StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.abc.net.au/am/s793104.htm

Bush lifting the ban on the assassination of political figures?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2003/02/item ... 3740_1.htm

Consumer confidence lowest in ten years...

http://www.abc.net.au/am/s793159.htm

War crimes in a war on Iraq - Hague Invasion Act here we come.


Is the US going to go in despite all protestations to the contrary, and against more than 40 years of international, not to mention domestic law?

I would like to take this moment to remind all of you that the American government does not necessarily reflect the will of the American people.

Of course the US is going to go in; if nothing else because they said they would. To quote the movie "Crimson Tide":

"You don't put a condom on unless you're gonna fuck."

Dalton wrote:I would like to take this moment to remind all of you that the American government does not necessarily reflect the will of the American people.

Which is reflected in the massive drop in consumer confidence.

I want opinions from Americans on these kind of issues. Would you Dalton, support the invasion of the FUCKING Hague to "liberate" an American soldier who went My Lai on an Iraqi village? And lets not forget that the Hague only has jurisdiction if its not possible for the person to have a fair trial (either way) in their own country.

Would you support the assassination of Saddam even though it goes against US, and indeed, most nations policy?

weemadando wrote:

Dalton wrote:I would like to take this moment to remind all of you that the American government does not necessarily reflect the will of the American people.

Which is reflected in the massive drop in consumer confidence.

I want opinions from Americans on these kind of issues. Would you Dalton, support the invasion of the FUCKING Hague to "liberate" an American soldier who went My Lai on an Iraqi village? And lets not forget that the Hague only has jurisdiction if its not possible for the person to have a fair trial (either way) in their own country.

No, I do not support this.

weemadando wrote:Would you support the assassination of Saddam even though it goes against US, and indeed, most nations policy?

THIS might actually be a good idea...Saddam might be a survivor, but he's also a nutbag.

weemadando wrote:I want opinions from Americans on these kind of issues. Would you Dalton, support the invasion of the FUCKING Hague to "liberate" an American soldier who went My Lai on an Iraqi village? And lets not forget that the Hague only has jurisdiction if its not possible for the person to have a fair trial (either way) in their own country.

Would you support the assassination of Saddam even though it goes against US, and indeed, most nations policy?

I'm with Dalton. No to the first, yes to the second.

The United States needs to think about what would happen to/in Iraq without Saddam before taking any sort of action. They didn't think about it before when assisting previous coups and assasinations, and look how those countries feel towards the US now.

I don't know why they didn't lift the ban on killing Saddam earlier, one assassin, killing one man, is better than the US military taking out half the country.

Gandalf wrote:I don't know why they didn't lift the ban on killing Saddam earlier, one assassin, killing one man, is better than the US military taking out half the country.

Generally speaking complex problems--such as corrupt and dangerous governments--cannot be fixed with soundbite solutions such as assassinations. Execute Saddam and one of his sons will take his place. Fixing Iraq will involve replacing most of its governing structures and creating something resembling a democratic tradition. An assassination will not accomplish either goal.

weemadando wrote:And lets not forget that the Hague only has jurisdiction if its not possible for the person to have a fair trial (either way) in their own country.

As defined by who?

Enlightenment wrote:

Gandalf wrote:I don't know why they didn't lift the ban on killing Saddam earlier, one assassin, killing one man, is better than the US military taking out half the country.

Generally speaking complex problems--such as corrupt and dangerous governments--cannot be fixed with soundbite solutions such as assassinations. Execute Saddam and one of his sons will take his place. Fixing Iraq will involve replacing most of its governing structures and creating something resembling a democratic tradition. An assassination will not accomplish either goal.

Too true, though the solution sounds nice it has far more complications that most would be willing/able to admit.

This is without going into the fact that an assassination constitutes an undeniable act of terrorism which would mean the the Bush hypocrisy - sorry, government, would just be planting both feet firmly in mouth, inserting head up arse and kicking. HARD.

weemadando wrote:http://www.abc.net.au/am/s793104.htm

Bush lifting the ban on the assassination of political figures?

I don't like that either, but if we go to war then Saddam is a legitimate military target, and I rather we shoot him first as opposed to shooting a lot of his soldiers to get to him.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2003/02/item ... 3740_1.htm

Consumer confidence lowest in ten years...

Terrorist attacks and threats of war will do that. Do you have a point?

http://www.abc.net.au/am/s793159.htm

War crimes in a war on Iraq - Hague Invasion Act here we come.

When exactly is this Hague Invasion Act gonna kick in and charge Saddam for the invasions of Iran and Kuwaitt?

Wicked Pilot wrote:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/s793159.htm

War crimes in a war on Iraq - Hague Invasion Act here we come.

When exactly is this Hague Invasion Act gonna kick in and charge Saddam for the invasions of Iran and Kuwaitt?

Errrr.... what the hell.

The HIA won't apply to Saddam, you are obviously unaware of what it is. It was an act passed by the US gov't that means that if a US citizen is put on trial for war crimes in the Hague, the US will INVADE and "liberate" them. Heil democracy and all...

Saddam will go before the Hague, its the best way of dealing with him. I wonder who'll be who's bitch, Slobodan or Saddam...

weemadando wrote:The HIA won't apply to Saddam, you are obviously unaware of what it is.

