Syria

[NSX-R-SSJ20K]

US has flung accusations at Syria Pro Western Arab states warn US over allegations

US says that Syria is harbouring Iraqi Regime members and has WMD's

discuss

BBC - Syria

[BLU CIVIC]

AND IF THEY ARE....WHAT ARE U GONNA DO...GO TO WAR WITH THEM THEN SEARCH THE WHOLE COUNTRY

(AFP) - Former US President Bill Clinton blasted US foreign policy adopted in the wake of the September 11 attacks, arguing the United States cannot kill, jail or occupy all of its adversaries. "Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us," said Clinton, who spoke at a seminar of governance organized by Conference Board. "And if they don't, they can go straight to hell."

THAT SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING...POLICING THE WORLD...:o

[taranaki]

Originally posted by BLU CIVIC

THAT SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING...POLICING THE WORLD...:o

Close,but not quite.The role of a police force is to prevent crime,and to deliver criminals to the justice system for a fair trial and appropriate punishment.The U.S. 'defence' forces not only failed to protect the occupants of the World Trade Center,but now they are on a 'seek and destroy' mission against another countries leadership.Several key members of Saddam's regime have been listed as 'wanted,dead or alive'.That is not the method of a police force.There is no legitimacy in this action against Saddams regime unless the U.S. can bring its targeted opponents to a fair trial.

What ,Mr Bush initiated was 'trial by combat'.In real terms,any Iraqi who was seen as a threat was bombed first,shot at second,and asked questions if they survived.

[Pick]

Originally posted by BLU CIVIC
AND IF THEY ARE....WHAT ARE U GONNA DO...GO TO WAR WITH THEM THEN SEARCH THE WHOLE COUNTRY



THAT SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING...POLICING THE WORLD...:o

This is straight out of the mouth of the President responsible for Saddam still having weapons and Bin Laden still being alive.

[texan]

Originally posted by taranaki
Several key members of Saddam's regime have been listed as 'wanted,dead or alive'.That is not the method of a police force.There is no legitimacy in this action against Saddams regime unless the U.S. can bring its targeted opponents to a fair trial.

What ,Mr Bush initiated was 'trial by combat'.In real terms,any Iraqi who was seen as a threat was bombed first,shot at second,and asked questions if they survived.

Military doctrine demands the targeting of commanders as a way to prevent US casualties. That everyone high up in their government was a general was a system of their choosing, not ours.

Originally posted by Pick
This is straight out of the mouth of the President responsible for Saddam still having weapons and Bin Laden still being alive.

If you believe that, then you'd better hand down indictments to every President for the last 25 years. Go ahead and throw in several current key cabinet members too.

[Milliardo]

It seems like Clinton has his thoughts much better than Bush on this one. Isn't it interesting that two former U.S. Presidents, and Democrats to boot, opposed the war? Of course, with Reagan having Alzighmer's, he couldn't even begin to make rational speeches, and Bush Sr. is behind his son, so that leaves only Ford, if I am not mistaken, who has not spoken his opinion yet. I am with Clinton: it seems, as I have posted earlier, that 9/11 has become nothing more than an excuse to go after every nation opposed to the U.S., no matter how dubious the connection to that event the nation or leader is to it. Maybe Bush would say that North Korea is involved in 9/11 as well?

[taranaki]

Originally posted by texan
Military doctrine demands the targeting of commanders as a way to prevent US casualties. That everyone high up in their government was a general was a system of their choosing, not ours.

To all intents and purposes,this war is over.Breathtakingly one-sided from the very start as it was,the outcome was never really in doubt.At some point, the Pentagon has to admit that this is no longer a conflict between two governments and has become a manhunt,with no real interest in the prey getting any kind of fair trial.The ruling body that this war was directed against has fled,the few troops that remain are without leaders or credible options,and the country is effectively in the hands of the invaders.There is no need for targetting of miltary leaders,other than to arrange their capture and public trial.Taking out the chain of command may be an acceptable method of warfare,but when there is no longer a chain of command,or a defending army,'dead or alive' is not a valid policing option.

