Is it okay to free Saddam if he condemns the insurgency?

[opebo]

There are those of us who believe that all people have human rights, you know.

I have no idea what you mean by this.  What do you mean 'have'?  Is it like a 'soul'?  Rights are a social phenomenon, and are quite precarious.  Making arguments to the man with the gun about your inalienable rights really isn't going to change his mind. 

[David S]

There are those of us who believe that all people have human rights, you know.

I have no idea what you mean by this.  What do you mean 'have'?  Is it like a 'soul'?  Rights are a social phenomenon, and are quite precarious.  Making arguments to the man with the gun about your inalienable rights really isn't going to change his mind. 

That is precisely the reason why the people should have their own guns.

[WMS]

There are those of us who believe that all people have human rights, you know.

I have no idea what you mean by this.  What do you mean 'have'?  Is it like a 'soul'?  Rights are a social phenomenon, and are quite precarious.  Making arguments to the man with the gun about your inalienable rights really isn't going to change his mind. 

That is precisely the reason why the people should have their own guns.

The belief in human rights is that each of us, by virtue of being human, have certain rights not granted by the governing authority. 'Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' is one such example. Basically, certain things shouldn't happen to people regardless of the government they live under. The anti-slavery movement is an early - and still ongoing, for that matter - human rights movement, as was the movement to end the abuses in Leopold's Congo Free State in the late 19th and early 20th century. Today this belief is followed by Freedom House, Amnesty International, the various Human Rights Watches, and lots of NGOs. Traditionally - and still to a great degree today - the main impetus for human rights came from all those religious types you don't like, so I see where you don't understand the concept, inasmuch as being a moral relativist precludes you from even being on the same plane of thought as them.

To David S: self-defense by the common people is essential to preservation of human rights. At some point I'll try to find the story on StrategyPage.com about how a village in NW Uganda survived 30 years of war all around it without being ravaged because the population was armed and organized in self-defense.

[TX_1824]

So? Genocide is not just a "domestic problem". I suppose you think the holocaust was just a "domestic problem" as well, eh?

Yes.
 

So we should have let the Germans continue to kill Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and other undesirables en masse because it was a domestic problem? The Nazis were stopped and yet 16 million still died in the holocaust. Imagine the number if we left them alone to deal with their "domestic problem". What the hell is wrong with you? Your Neville Chamberlain view of the world is sad. I wish you would change your avatar. The Democrats don't deserve the shame you bring to their party. You, sir, would let millions die rather than intervene. You are as much a monster as those who shoved those bodies into the ovens.

[2952-0-0]

This article is baloney.

Okay. So why aren't we seeing the usual sparks from Bush? I mean normally he would be denying this with his full might. This time they're suddenly silent on this issue, probably because they don't want anyone to notice this. And besides, if you think that just because this event would be political suicide for Bush it must be "baloney", ever herd of Dick Nixon say, "I am not a crook"? You're old enough; you must have seen him.

[WMS]

That is precisely the reason why the people should have their own guns.

To David S: self-defense by the common people is essential to preservation of human rights. At some point I'll try to find the story on StrategyPage.com about how a village in NW Uganda survived 30 years of war all around it without being ravaged because the population was armed and organized in self-defense.

Found it here at StrategyPage.com.

[Bono]

So? Genocide is not just a "domestic problem". I suppose you think the holocaust was just a "domestic problem" as well, eh?

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What on earth does the Kuwait war have to do with the present?   The US had nothing to fear from Iraq in this present case.

Saddam should never have been molested in the first place. 

I never realized he even knew Michael Jackson.

I would hardly equate harmlessly wanking off some strapping horny lad with viciously attacking and destroying a peaceful nation.

Do you know Opebo? I sometimes wonder what planet you're on. So, are you saying its fine for Wacko to jack off kids and fine for Saddam to commit wanton acts of genocide?

No, that is not what I said, though of course neither is any of our business.  What I said was that I would not equate MJ's actions with Saddam's, as NewFederalist did.  I consider MJ's actions to be completely harmless, while Saddam's were not. 

