A question for those against war in Iraq

[haas mark]

Since so many people here are against war against Iraq, I have a question for you. What should be done? This is serious question. It's all well and good to say the US should not go to war but what can be done to remove Saddam Hussien and end the problems with Iraq that's short of war? It's not enough to be against something but there has to be a viable alternative.

First things first, remove troops from everywhere else and concentrate on some sort of home issues... Education, poverty, and the like. Second, I agree with the looking for the weapons and stuff, but it makes no sense to start a war.

[Joe]

The absolute best thing we could do would be to lift the trade sanctions on Iraq. The logic behind these sanctions is certainly bizarre enough; they do not hurt Saddam Hussein, they just hurt the Iraqi people. No reason for the Iraqi people to suffer because their leader is such a douche.

[Master of Ossus]

I would propose covertly assassinating Saddam instead of a full-blown war if war was to be avoided.

Then his son would likely be installed, and his son is even worse than he is.

[Vympel]

Then his son would likely be installed, and his son is even worse than he is.

Not necessarily. Saddam has two sons- Udai (spelling) is by all reports a psycho, and is the eldest, but his younger son serves in the military and is Udai's rival for power- apparently Saddam prefers the younger, and thinks Udai is just a degenerate.

Combine the fact that Udai is reviled by the people, his younger brother is in the Army- I see the younger one having more of a chance to take power.

This reminds me of the Germanicus versus Tiberius incident in the Roman Empire.

[Sea Skimmer]

Then his son would likely be installed, and his son is even worse than he is.

Not necessarily. Saddam has two sons- Udai (spelling) is by all reports a psycho, and is the eldest, but his younger son serves in the military and is Udai's rival for power- apparently Saddam prefers the younger, and thinks Udai is just a degenerate.

Combine the fact that Udai is reviled by the people, his younger brother is in the Army- I see the younger one having more of a chance to take power.

This reminds me of the Germanicus versus Tiberius incident in the Roman Empire.

However the psycho is the next in line officially. Now its quite possibul that transition wouldn't happen. But if the military stepped in I suspect a general is more likely to end up in power then the younger son.

[Perinquus]

Bullshit- check your facts. That was one of the sleaziest, most obvious hatchet jobs I've ever seen:

" a smearing so foul that it makes the Clinton crowd look like a bunch of amateurs. The news that he may have been arrested, in June 2001, as the result of an internet sex sting, in which an undercover cop posing as a sixteen-year-old girl lured him into "sex chat" over the internet, came to light in a very strange way. A local newspaper, the Daily Gazette, of Schenectady, New York, was first to pick up the dirt, which apparently came to light when an assistant district attorney was fired for settling the case and not informing the D.A. According to the Gazette:

"Police and prosecutors have declined to discuss the case, which involved at least one class B misdemeanor, because it was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and ordered sealed by a Colonie Town Court justice. The Daily Gazette's request for access to the arrest report was denied by the Colonie town attorney's office, which ruled disclosure was barred under the state Freedom of Information Law."

So the police just happened to conduct a "sex sting" operation against the one man who had exposed the lies of our war-mad rulers from the inside. On the eve of war, as hundreds of thousands protest in the streets, this staunch Republican and solid family man who has become one of the War Party's most formidable enemies is suddenly "exposed" as a child molester.

Since the court records have been sealed, and the case was merely "adjourned in contemplation of dismissal," the authorities will say nothing, at least in public. The entrapment was apparently so transparent, so obviously the clumsiest sort of Cointelpro-style operation badly bungled by our newly-empowered political police, that the charges were dropped to the legal equivalent of a traffic ticket. Could it be that the records were sealed not to protect Ritter, but to protect whomever tried to set him up?"

And of course- it's a quite transparent ad hominem attack. Not unlike a previous smear attempt on another weapons inspector who was 'outed' as a member of a sadomasochistic 'advocacy' group. In the end, that inspector was so embarassed by the invasion into his private life (like that has jack shit to do with his job as an inspecotr) that he withdrew. At the same time, Hans Blix was being attacked for being 'too soft'. Seeing a pattern here?

