Ladies and gentlemen, we've got him!

[thomas]

yeah saw that also >:(

42 scud missles into cities filed with Civilians is justified action? >:(

[Anathema]

See, this is why I think forming a democratic government is going to be difficult. I don't think that the US would allow a government that is anti Israel.

[EWS]

So why dont they destroy Palestine?

[Wolf]

Saddam will be tried by Iraqis, I believe. This is only right and proper, and it is what Iraq wants.

Since Iraqis want peace and security above all, it is likely that America will remain in place however long it takes to stabilize the region until a government can be formed. Then, it is also likely that all American forces will leave, unless the New Iraq Government gives the United States a base in the region, which I cannot say is either likely or unlikely.

I believe that Iraq should be rebuilt from the best corporations from the Coalition nations. I think it is right for corporations from Poland, Ukraine, Italy, Spain, Japan, or the United States to rebuild Iraq. However, I think the contracts should be awarded to only the most powerful and most productive corporations from these nations. Nations that are not in the Coalition do not have the right to allow corporations to reap the benefits from a war that they did not want, a war they opposed, and a war they criticized. I do not say this for America's good, I say it for the good of the country that would think to do this; for it would make them look like hypocrites. However, this I do not worry about. I do not think America would let non-Coalition members join in the reconstruction, regardless. However, I do worry that the best company might not get picked for the job. Even though a recent study showed American workers to be the most productive, Japanese workers have always shown a great deal of skill and proficiency. In addition, Poland also may be able to provide the most cost-effective labor. Truly, I do not know which country of the Coalition is best suited for the job.

Saddam's capture is a moot point. All it has done is made the terrorism in Iraq somewhat more short-term than it was, and solidify more neutral or undecided Iraqis towards the side of the Coalition. The important thing now is to stabilize the country, have a government elected by the people, and have the Occupation end.

EWS, I do not think most Americans were killed by friendly fire. I was reading the full Coalition casualty list today (I read it almost every day, I have friends in the armed services), and I actually think the majority is bent towards hostile action and equipment failure. Actually, I was dismayed to see one of the casualties, today. He was from the city I was born in, 24, a PFC, and was killed when a grenade was thrown at him from inside the hospital that he was guarding. Truly, I hope the Occupation ends soon, and all Coalition forces return to their homelands.

***EDIT***

Destroy Palestine? You are either the most bloodthirsty warhawk I know, or have sarcasm that knows no bounds. Also, I think that Israel will be a small factor in the forming of a democratic government. The difficulty will be finding the right Iraqis who are willing to take the risk and lead their nation. Because of terrorism, any Iraq leader who is elected faces the threat of terrorists killing him, even though he just wants to rebuild his nation. It is a sad situation.

[Sneakgab]

Got my connection going again, might make a real reply soon...

Dustscout, you're philosophical views are decent, but negative. Who can truly say wether most humans are of the Edrico kind or of the greedy kind? Their has never been a worldwide poll taking into account ever significant action done by anyone.

Also take into account that human nature is likely to change because humans are so adaptable and seem to evolve in some ways very quickly. Additionally, sometimes our nature is tricked (wether by the will of the person or not) and is defied in many in other ways

Politicaly though, you're views seems to have little reason. The connection between and bush you're economy is apparent (If significantly indirect), but what does it help you if France reconstructs Iraq? Their are other, more nearby countries that are in the EU that could construct Iraq...

[Wolf]

The best corporation willing to rebuild Iraq should be the one that is allowed to do it. However, there is a political constraint. The corporations that are in the bidding pool are limited. They are limited because we are only looking at Coalition countries. I did not think that non-Coaltion countries were at all involved in this matter in the first place, and secondly, I did not think that they wanted to get involved. Besides, it makes more sense for nations who have military forces in the area, such is Italy, Poland, or Spain, to have their corporations get the first bids on reconstruction. They are better able to coordinate with their own military forces in the region.

Looking at numbers though, and this is judging from overall economic output, overall effectiveness of labor, and technology, it is likely that the United States probably posesses the "best" corporation for the job.

[Dante]

Dustscout, you're philosophical views are decent, but negative. Who can truly say wether most humans are of the Edrico kind or of the greedy kind? Their has never been a worldwide poll taking into account ever significant action done by anyone.

Also take into account that human nature is likely to change because humans are so adaptable and seem to evolve in some ways very quickly. Additionally, sometimes our nature is tricked (wether by the will of the person or not) and is defied in many in other ways

Politicaly though, you're views seems to have little reason. The connection between and bush you're economy is apparent (If significantly indirect), but what does it help you if France reconstructs Iraq? Their are other, more nearby countries that are in the EU that could construct Iraq...

1) Of course I'm negative! The choice is either negative or deluded...