And so, the final fruits of leftist (although the right has supped from this poisoned cup as well) moral relativism are revealed, combined with the lunacy of absolutist sovereignity! No matter what a regime does to its own citizens, it is a domestic matter and so no 'outside' intervention is warranted. How many of those who hold this view still supported the embargo against apartheid South Africa? How many of those who hold this view yet supported actions against Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians?

Dear God in Heaven, the Soviet Union would still be around under this policy, and if Hitler had stayed at home, Nazi Germany might remain. And people wonder why the anti-war crowd is sometimes considered to be lunatics (not that all the anti-war people buy into this crap, but many of them do judging by their rhetoric).

There are those of us who believe that all people have human rights, you know.

And here I thought we had moved beyond the savage attitudes of 1815...

No, under this policy, Germany would still be ruled by the Hohenzolern, Hitler would just have been a mediocre painter, and the Soviet Union wouldve never existed.

[WMS]

So? Genocide is not just a "domestic problem". I suppose you think the holocaust was just a "domestic problem" as well, eh?

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What on earth does the Kuwait war have to do with the present?   The US had nothing to fear from Iraq in this present case.

Saddam should never have been molested in the first place. 

I never realized he even knew Michael Jackson.

I would hardly equate harmlessly wanking off some strapping horny lad with viciously attacking and destroying a peaceful nation.

Do you know Opebo? I sometimes wonder what planet you're on. So, are you saying its fine for Wacko to jack off kids and fine for Saddam to commit wanton acts of genocide?

No, that is not what I said, though of course neither is any of our business.  What I said was that I would not equate MJ's actions with Saddam's, as NewFederalist did.  I consider MJ's actions to be completely harmless, while Saddam's were not. 

And so, the final fruits of leftist (although the right has supped from this poisoned cup as well) moral relativism are revealed, combined with the lunacy of absolutist sovereignity! No matter what a regime does to its own citizens, it is a domestic matter and so no 'outside' intervention is warranted. How many of those who hold this view still supported the embargo against apartheid South Africa? How many of those who hold this view yet supported actions against Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians?

Dear God in Heaven, the Soviet Union would still be around under this policy, and if Hitler had stayed at home, Nazi Germany might remain. And people wonder why the anti-war crowd is sometimes considered to be lunatics (not that all the anti-war people buy into this crap, but many of them do judging by their rhetoric).

There are those of us who believe that all people have human rights, you know.

And here I thought we had moved beyond the savage attitudes of 1815...

No, under this policy, Germany would still be ruled by the Hohenzolern, Hitler would just have been a mediocre painter, and the Soviet Union wouldve never existed.

How so? WWI happened without any international internal intervention at all - the liberal regimes in Great Britain and France certainly didn't use democracy as a reason for war (with Russia as an ally, that would've been hypocritical). And given that WWI is what brought down the monarchies in Germany and Russia, where are you getting the whole bit about nonintervention preventing these changes?

Wilson talked about it in the U.S., and there were some definite improvements made as a result. I would add that the U.S. invested far more into Weimar Germany than Germany ever had to pay out - the Germans doth protest too much over this point. [if you want a citation you'll have to wait a month, since the book it's from is currently packed up in a box since I'm in the middle of moving]

[Bono]

So? Genocide is not just a "domestic problem". I suppose you think the holocaust was just a "domestic problem" as well, eh?

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What on earth does the Kuwait war have to do with the present?   The US had nothing to fear from Iraq in this present case.

Saddam should never have been molested in the first place. 

I never realized he even knew Michael Jackson.

I would hardly equate harmlessly wanking off some strapping horny lad with viciously attacking and destroying a peaceful nation.

Do you know Opebo? I sometimes wonder what planet you're on. So, are you saying its fine for Wacko to jack off kids and fine for Saddam to commit wanton acts of genocide?

No, that is not what I said, though of course neither is any of our business.  What I said was that I would not equate MJ's actions with Saddam's, as NewFederalist did.  I consider MJ's actions to be completely harmless, while Saddam's were not. 