What I'm seeing is a conspiracy. It never occurs to you that he just might be guilty. Court records in cases like this are not usually made public in any case, since it's rather hard to find impartial jurors after they've all read sensational and lurid accounts of the offense in the newspapers. He couldn't possibly be guilty. No. They're setting him up. Yeah. That's it. Next they'll try to frame Hans Blix for child murder. You just watch.

[Vympel]

He couldn't possibly be guilty. No. They're setting him up. Yeah. That's it. Next they'll try to frame Hans Blix for child murder. You just watch.

Yes, he was obviously guilty considering the case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal.

Good one Reading the post before responding would be good. And your appeal to ridicule aside- you'd be pretty naive to think that this non-event in this man's life was brought up for any other purpose other than a political hatchet job.

[Perinquus]

He couldn't possibly be guilty. No. They're setting him up. Yeah. That's it. Next they'll try to frame Hans Blix for child murder. You just watch.

Yes, he was obviously guilty considering the case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal.

Good one Reading the post before responding would be good. And your appeal to ridicule aside- you'd be pretty naive to think that this non-event in this man's life was brought up for any other purpose other than a political hatchet job.

I did read the post; I just don't see government agents lurking under every bed. Contemplation of dismissal can easily mean the evidence just isn't strong enough. It may be that he's guilty as shit but the actions of the police skirt the edge of entrapment, so guilt notwithstanding, no conviction is possible. It could mean any number of things that do not automatically indicate complete innocence. I'm a cop; I see guilty people walk out of court all the time. And if this were simply political, how did he get lured into this situation in the first place? Did the CIA send an agent round to frogmarch him over to a rendezvous with a minor, or put a gun to his head and make him search the internet for underage girls?

He did something to put himself in that fix sunshine. The government can't entrap people who aren't willing to commit the offense, just as con men can't con people who don't have a little larceny in their hearts. What's more likely, that he just has a really serious character flaw, like lots and lots of other people; or that someone organized a machiavellian conspiracy?

[Vympel]

I did read the post; I just don't see government agents lurking under every bed. Contemplation of dismissal can easily mean the evidence just isn't strong enough. It may be that he's guilty as shit but the actions of the police skirt the edge of entrapment, so guilt notwithstanding, no conviction is possible. It could mean any number of things that do not automatically indicate complete innocence. I'm a cop; I see guilty people walk out of court all the time. And if this were simply political, how did he get lured into this situation in the first place? Did the CIA send an agent round to frogmarch him over to a rendezvous with a minor, or put a gun to his head and make him search the internet for underage girls?

He did something to put himself in that fix sunshine. The government can't entrap people who aren't willing to commit the offense, just as con men can't con people who don't have a little larceny in their hearts. What's more likely, that he just has a really serious character flaw, like lots and lots of other people; or that someone organized a machiavellian conspiracy?

And I'm a law student, and what you're saying sounds suspiciously like "all suspects are kinda guilty, otherwise they wouldn't be suspect". This is the kind of bullshit injustice that the people who brought this 'story' to light were banking on when they let it oozing out of their slimy orifices. We know nothing of what happened except that the charges were dismissed and the court records were sealed- which is known to happen when law enforcement does something embarassing.

You missed the point of my last post. This supposedly happened in June 2001. Why would anyone bring up such a weak non-event a year after the fact, especially considering nothing happened to the man? Answer: smear job for the purposes of a credibility attack. It happens ALL the time.

[Perinquus]

And I'm a law student, and what you're saying sounds suspiciously like "all suspects are kinda guilty, otherwise they wouldn't be suspect".

Are you kidding me? This is not the sort of offense that you can "innocently" stumble into getting yourself implicated in. I can see how you might come under suspicion of a crime like, say murder for instance, and still be innocent. If you have the means, motive and opportunity, and there is circumstantial evidence which may link you to the crime, you better have a good alibi. I can see how all that could be so, and still someone else is the guilty party. But just how can you possibly get yourself mistakenly implicated in soliciting a 14 year old girl for sexual acts? It's not like he was mistaken for someone else. As I said, if he were all that innocent, he would not have gone to a rendezvous which had police waiting for him instead of the teenage girl he thought he was meeting.