[Wolf]

1) I think, in many ways, you are correct, Dust. Though I disagree with respect to certain situations.

2) Again, for the most part you are correct, however, I think that it is nature's nature for humanity to adapt at some point in its existence. Granted, it will be many tens of thousands of years until we see a change in "human nature", unless this very nature is some... immutable, unchanging, unbreakable universal constant... for some time, I have wondered if that which we call human nature, both the good and the bad, for we are both and must admit it, is simply one of the properties of our own free will. And the nature of free will cannot change, only the ability to exercise it...

3) I kind of like France.

4) The Trial. I think the choice is between the UN International Court of Justice, or the Iraqi Governing Council. I really don't mind, though I'm leaning towards the Iraqis. However, its not my call to make. Whatever is chosen, however, I hope that it is done fairly and reasonably, and Saddam is given his due chance to defend himself, though, I cannot imagine what defense he might have.

[Dante]

I like France too.

[Wolf]

That's cool. You ever been to France?

[Tako]

2) Yes, we are adaptable. But this is only skin-deep. Human nature cannot be changed. Here's something; when I say "human" nature, you're supposed to think of mercy, compassion, etc. If I were to say "wolf" nature you might think "animalistic, predatory." But when I say "human" nature I think cruelty, sadism. Human nature is to be cruel and that (with only a very few exceptions) has existed for millenia and shows no signs of changing as you said it might. In fact, it looks like it's getting worse.

As for the trial of Saddam... Do we allow people to vote on the kind of trial for common murderers or thieves? No. Do we allow them to vote on the kind of trials for terrorists? No. Therefore why are we allowing the people to vote on the kind of trial for an ex-dictator and POW? He is accorded rights and these should be given to him.

Including, might I add, the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a fair and unbiased trial; and the right to asylum in another country; and the right not to suffer the death penalty, which I believe is condemned by the International Declaration of Human Rights.

That ought to throw a spanner in the works...

2) human nature is neutral, its what we do in live and happens to us what makes who we are, if that's creul or compassioned then it will be, but when we are born we are like a paper that has not jet been written on so we can become anything we (or others who teaches us ) want(s) to become.

But I agrea a fair trial should be held according to the laws in most country's  BUT has he ever held one? no but then again we are not like him so prove it by a fair trial.

[Dante]

Human nature isn't neutral. Human nature is cruel and oppertunist. With exceptions.

Yes, I've been to France. Was a long time ago now though. Nice weather.

[Wolf]

Been to Paris, myself. Some of the best restaurants in the world are in France.

[Dante]

I can't remember much of the food. Just the weather and the language. Whih I am now completely unable to speak... Oh well, at least the skiing lessons didn't go to waste...

Nice place, France.

;D

[EWS]

Not really a big fan of that Jacque Chirac character.

[Sneakgab]

''1) Of course I'm negative! The choice is either negative or deluded...    Additionally, it's common sense. If the majority of the people in the world were Edric-like then a happy, prosperous, fair international community would exist. War would be nonexistant.

However, the fact that international crimes, small crimes, and various forms of causing pain and anguish to people still exist proves that the majority are either directly or indirectly hurting each other and doing little about it.''

Yes, but remember that a few evil indivuals are often able to manipulate the good-intentioned through a mixture of manipulation (and resulting) power. Eg: Saddam/Osama situation. Of course, one could argue that people manipulated/forced to do evil by such people would do such evil anyway, but this cannot be proved.

I would say that the human civilization is relatively prosperous (well, some of it anyway). The countries that aren't prosperous are the ones led by the fore-mentioned dictators/manipulators. This suggests an obvious link, but once again nothing can be proved regarding the situation (so far)

''2) Yes, we are adaptable. But this is only skin-deep. Human nature cannot be changed. Here's something; when I say "human" nature, you're supposed to think of mercy, compassion, etc. If I were to say "wolf" nature you might think "animalistic, predatory." But when I say "human" nature I think cruelty, sadism. Human nature is to be cruel and that (with only a very few exceptions) has existed for millenia and shows no signs of changing as you said it might. In fact, it looks like it's getting worse. ''

True, but once again nothing can be proved regarding human nature. As such human nature existing for millenia, this depends on what you are basing this on (results/people in power/people as a whole/e.t.c)

''3) I don't actually understand that last paragraph except for that bit about France. As I already said, I would derive great pleasure from the irony of a mini-France Iraq.''

Surely you don't derive so much pleasure from mere irony? their are probably other countries that could reconstruct Iraq that would result in greater economic gains that would affect you, especially since it seems likely that Britains affiliation with America will grow and thus you're country will become further estranged from the EU. On first glance it seems that Britain reconstructing Iraq would help you're economy more than France reconstructing Iraq and therefore would benefit you more personally than the irony that would be caused by France reconstructing Iraq. Of course I could be wrong about that...