[TexasF355F1]

Originally posted by Milliardo
It seems like Clinton has his thoughts much better than Bush on this one. Isn't it interesting that two former U.S. Presidents, and Democrats to boot, opposed the war? Of course, with Reagan having Alzighmer's, he couldn't even begin to make rational speeches, and Bush Sr. is behind his son, so that leaves only Ford, if I am not mistaken, who has not spoken his opinion yet. I am with Clinton: it seems, as I have posted earlier, that 9/11 has become nothing more than an excuse to go after every nation opposed to the U.S., no matter how dubious the connection to that event the nation or leader is to it. Maybe Bush would say that North Korea is involved in 9/11 as well?

It seems odd to me that Clinton would at first tell everyone that they need to support the president and the troops and then make his new statements. But the majority of the house is in support of Bush at this moment. Now that Clinton has made these new statements I think the house may begin to lean the other way if other Democrats speak out more.

[texan]

taranaki- Actually I was just looking around, and I couldn't find any information about our administration wanting senior Iraqi officials (other than Saddam) in custody "dead or alive".

[taranaki]

Originally posted by texan
taranaki- Actually I was just looking around, and I couldn't find any information about our administration wanting senior Iraqi officials (other than Saddam) in custody "dead or alive".

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030412/17/dxlu6.html

the story has been widely circulated in Britain.

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en...=Google+Search

[texan]

Yes I knew about the cards, I didn't remember the quip about wanted dead or alive. I suppose that according to the administration's thinking, these people are already guilty and it's more important to stop them than to try them for their many crimes in tribunals. But yes that's a bit barbaric for most of this regime, of course I have no problems with seeing Bin Laden pursued in this way. I suppose that barbarism begets barbarism.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by texan
Yes I knew about the cards, I didn't remember the quip about wanted dead or alive. I suppose that according to the administration's thinking, these people are already guilty and it's more important to stop them than to try them for their many crimes in tribunals. But yes that's a bit barbaric for most of this regime, of course I have no problems with seeing Bin Laden pursued in this way. I suppose that barbarism begets barbarism.

International law has not yet descended into 'an eye for an eye'......or has it?I cannot see exactly what the troops would be trying to 'stop',the regime is in tatters and it's leaders are no longer relevant or heavily defended.The challenge for the United States has to be to find the much-touted WMD,Find Saddam and Bin Laden,and help Iraq to set up the structures that it needs to rebuild and rule its own country.

[texan]

Actually I think international law has always been eye for an eye, either that or simply political banter anyway. But I'm not disagreeing with you.

[Pick]

Originally posted by Milliardo
It seems like Clinton has his thoughts much better than Bush on this one. Isn't it interesting that two former U.S. Presidents, and Democrats to boot, opposed the war? Of course, with Reagan having Alzighmer's, he couldn't even begin to make rational speeches, and Bush Sr. is behind his son, so that leaves only Ford, if I am not mistaken, who has not spoken his opinion yet. I am with Clinton: it seems, as I have posted earlier, that 9/11 has become nothing more than an excuse to go after every nation opposed to the U.S., no matter how dubious the connection to that event the nation or leader is to it. Maybe Bush would say that North Korea is involved in 9/11 as well?

The point is Saddam funded Al-quieda and also harbored terrorist camps. And I think our response to Iraq is trying to PREVENT another Sept. 11, not fight for it.

[Milliardo]

Originally posted by Pick
The point is Saddam funded Al-quieda and also harbored terrorist camps.

The link between Saddam and Al Queda is still tenious, at best. And having terrorist camps inside a nation does not automatically make that nation to be harboring terrorists. For instance, there are many white supremacist groups in the U.S. who train their members with terror tactics. Their objective is to take down the U.S. government, seeing it as a "traitor" for selling out to non-whites; does that make the U.S. a haven for terror groups? Such groups work under a government's nose, so as to keep itself hidden. So, to that allegation, it may or may not be that Saddam did harbor terrorist camps. The only fact we have is that there are terror camps within Iraq. Whether or not Saddam directly or indirectly supported them is still being studied.

And I think our response to Iraq is trying to PREVENT another Sept. 11, not fight for it.

So war=prevention then? If that is so, then with other countries named by Bush to be like Iraq, we will see war with them as well? You said in another thread that you don't think there will be war with Syria, and yet Bush is "reminding" Syria to desist from activities. So, what you said, that there won't be war with Syria, contradicts with your statement above.