these attacks around the world do not care if the US sits snugly behind its borders or goes off blowing up half the planet.  They are not afraid to die, and die they will to achieve whatever aims their masters direct them towards.  Regardless of what blame anyone has in how this all started, the course cannot be averted, nor will "playing nice" up to the bad guys change their attitudes.  Now that this war has begun, if the US backs down and retreats the bloodsheld will become tenfold what it is now.  There is no easy victory for this, but there is only one option:  hold the course, or suffer even more death.  I pray every night for peace, but short of a divine miracle I am afraid it will not ever come.   :(

I do hope you are not including me personally in this statement; if so you misunderstand me.

That's what I was trying to get a clarification on. From your clarification I see that the difference between you and I is the difference found in most political literature on the topic of morality in international order. In that regards we'll never come to an agreement, but that's okay ^_^

As for the attitudes of the US causing violence to be perpetuated against it, I find it very interesting indeed that since the "War on Terror" began no attack has been carried out on US soil since 9/11.

There weren't may attacks on US soil in the last 70 or so years. 5 I can think of, one was done during the end of the second world war by the germans as a last ditch effort to attack the harbour (I can't remember where exactly, if anyone does please let me know), then there was Oaklahoma, the WTC in 94 and then 9/11 and the Anthrax attacks. North America due to its location has been relatively free of attack regardless of the war on terror, Bush did not solve the problem, there wasn't much of one to begin with. Now American targets not in North America has been under constant attack and those attacks have no relented since the War on Terror, most recently the Saudi Camp bombings. I doubt you can give this administration the benefit of the doubt on ensuring international safety, you just got lucky and are in a strategically sound location far from the people you exploit.

The footsoldiers of terror know nothing of political ideals, and those who command them care only for their own aims.

That too is a less than accurate picture. The reason they sign up to blow themselves up in markets isn't because of some incredibly complex brainwashing campaign, its because of the situation in which they face themselves in their day to day lives. If you see your homes being destroyed by people funded by the US, with bulldowsers and tanks that are made in America, your bound not to be overly pleased with the US. If you live in a country that has intentionally been trapped by dictators taking out loans that you now have to pay back, even if that dictator is gone, your not going to be too happy with the people who are charging you interest. These people aren't blind, they may not have full knowledge of the political ideals of the people who are plotting, but they sure as hell are aware of the depths of depravity in which they live, and who is partially responsible for that depravity.

This is circling back to 'THE USA IS ONE EVIL RACIST HATE MONGERING NATION THAT GETS WHAT IT DESERVES' arguments.

Its getting old.  And for those that believe this way, and live here, have you checked into moving to elsewhere?

Last Time I checked most Islamic Terrorist just wanted Americans out of their countries

Furthermore, I don't think the US is a country that is racist and hate mongering, since both those ideas require a blind stupidity, some of which is found in those attacking you. The US on the other hand is self interested and greedy, yet unlike the majority of nations for which this is also the case, it has the power to accomplish any self interested and greedy goals. For that reason it gets what it deserves.  Almost 500 years ago the father of Political Realism, Machiavelli, stated that a prince can be feared but he should never be hated. Once you become wealthy and powerful, maybe you should stop and think, "maybe I should be nice too?".  Once you reach a level of good living, you should try to share that standard of living with your neighbour, not hire a bunch of thugs to rob your neighbour to only add those extra pennies to your patronage.

Why don't they move? Maybe because they love their country but they hate what the politicians have done to it.

in 5 years china will have an economy and military bigger than the united states? im aware china is undergoing politcal and economic changes but 5 years....no.

Check the Annual Growth Rate for China and compare to the Annual Growth Rate for the US, they're in the double digits as far as growth, the US is not. As far as Political reform, that isn't likely, they are far more likely to go the way of the Asian Tigers (Taiwan, Sinapore, Thailand, etc) and take a much freer economic stance while retaining political control (Which contradicts Freedman's Theory of Capitalism). So they are going to be the largest economy if they continue their current growth by 2008 (Douglas Lemke "The Continuation of History", Journal of Peace Research, Vol 31 (1), page 31). Also with the current slum in the North American markets and the falling dollar it wouldn't surprise anyone if this happens sooner

I should also point out, this isn't good for anyone. Thanks to Globalization, the Chinese will now be able to squeeze the hose so to speak whenever any other power threatens them. Kind of like what OPEC did during the 80s, except worse.

You may want to keep in mind that the US economy has  as of the last few monthes been creeping its way out of recession so dont write the united states out so soon.

