BS: Saddam Has Got To Go

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:45 AM

There's a good article today at
Sobaka, sort of on this subject:
Black Arabs and Bandit Kings: Iraq, America, & the Legend of Charlemagne Peralte. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:44 AM

Does anyone know if there are any international laws to which we are a party that address the issue of assasination?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: TIA
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:39 AM

oops. here's the poop on assasination...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0921/p11s1-cods.html

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: TIA
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:37 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:30 AM

It is against American Law to use assassination as a means of achieving foreign policy. I think that it was made law by Gerald Ford.

Whether or not this is the case, it is certainly the case that it is against American and international law for the US to wage a first strike attack on another country unless it is currently being attacked by that country, and/or it has permission from the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Richie
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 08:24 AM

Guest,

You said:
It is against American Law to use assassination as a means of achieving foreign policy. I think that it was made law by Gerald Ford.


I believe the law was changed as a result of 9-11. Can anyone corroborate?

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:51 AM

Good question, Troll. Of course, I'm guessing it's still less than the number of groups that have lost violent wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:48 AM

Michaelr definitely has the right idea. There are safer, more efficient, and overall better solutions to one madman with power than to bulldoze our way through innocents to get to him, regardless of where said madman might be located.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Little Robyn
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:45 AM

Where's MacGyver when you need him?
Robyn

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:43 AM

It is against American Law to use assassination as a means of achieving foreign policy. I think that it was made law by Gerald Ford.
As far as non-violent protest as a means of overthrowing unpopular dictators, the quoted examples are certainly impressive. Now, does anyone have any facts and figures on those that DIDN"T work?
Balance is important.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Cluin
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:22 AM

If you've got the Shockwave plug-in, and need a chuckle about now, check out the Bushie Hill cartoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: leprechaun
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:39 PM

If Saddam has got to go, he should wipe with his left hand like the Ayatollah.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Kudzuman
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:32 PM

Thank you Michael...well said as did Danny Glover. I always loved John Prine's observation that so many "Christians" just don't get...."Jesus don't like killing, no matter what the reason for..." but then again hypocrisy (and Daddy's money) can get you elected President and thats the American way I reckon. Here's an interesting article about just that sort of thing:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In October 2000, Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic was removed from power ? not by force of arms, as many had predicted, but by a dedicated, nonviolent strategy of honest elections and massive civil disobedience. Milosevic was strengthened by patriotic fervor when NATO bombed Yugoslavia in early 1999, but a few months later, a student movement named Otpor ("resistance" in Serbian) launched a surprising offensive."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course those Americans who practiced civil disobedience by marching in New York got arrested.....and then there is the "Patriot Act II" being covered up by Ashcroft and cronies...sounds like echoes of Hitler to me

Kudzuman

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:22 PM

It's well documented that in a country under fire its citizens stiffen their resistance. The process of overwhelming that heightened resistance creates huge 'collateral' damage.

I just wish that we, as human beings, explored other ways than war of accomplishing objectives- even just being open to alternatives would be a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: michaelr
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:17 PM

Well, this has been bugging me for quite some time, and since nobody else is saying it, I guess I will:

YES, Saddam should be taken out.

NO, bombing Baghdad is not a good way to do it. What's needed is a task force or trained assassins, CIA/Navy Seals/James Bond style, to go in undercover and kill the bastard. Same thing should have taken care of Bin Laden. And don't tell me the US doesn't have that sort of operative, or could not do it if it wanted to. Just ask Salvador Allende...

The very fact that Bush is not taking that route but instead wants to unleash US armed forces on innocent civilians should make it abundantly clear that this is not about Saddam.

It's about controlling the oil and setting the precedent for US world hegemony. I quote again Danny Glover's courageous and true statement at last Saturday's New York peace rally:

"Our democracy has been hijacked by an administration of liars and murderers."

Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:57 PM

How many American troops does it take to change a dictator?

346,721...346,720 to GET there and one to....oh, never mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:56 PM

Awww, c'mon leprechaun. You know that wouldn't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: leprechaun
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:50 PM

Perhaps a strongly worded recommendation that Saddam get counseling...

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:31 PM

Right on Bobert! You go girl, NicoleC!

Violence begets violence... Wouldn't it be a terrible shame for a 'war on terror' to illicite more terrorism around the world? Let's not shoot from the hip, George... OK?

War is not the answer, in these troubled times... IMHO, we ought to agressively seek compromise with our allies untill we have an effective consensus, and be wholeheartedly truth-serving with diplomacy. If only our current administration could listen... and be respectful in doing so.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: NicoleC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:29 PM

Great link, Carol.

Sadly, we rarely see history lessons on the success of non-violent uprisings, and there have been many. History classes would have you believe the world only changes through wars and bloodshed.

Non-violent movements can also build the foundation for fully democratic societies in a way that military force simply cannot hope to. The people are fully prepared to take political responsibility -- and no question about it, it builds great leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:19 PM

if only it could be like Chouchescu in Romania...(who remembers the pictures of the palace HE had?)

I'd sure hate to pay the armies necessary to chase around the world, taking out all the wannabe dictators.....but although Saddam is 'almost' as bad as they come, I do not like the precedent we are setting.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:19 PM

Here's an interesting article about just that sort of thing:

"In October 2000, Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic was removed from power — not by force of arms, as many had predicted, but by a dedicated, nonviolent strategy of honest elections and massive civil disobedience. Milosevic was strengthened by patriotic fervor when NATO bombed Yugoslavia in early 1999, but a few months later, a student movement named Otpor ("resistance" in Serbian) launched a surprising offensive."

The rest of the article is here:

Bringing down a dictator

I was interested to see that the NATO bombing actually strengthened Milosevic, whereas the peaceful tactics that were used succeeded in ousting him where force did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:04 PM

Yep, Richie, I agree!

So do lots of the world's leaders. The list is too long and would read like an all star boogie-man team.

But, like Nicole eluded to, there are other ways of creating changes in leadership than blowing up the countries that they lead.

Bobert

Subject: RE: B.S. Saddam Has Got To Go
From: NicoleC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 09:49 PM

You're right, Richie. Which is why economic sanctions that do the most harm to the Iraq middle class without doing anything to weaken Saddam's power are stupid. It might keep Saddam to poor to invade another country, but it won't get him out of power. Predominantly middle class non-violent uprisings were responsible for getting rid of Suharto and Marcos -- why not add Hussein to that list of former leaders unmissed?

Subject: B.S. Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Richie
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 09:38 PM

This is first BS thread I've started and it might be my last:

About the onlt thing people seem to agree on in the Iraq conflict is that Saddam is a despicable ruler who has murdered, lied and cheated. I'm sick of him. Maybe we can all agree that he has to go.

If everyone in the world stood up against Saddam, protested against Saddam, and stood up to Saddam- it could force him out of power either by exile or an uprising of the Iraqi people.

By standing up to Saddam we could have a peaceful solution.

I say Saddam has got to go!@#$^#$

What do you think?

-Richie