[Stuart Mackey]

And I'm a law student, and what you're saying sounds suspiciously like "all suspects are kinda guilty, otherwise they wouldn't be suspect".

Are you kidding me? This is not the sort of offense that you can "innocently" stumble into getting yourself implicated in. I can see how you might come under suspicion of a crime like, say murder for instance, and still be innocent. If you have the means, motive and opportunity, and there is circumstantial evidence which may link you to the crime, you better have a good alibi. I can see how all that could be so, and still someone else is the guilty party. But just how can you possibly get yourself mistakenly implicated in soliciting a 14 year old girl for sexual acts? It's not like he was mistaken for someone else. As I said, if he were all that innocent, he would not have gone to a rendezvous which had police waiting for him instead of the teenage girl he thought he was meeting.

I think you will find its easier than you think. NZ had/has a case that resulted in a guy possibly being wrongfully imprisoned for child molestation.
Child phycologists aking leading questions etc etc. Not that this is related to this case, but even so just because someone is thought to be as gulity as hades does not make it so.

[Perinquus]

I think you will find its easier than you think. NZ had/has a case that resulted in a guy possibly being wrongfully imprisoned for child molestation.
Child phycologists aking leading questions etc etc. Not that this is related to this case, but even so just because someone is thought to be as gulity as hades does not make it so.

I'm not familiar with that case, but from the sound of it I suspect the accused knew the child in question. I will admit, there may be room for doubt when discussing a case where a troubled child is asked misleading question by psychologists and social workers about someone he or she knows.

But no man goes to meet a strange fourteen year old girl for any good reason.

[Stuart Mackey]

I think you will find its easier than you think. NZ had/has a case that resulted in a guy possibly being wrongfully imprisoned for child molestation.
Child phycologists aking leading questions etc etc. Not that this is related to this case, but even so just because someone is thought to be as gulity as hades does not make it so.

I'm not familiar with that case, but from the sound of it I suspect the accused knew the child in question. I will admit, there may be room for doubt when discussing a case where a troubled child is asked misleading question by psychologists and social workers about someone he or she knows.

It was a child creche in Christchurch, New Zealand, so you might not be aware of it.

But no man goes to meet a strange fourteen year old girl for any good reason.

yup, couldnt agree more.

[Darth Wong]

Excuse me for butting in, but what the fuck would a UN weapons inspector's pedophilic tendencies have to do with the validity of his report? Those are two unrelated spheres of his life.

I'm not defending pedophilia; if the charges are accurate, then by all means, throw the SOB in jail. But this has nothing to do with the validity of his report. He was not writing a report on pedophilia.

[Sea Skimmer]

Excuse me for butting in, but what the fuck would a UN weapons inspector's pedophilic tendencies have to do with the validity of his report? Those are two unrelated spheres of his life.

I'm not defending pedophilia; if the charges are accurate, then by all means, throw the SOB in jail. But this has nothing to do with the validity of his report. He was not writing a report on pedophilia.

It has to do with the character and trustworthiness of the writer, both of which are rather poor.

[Darth Wong]

Excuse me for butting in, but what the fuck would a UN weapons inspector's pedophilic tendencies have to do with the validity of his report? Those are two unrelated spheres of his life.

I'm not defending pedophilia; if the charges are accurate, then by all means, throw the SOB in jail. But this has nothing to do with the validity of his report. He was not writing a report on pedophilia.

It has to do with the character and trustworthiness of the writer, both of which are rather poor.

Not insofar as they relate to the subject under discussion. Isaac Newton was a fucking asshole, but that has nothing to do with his work.

[Sea Skimmer]

Excuse me for butting in, but what the fuck would a UN weapons inspector's pedophilic tendencies have to do with the validity of his report? Those are two unrelated spheres of his life.