 Your damn right its bad for everyone. Id like to remind everyone that the P.R.C killed more people than hitler and stalin combined acording the history channels "the most" show under glorious chairman Mao. Granted Mao is long dead but i'm still not very cool with the chinese being a super power. Frankly i would rather have the soviets back.

You may want to keep in mind that the US economy has as of the last few monthes been creeping its way out of recession so dont write the united states out so soon.

The Article was written in 1998 at the height of economic prosperity in the US

Frankly i would rather have the soviets back.

Considering I came from behind the Iron Curtan, I'll take my chances with the Chinese government, they aren't currently as hardcore as Mao or Stalin was, they are just a bunch of greedy old men who are doing everything in their ability to keep themselves in power. In between the US and the PRC, just like between the US and the USSR, it'll be human rights and the people who ultimately get screwed by both sides

China is a sleeping dragon that will awaken.  When it does, the world will burn.  Besides having nuclear capability, China also has the ability to arm over 200,000,000 people AT ONCE.  Their standing army is not that big, but they could conscript enough of their own population to create such a large force and I daresay not even the United States military could stand against that kind of onslaught without resorting to nuclear weapons and mass slaughter.  This is another reason the US must remain strong.  As long as the US has superpower status and a large military it remains a deterent.  I know this might be written off as "cold war thinking" but nobody in their right mind brings a knife to a gunfight.  Once China is strong enough, and believes it has enough allies on board you WILL see war.  The mindset of people in the Orient does not work like those in Europe or the West.  They have a very fierce system of honor that has not been lost, even to a Communist governmental system.  If anything it has made it more dangerous.  If you want any more proof of that, look at their spies, and what lengths they are willing to go to to accomplish their mission.  Remember the Kamikaze forces of the Japanese.  Remember when several hundred Japanese soldiers commited mass suicide with handgrenades rather than suffer defeat to US forces in WWII.  The Chinese also have this mindset of death and glory for honor's sake.  They take it very seriously, even if the rest of the world does not.  As the dragon sleeps, it dreams of conquest.  Do not ever understimate the Chinese.

China is a sleeping dragon that will awaken. When it does,
Once China is strong enough, and believes it has enough allies on board you WILL see war.

All of these things were said about the Soviets, and it's IF they do, and if the USSR has taught us anything its that the chances are very slim

I know this might be written off as "cold war thinking" but nobody in their right mind brings a knife to a gunfight.

It is, but I agree with you to a certain extent, I have nothing against the US remaining the most powerful country in the world, if it would stop throwing its weight around and acting in the personal interest of its politicians rather than in the total interest of the United States. The economic exploitation of the third world is not beneficial to the whole of the United States, it breeds enemies

They have a very fierce system of honor that has not been lost, even to a Communist governmental system.

AHAHAHAHA, sorry, the PRC adheres to the ideals of Communism as much as Stalin did, or as much as the United States adheres to Capitalism. Communism, Capitalism or any ideal economic system have little to nothing to do with anything in this conflict, this is over economic, political control and greed. Politicians fighting other politicians

The Chinese also have this mindset of death and glory for honor's sake.

For your sake I really hope you don't say that to a Chinese person, that's like calling a Polish person Russian, its liable to get you punched in the face from nationalism. Chinese and Japanese mentality is fields away from one another since their cultures were so dramatically differently  structured through their historical development, plus they don't identify themselves as the same race of people.

Do not ever understimate the Chinese.

I'm not, but fighting force with force will only lead to another cold war, when you could easily ruputre the society from the inside out socially as you did with the soviet union. The problem is that the boys at the pentagon know this, and they know that they're budgets are at risk if they follow such a idea and succeede

With that, I wholeheartedly agree.

Even we can find common ground sometimes ^_^

i dont think any army in the history of the world could arm 200,000,000 men even with the vast abundance of soviet surplus rifles floating around. Any war with china would be nuclear plain and simple because there would be no other way to fight them if it came down to a full on war. In that event everybody dies plain and simple but the Chinese know that just like the soviets did and i dont think china's current leadership is crazy enough to pull that.

err.. the chinese have never fought for the honor like the japanese do..  they dont have the japanese fuedal code of bushido, etc ..

  they just send human waves, the chinese arent aloud to think independantly at all, why do you think their pilots suck so bad besides the fact they get no flight time..  theyre just robots, the only thing the chinese will ever have are nukes, and numbers.. never more.  i dont think we really have a problem w/ being ABLE to kill 1000's of men.. look at the miniguns in blackhawk down.. etc, they spit out 1000s of rounds per minute.. the problem is would we actually KILL that many people.. even if they were all attacking..