And so, the final fruits of leftist (although the right has supped from this poisoned cup as well) moral relativism are revealed, combined with the lunacy of absolutist sovereignity! No matter what a regime does to its own citizens, it is a domestic matter and so no 'outside' intervention is warranted. How many of those who hold this view still supported the embargo against apartheid South Africa? How many of those who hold this view yet supported actions against Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians?

Dear God in Heaven, the Soviet Union would still be around under this policy, and if Hitler had stayed at home, Nazi Germany might remain. And people wonder why the anti-war crowd is sometimes considered to be lunatics (not that all the anti-war people buy into this crap, but many of them do judging by their rhetoric).

There are those of us who believe that all people have human rights, you know.

And here I thought we had moved beyond the savage attitudes of 1815...

No, under this policy, Germany would still be ruled by the Hohenzolern, Hitler would just have been a mediocre painter, and the Soviet Union wouldve never existed.

How so? WWI happened without any international internal intervention at all - the liberal regimes in Great Britain and France certainly didn't use democracy as a reason for war (with Russia as an ally, that would've been hypocritical). And given that WWI is what brought down the monarchies in Germany and Russia, where are you getting the whole bit about nonintervention preventing these changes?

Wilson talked about it in the U.S., and there were some definite improvements made as a result. I would add that the U.S. invested far more into Weimar Germany than Germany ever had to pay out - the Germans doth protest too much over this point. [if you want a citation you'll have to wait a month, since the book it's from is currently packed up in a box since I'm in the middle of moving]

germany would have won WWI if the US hadn't intervened.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

yes, people need to quit thinking Germany was the "bad guys" in WWI. This comes from the history being written by the victors thing, plus being confused with WWII. There was no good guys or bad guys in that war, just two sets of aligned powers, and there was no reason for the US to get involved.

[David S]

That is precisely the reason why the people should have their own guns.

To David S: self-defense by the common people is essential to preservation of human rights. At some point I'll try to find the story on StrategyPage.com about how a village in NW Uganda survived 30 years of war all around it without being ravaged because the population was armed and organized in self-defense.

Found it here at StrategyPage.com.

Nice article WMS. I agree, thugs tend to be less thugish when they risk getting their asses shot off.

[WMS]

And why would a German victory have been good? Given how harsh the terms they would've imposed would be, I can't see that leading to anything better, and, in fact, leading to substantial reversals of what democracy there was in Europe.

[WMS]

That is precisely the reason why the people should have their own guns.

To David S: self-defense by the common people is essential to preservation of human rights. At some point I'll try to find the story on StrategyPage.com about how a village in NW Uganda survived 30 years of war all around it without being ravaged because the population was armed and organized in self-defense.

Found it here at StrategyPage.com.

Nice article WMS. I agree, thugs tend to be less thugish when they risk getting their asses shot off.

Yep. Consider that article a goodwill offering to the Libertarians.

[MissCatholic]

No Saddam must be tried and convicted and show that justice is bought to anyone that commits a crime.

[Bono]

And why would a German victory have been good? Given how harsh the terms they would've imposed would be, I can't see that leading to anything better, and, in fact, leading to substantial reversals of what democracy there was in Europe.

do you think a german victory could ever be as overwhelming as the alliy victory was?
And more important, the germans would probably just demand colonies, not reparments, which wouldt neither cause the defeateds to go into recession, but it would also do wodner for the equilibrium of powers, which was too heavy swung to teh british side.

[Shira]

Saddam was a cruel dictator but not worse than our friend Musharaf of Pakistan.

[WMS]

And why would a German victory have been good? Given how harsh the terms they would've imposed would be, I can't see that leading to anything better, and, in fact, leading to substantial reversals of what democracy there was in Europe.

do you think a german victory could ever be as overwhelming as the alliy victory was?
And more important, the germans would probably just demand colonies, not reparments, which wouldt neither cause the defeateds to go into recession, but it would also do wodner for the equilibrium of powers, which was too heavy swung to teh british side.

Considering how harsh the terms Imperial Germany imposed on France following the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-71 - they were intended to cripple France for decades - the Germans would've been harsher than the Allies were. And let's not forget how much land they grabbed from the Bolsheviks as part of the German-Russian peace agreement...