I'm not defending pedophilia; if the charges are accurate, then by all means, throw the SOB in jail. But this has nothing to do with the validity of his report. He was not writing a report on pedophilia.

It has to do with the character and trustworthiness of the writer, both of which are rather poor.

Not insofar as they relate to the subject under discussion. Isaac Newton was a fucking asshole, but that has nothing to do with his work.

The work might be sound, but then how far are you willing to trust someone who engages in such activities. The reports are no better then the people and methods which put them together, and it's very easy to place a spin on such things.

[Darth Wong]

The work might be sound, but then how far are you willing to trust someone who engages in such activities. The reports are no better then the people and methods which put them together, and it's very easy to place a spin on such things.

That would depend on whether any examples of professional incompetence or dishonesty had been uncovered. If he's got some demons in his closet, that's extremely disturbing but does not necessarily impact upon his professional work.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

...unless he raped Saddam's son(s) several years ago!

...I have no idea where that came from....

[Perinquus]

Excuse me for butting in, but what the fuck would a UN weapons inspector's pedophilic tendencies have to do with the validity of his report? Those are two unrelated spheres of his life.

I'm not defending pedophilia; if the charges are accurate, then by all means, throw the SOB in jail. But this has nothing to do with the validity of his report. He was not writing a report on pedophilia.

True, it has nothing to do with his competence as a weapons inspector... but Mike, don't tell me someone has actually misled you into believing that life (or people) are fair.

[Vympel]

True, it has nothing to do with his competence as a weapons inspector... but Mike, don't tell me someone has actually misled you into believing that life (or people) are fair.

Of course not. Like I said before (when you just ignored the majority of my post and went after the first sentence), that's the very kind of ad hominem crap that the people who leaked this shit were banking on. I'm not going to speculate on what happened, because the court records were sealed and the charges were basically dismissed. It's not just- or would you prefer that everyone whoose ever been in court for a criminal charge (never mind being found guilty or not) should have the fact aired when some asshole decides to attack his credibility.

[LT.Hit-Man]

Since so many people here are against war against Iraq, I have a question for you. What should be done? This is serious question. It's all well and good to say the US should not go to war but what can be done to remove Saddam Hussien and end the problems with Iraq that's short of war? It's not enough to be against something but there has to be a viable alternative.

Sniper his ass off I'm sure there's more then enough people over there that want him gone they'll help out

[Perinquus]

Of course not. Like I said before (when you just ignored the majority of my post and went after the first sentence), that's the very kind of ad hominem crap that the people who leaked this shit were banking on. I'm not going to speculate on what happened, because the court records were sealed and the charges were basically dismissed. It's not just- or would you prefer that everyone whoose ever been in court for a criminal charge (never mind being found guilty or not) should have the fact aired when some asshole decides to attack his credibility.

Well, in the first place, I'm still not convinced that this was some conspiracy to silence the opposition. It's just as likely that some reporter looking for a big story got wind of this and broke the news; this is the kind of coup that makes for success in that business.

In the second place, the world is what it is, not what we wish it to be. If you want to get through life with your name and reputation intact, there are certain things you should simply not do. It may not be "fair" to have them dredged up later and held against you, particularly when you are trying to take care of something completely unrelated. But come on. Really. What do you expect?

It's like a woman who, after going out to a bar dressed revealingly, gets drunk, flirts with a bunch of guys, and steps outside with a couple of them, then when they start groping, she says no, gets overpowered and gets raped. Is it her fault? No, not morally. Should she have the right to dress and act as she wants, and still say no and have that no respected? Absolutely she should. But in realistic, practical terms, it's just not smart for her to put herself in that kind of situation. There is some behavior that, if it doesn't actually encourage other people to take liberties, can be said to facilitate other people taking liberties. That may not be fair, but that's just the way the world works. You'll come to a lot less grief if you face up to that realistically.

You simply cannot put yourself in a position where you can be credibly accused of an offence like the one Ritter was charged with and expect to escape with your reputation intact. In our society, you cannot be believably portrayed as pedophile, and still expect people to listen to your advice, no matter what you are trying to advise them on. That's just the way the world works.