The chinese dont have the same system of military discipline that the japanese do but they have thier own variations. Really any military worth speaking of does.

why ccant the world have more belgians .

the only thing we wanna do is defend our own ground , and not other countries .


the reason we dont fight ( not conserning we dont have enough manpower and weapons )
is that to many people have fought over belgium. we have been at war almost al the time and we know how wurse it can get .

if everebody would only defend there own ground, and not attack and not go outside there territory , we would only have to keep ourselves ready from an attack  of space .

 :unsure:  I can sense them coming, it wont belong anymore   :unsure:

Just like Poland.

So you say that other countries, like oh I don't know, America, don't know how bad war is?  Care to count the body bags that each country has produced?

The chinese dont have the same system of military discipline that the japanese do but they have thier own variations. Really any military worth speaking of does.

Except Japan doesn't exactly have much of their own military due to the occupation

Just like Poland.

Poland is in Iraq, but they have always been pro-US

So you say that other countries, like oh I don't know, America, don't know how bad war is?

The public does, but the politicians know they don't have to risk dying if they start a war, so they needlessly send the children of the nation off to fight

if everebody would only defend there own ground, and not attack and not go outside there territory , we would only have to keep ourselves ready from an attack of space .

This is about as bad of an idea as anything I've heard. Sovereignty in the international system is exactly what brings you Saddam Hussein, the monarchs of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, since non-intervention is the key. They want to put state power above human rights which is only good for politicians!

You missed it.

What the fact that everyone has been fighting over them?

Japan does have its own military and a rather well funded one too but they call it a "self defense force"

Its not autonomous though

You say this as if our own military personal were forced to join, they made the choice to join, they know there are risks doing so.

They signed the papers, plain and simple.

Quoted in IRC by LeeMon

You say this as if our own military personal were forced to join, they made the choice to join, they know there are risks doing so.

Until the military euphemism known as the "ghetto draft" ceases to exist, I cannot agree with you. Quite a few people enter the US military because they have no other choice

Many may feel they have no choice, but you always have a choice.  Do, or do not.  In the end, that is what it amounts to, whatever the factors are that influence a decision.  There are always alternatives, if one chooses to seek them.

Sovereignty is nothing more than people within a given region controlling their own lives as opposed to people in other lands having large amounts of influence on how they live.  As for autonomy and sovereignty being good or bad, tell me then, if sovereignty is to blame for the ills of the world, what system of governance would you then prefer that would guarantee human rights to not be infringed?  Who do you trust to rule over mankind on a mass scale?  Many have tried lofty ideals in the past, and it has always led to ruin.  Why should any new system be any different?  Look at the world today.  Look at the violence and strife.  It is not restricted to regions where the US has power and influence.  Men have always killed one another for whatever reasons, and do not need any good or explainable reason to do so.  What naivity would lead anyone to believe that today of all days, when means to kill have advanced more than ancient man could have dreamed, should differ?

Many may feel they have no choice, but you always have a choice. Do, or do not.

By that mindset I could say that a person who is having a gun pointed at them by a thug demanding their money is in a buisness transation, he's not being robbed, he choses to hand over his money, since he could fight and possibly die...

Sovereignty is nothing more than people within a given region controlling their own lives as opposed to people in other lands having large amounts of influence on how they live.

In an ideal world, yes, in reality Sovereignty is defined as the absolute authority of a government within a territorial boarder. Not "the people" but "the government". If this government is Saddam Hussein he's allowed to do whatever he wants in his boarders, including genocide, and as long as he doesn't invade another sovereign country he's safe from any international intervention.

what system of governance would you then prefer that would guarantee human rights to not be infringed?

There are two models, the first one (and very optimistic one) would be confederal democracy, where smaller states are grown from down up and free movement is guaranteed among all, sort of the idea that Bengamin Barber creates in his Jihad Vs McWorld book. Yet this is most likely a virtual impossibility  since it would require a global revolution (sorry Marxists...). The far more likely one would be semi-sovereignty, in other words giving sovereignty except in certain very well structured cases, such as a global human rights code. In such a system you'd get sovereignty to a point but certain actions such as genocide and war crimes could result in your invasion. Not only would this scare politicians, but the biggest winners would be the people, win win situation as far as I'm concerned. The ICC is such an idea, or at least the start of one, I can only hope that your next President is smart enough to realize that.