Completely my mistake. I was thinking about something else.

The intent of my post was to ask when Saddam would be charged with war crimes for his last two invasions.

Portions of this thread have been HOSed.

Dalton wrote:Portions of this thread have been HOSed.

Damnit, the black helicopters are catching up... MUST - RUN - FASTER...

Dalton wrote:I would like to take this moment to remind all of you that the American government does not necessarily reflect the will of the American people.

During the period 19/02 to 23/02 of 2003, 60% of Americans approved of Shrubby's handling of the White House. 34% disagreed and 6% didn't know.

Shrubby reflects the will of the American people by an overwhelming margin.

source: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm


This thread continues in the HOS as http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=346108

Enlightenment wrote:

Dalton wrote:I would like to take this moment to remind all of you that the American government does not necessarily reflect the will of the American people.

During the period 19/02 to 23/02 of 2003, 60% of Americans approved of Shrubby's handling of the White House. 34% disagreed and 6% didn't know.

Shrubby reflects the will of the American people by an overwhelming margin.

Not all of us, a fact that you seem to be willfully ignoring so you can continue in your ignorant bigotry.

Dalton wrote:

Enlightenment wrote:

Dalton wrote:I would like to take this moment to remind all of you that the American government does not necessarily reflect the will of the American people.

During the period 19/02 to 23/02 of 2003, 60% of Americans approved of Shrubby's handling of the White House. 34% disagreed and 6% didn't know.

Shrubby reflects the will of the American people by an overwhelming margin.

Not all of us, a fact that you seem to be willfully ignoring so you can continue in your ignorant bigotry.

You seem to not understand political theory.

Democracies fundamental flaw is that it is a tyranny of the majority, as such what the majority want the country does. Which is how it usually works. Sure some will be opposed, but as long as they remain in the minority they have no say.

weemadando wrote: Saddam will go before the Hague, its the best way of dealing with him. I wonder who'll be who's bitch, Slobodan or Saddam...

Ten 5.56 FMJ rounds in the chest at twenty meters, followed by a .45 rounds from one meter in the head is a superior method.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

weemadando wrote: Saddam will go before the Hague, its the best way of dealing with him. I wonder who'll be who's bitch, Slobodan or Saddam...

Ten 5.56 FMJ rounds in the chest at twenty meters, followed by a .45 rounds from one meter in the head is a superior method.

Oh yes, lets just kill the nasty dictator.

It seems that the Americans are the first since the days of the cavemen who fail to appreciate the massive advantages in taking the leader of the enemy alive...

weemadando wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

weemadando wrote: Saddam will go before the Hague, its the best way of dealing with him. I wonder who'll be who's bitch, Slobodan or Saddam...

Ten 5.56 FMJ rounds in the chest at twenty meters, followed by a .45 rounds from one meter in the head is a superior method.

Oh yes, lets just kill the nasty dictator.

It seems that the Americans are the first since the days of the cavemen who fail to appreciate the massive advantages in taking the leader of the enemy alive...

Some are like that. Personally, I want to see him drug to the Hague in chains.

Granted, I also want it to be at the head of an entire Army division with Bush riding at the lead in a chariot, but we can't always get all of what we want.

weemadando wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

weemadando wrote: Saddam will go before the Hague, its the best way of dealing with him. I wonder who'll be who's bitch, Slobodan or Saddam...

Ten 5.56 FMJ rounds in the chest at twenty meters, followed by a .45 rounds from one meter in the head is a superior method.

Oh yes, lets just kill the nasty dictator.

It seems that the Americans are the first since the days of the cavemen who fail to appreciate the massive advantages in taking the leader of the enemy alive...

My that's a massively sweeping generalization you have there!

Not all Americans are simple minded enough to think that, and even the administration is not in favor of that. After all, it is not enough merely to take out Saddam, since that will just create a power vacuum, and another dictator, probably one of his underlings, will step in and take his place. Nothing will have changed except now the Iraqi dictator will not be the focal point of a massive effort to bring him down, and will be more secure in his rule, and in a better position to continue Iraq's quest for nukes. Some plan has to be implemented to set up another regime altogether before any attempt is made to take Saddam out, by whatever means.

Enlightenment wrote:

Dalton wrote:I would like to take this moment to remind all of you that the American government does not necessarily reflect the will of the American people.

During the period 19/02 to 23/02 of 2003, 60% of Americans approved of Shrubby's handling of the White House. 34% disagreed and 6% didn't know.

Shrubby reflects the will of the American people by an overwhelming margin.

source: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm


This thread continues in the HOS as http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=346108

That does not reflect MY will. Last time I checked, I was 100% Red Blooded American. Something many of you asshats are not.

weemadando wrote: You seem to not understand political theory.

Democracies fundamental flaw is that it is a tyranny of the majority, as such what the majority want the country does. Which is how it usually works. Sure some will be opposed, but as long as they remain in the minority they have no say.

How does "tyranny of the majority" apply to the US with the electoral college for presidential elections and the purpose behind the way the number of senators and representatives per state are determined?

Are you infering that the US is run by Gallop polls perhaps?