Hehe, this is where Poland is actually situated:

http://www.worldpress.org/profiles/Poland.cfm (http://www.worldpress.org/profiles/Poland.cfm)

Look it is right where I left it ^_^

Oooooo Please Elect Wesley Clark, the man respects the ICC. I can't seem to find a internet news article on this, but I just saw on the news that he appeared before the ICC in the trail of Molosovich. Maybe if he gets into office he'll ratify the Rome Charter and the ICC, giving us that sovereignty-lite I was talking about

EDIT - Found one
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031218_1668.html (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031218_1668.html)

Well, I doubt that.  As the big kid on the block, we don't need anything like the ICC.  I think we've just proved that.
I just really don't see the need for something like this.  Why would it be any different to have it around?  If a country sees another country comiting crimes like this, why do you need an official body to sanction invasion?  If you're serious about human rights, just do it.  
The way I see it, the world needs less Govt, not another buracracy to manage other peoples affairs.

Does having a response make you happier now?

Does having a response make you happier now?

Yes I'm sitting in my chair getting all orgasmic!

I just really don't see the need for something like this. Why would it be any different to have it around? If a country sees another country comiting crimes like this, why do you need an official body to sanction invasion?

So you don't end up with the current situation of an administration using human rights abuses as an excuse to steal another countries natural resources. Human Rights not Imperialism

So then?  Where was the ICC?  Where is it now?  Why don't we see it?  Surely just because America doesn't ratify it  doesn't mean it can't do anything.
Maybe ICC will declare war on us?

And...

I hope it's as good for you... etc etc etc ;)

So then? Where was the ICC? Where is it now?

Busy with Milosovich and the Rwanda trials

Why don't we see it? Surely just because America doesn't ratify it doesn't mean it can't do anything.

Unfortunately, thanks to the international order which we currently have, which is based on sovereignty, that's exactly what it means

Maybe ICC will declare war on us?

Maybe your next President will ratify it and no one will have to go to war with anyone

I hope it's as good for you... etc etc etc  

*lights up a cigar* Oh yeah baby, ready for an encore?

By your own arguements, if we don't ratify it, the ICC is powerless, so there won't be a war.

I'm dissappointed; you didn't put much thought into your last post.

By your own arguements, if we don't ratify it, the ICC is powerless, so there won't be a war.

That is correct, nor have i stated any different anywhere else, nor am I going to argue that it works any different because that would be a lie. The international order works on a opt-in basis, due to sovereignty, if you don't opt in, it has no authority on you. So the idea is to get everyone to opt in to a fundamental basis which subverts sovereignty.

I'm talking about the way things should be, as far as the ICC goes it gives the US a considerable advantage in these types of disputes with the international community over so-called humanitarian invasions. It also avoids making the US look like a unilateral bully, like it does in Iraq, which would decrease the amount of terrorist activity aimed soley at the United States. So its not as if you'd be doing this out of the kindness of your heart, you get something in return as well. Something that was present for the Kosovo invasion but wasn't present during the Iraqi one, legitimacy. You might say "oh but we are big country with guns what do we need legitimacy for?", just remember, a bunch of guys with box knives killed 3000 people on 9/11, a large amount of guns will not save you from this new type of warfare, legitimacy will.

Devlar, im actually in agreement with what you just posted.

Legitimacy accorded by whom?  The only thing legitimate to extremists of any type is body bags.  Being recognized as "legitimate" by some politbureau in Europe will change nothing in the hearts and minds of people in developing countries who see richer nations as decadent and thuggish.  They will see the ICC and any OTHER big powerful body no differently.  Hitler used this formula in the 1930's to convince Germany to go to war.  Remember who he blamed?  He blamed the Jews and the other rich, powerful capitalists for Germany's poverty and shame.  Take the poor and desperate, convince them it is someone else's fault, and feed their anger until it becomes an inferno, and you have WWII.  THIS is the formula that is being perpetuated in the Islamic world right now.  Have you all forgotten the lessons of history so quickly?  You said it yourself Devlar, "bullying" has made people angry, so now they're lashing out.  If that's the case, do you honestly think they'll stop because some international body just up and says so?  These people have nothing to lose because they have nothing at all.  Do you think the terrorists who are convinced they'll get 70 virgins when they die in a fiery plane crash are going to "respect international law"?  We're talking about people who are not afraid to die in order to take people out.  You cannot reason with that sort of thinking by claiming some phantom moral high-ground that they cannot relate to!  The only way you can change their minds in the long run is to show their twisted religious brainwashing to be false, as some in Saudi Arabia are now attempting to do, or stop them before they can attack, which is what the "War on Terror" is attempting to do.  They must either be convinced that killing is wrong, or be killed themselves.  There is no other way.  This genie is well out of the bottle.  You cannot put it back in and hope to magically make this all go away.  It is folly!

Legitimacy accorded by whom? The only thing legitimate to extremists of any type is body bags. Being recognized as "legitimate" by some politbureau in Europe will change nothing in the hearts and minds of people in developing countries who see richer nations as decadent and thuggish. They will see the ICC and any OTHER big powerful body no differently.

Which is not the case. Some will not, this is true, but take a good look at how many times the UN gets attacked compared to how many times the US (or Israel) gets attacked abroad. Some don't see it as legitimate, but some will not see anything that doesn't favour their cause as legitimate, what we have seen though, is that for the masses the UN is seen as legitimate, even in the middle east. The UN doesn't get attacked as often because for the most part its seen as part of the solution not as part of the problem, the US has the opposite image.

He blamed the Jews and the other rich, powerful capitalists for Germany's poverty and shame. Take the poor and desperate, convince them it is someone else's fault, and feed their anger until it becomes an inferno, and you have WWII. THIS is the formula that is being perpetuated in the Islamic world right now.

Except in the case of the Islamic world the formula is fairly accurate, globalization which is being pushed through at the expense of the majoirty of arabs in the middle east by rich capitalists from the west is largely responsible for the fact that they live under monarchal oppressive regimes, simply because they are pro-US. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not on the chopping block, not because they are massive human rights abusers, because they are, but simply because they support US interests. If there was a fundamental basis in human rights in international politics, regimes like those in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would not be allowed to exist, even if the US objected, someone would take care of them, and their actions would be seen as legitimate, right now they are tied up in a broken system that was created 500 years ago and has long since become obsolite.

You said it yourself Devlar, "bullying" has made people angry, so now they're lashing out. If that's the case, do you honestly think they'll stop because some international body just up and says so? These people have nothing to lose because they have nothing at all. Do you think the terrorists who are convinced they'll get 70 virgins when they die in a fiery plane crash are going to "respect international law"?

Yes i think they could, because these terrorists are not born terrorists. If we create an environment for these people to develop where they are poverty striken, because the US supports regimes that take away all their property, where they are not shot at constantly with guns that the US gave to the Israelis, where they DO have something to lose, because they are able to support themselves and their families, then there will not be anti-US terrorists for very long, then you will get respect for human rights. Terrorism is a symptom of the current system not a cause of it.

In the long term, yes, I agree there.  This is entirely true.  Everyone does have a choice as to how to live their life, but if the only message they are getting is one of hatred then a more appealing alternative must be provided.  However, the short-term is the problem.  How to break the cycle of violence is the question, and the cycle must be broken before this can come to pass.  Israel is a fine example of this.  The desire for vengeance is strong - too strong - so that any time the table is approached someone blows someone else up, and it starts all over again.  The only thing moving forward is the body count on both sides.  I fear it will end only when a wall is built to completely divide them, or else when one people exterminates the other.

As for the UN, well I'll give them this much credit as far as providing leadership goes - they pulled out of Baghdad and fled to Qatar after the first attack against them.  Kind of hard to get attacked repeatedly when you cut and run at the first sign of trouble!  :thumb:  

As for the UN, well I'll give them this much credit as far as providing leadership goes - they pulled out of Baghdad and fled to Qatar after the first attack against them. Kind of hard to get attacked repeatedly when you cut and run at the first sign of trouble!

At that point it wasn't their war, they had no sanctioned it, they had nothing to gain by remaining there and aiding the unilateral American effort. They are still knee deep in Afghanistan, you remember that place that the US forgot about? with that Osama fellow. Although the Taliban is trying to make a come back, there are considerably fewer attacks on the UN forces there than on the US forces in Iraq.

However, the short-term is the problem. How to break the cycle of violence is the question, and the cycle must be broken before this can come to pass.

You are correct, the improvement in conditions seems like the wisest path at the moment though, we have proven repeatedly that violence cannot be fought with violence especially in regards to terrorism.

Israel is a fine example of this. The desire for vengeance is strong - too strong - so that any time the table is approached someone blows someone else up, and it starts all over again. The only thing moving forward is the body count on both sides. I fear it will end only when a wall is built to completely divide them, or else when one people exterminates the other.

I doubt anyone will be able to solve the Israeli problem, its a religious thing, something that would survive until the last jew or the last arab are dead in that country. Even if the Israeli problem cannot be solved, the anti-US one can be, since it not based on religious tension but rather on economic convenience.