''As for the trial of Saddam... Do we allow people to vote on the kind of trial for common murderers or thieves? No. Do we allow them to vote on the kind of trials for terrorists? No. Therefore why are we allowing the people to vote on the kind of trial for an ex-dictator and POW? He is accorded rights and these should be given to him.''

Well, the problem is wether you consider him a criminal of the country or a criminal of humanity. Murderers or thieves are under the jurusdiction of the country that they claim citizenship to and are thus responsible according to that country's laws, thus they are tried in the courts of that country without voting because the voting has already been done regarding such things when the people decided on the laws of their country (depending on the type of democracy of course). National terrorists fall under the same group, and international terrorists are tried according to the international court because the citizens of their country decided that their people are only under their laws when living in country (For diplomatic and political reasons). Because such terrorists can be only held accountable for the acts they committed in that country if they claimed citizenship to that country they must be tried by an international court if they did not claim such citizenship as an international court is the second best thing. With Saddam, the issue is different (He created the laws of his country which he claimed citezenship to, yet he did this in a way deemed illegal by the former goverment(or the former goverment did the same thing), thus it must be decided differently how he must be tried.

''Including, might I add, the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a fair and unbiased trial; and the right to asylum in another country; and the right not to suffer the death penalty, which I believe is condemned by the International Declaration of Human Rights.''

As far as I have heard, Saddam will be considered innocent until proven guilty, is supposed to be offered a fair and unbiased trial (well the court that tries him will just pretend to be fair and unbiased is another matter entirely). As for the right not to suffer the death penalty, well, if he is tried under an international court then it will be wrong if he is given such a death penalty, although I have heard on these forums that their are courts that can issue the death penalty. Wether the death penalty is wrong or not is a different question entirely, and is probably subject to the fact that many people have different morals regarding certain things

''That ought to throw a spanner in the works... ''

Why would you want that to happen? The enjoyment of the mystery is already gone, it does not matter you wether the trial is fair,unfair, or is hindered along with other things.

[Edric O]

Dust Scout:

There is no such thing as the "human nature" you talk about. We have decoded the human genome, and I'm not aware of any genes for selfishness or greed.

This "human nature" argument is a fantasy of the same sort as the "divine right of kings". It is a myth designed to make a certain politico-economic system appear legitimate. The "human nature" fantasy is the justification for capitalism, just like the "divine right of kings" fantasy was the justification for feudalism.

If you wish to claim that certain types of behaviour are "inherent" in human beings, or that they are part of "human nature", the PROVE IT. And I don't mean the anecdotal arguments you've used so far. Yes, there are murderers, thieves, rapists and war criminals in this world. But there are also millions of volunteers for humanitarian organizations, millions of activists for human rights and cooperation, millions of social workers, doctors, teachers, firemen and community volunteers who really, honestly care for their fellow human beings.

You are negative, Dust Scout, because you choose to see only the negative and close your eyes to the positive.

[Sneakgab]

As my posts would suggest, my sentiments exactly. It is just as deluded to be negative as it is to be positive.

[Leto le Juste]

In my view my government was right not to in Iraq. That's true Saddam was a monster but the world knew it for many years.

But, keep in mind that the US gvt sold to him a biological weapon plant. Yes, france do the same thing with a nuclear plant.

But attack Iraq today was the biggest lie Iheard: he has forgotten weapons and he trheat the world. Let's me laught. The reason of this war is only the fact that W (Bush) had to hide his economic failures since he was elected (by the minority of the americans..... >:().

So it's a shame, if Saddam is dangerous now, he was dangerous in 1992 and Bush dad had to finish the job and kill him.

[HasimirFenring]

My feelings exactly, Leto.  Well put (except that I cant really laugh, having to live under W).

[Wolf]

As a student of the economy, I would like to report that economic troubles began during the Clinton administration, and, due to practical lag, have only begun to get better because of the actions of the Bush administration. Bush and the economy during the 2000-2001 period (just this period), at the very worst, have nothing to do with each other. This is fact. It is non-debatable.

Let me explain simply so no one is confused. Government actions in the economy require a lag time in order to be enacted. Usually, they range from 6 months to a year. In 2000, when Bush was elected, the economy went downhill. However, this was due to the actions of Clinton almost a year prior to Bush's election, due to operational lag.

Recently, the American economy has begun to get somewhat better. We have a bigger deficit mainly for the reason that our interest on the debt grew while our economy was in trouble. $87 billion, while a large chunk, is not enough to through the economy overboard. The only reason the economy is getting better is through more consumers buying goods. They are buying goods from the Bush tax cut that, despite common misconception, benefited all people in at least some respect. Yes, it benefited the wealthy as well, however, should you cut taxes, you might as well cut them indiscriminantly across the board. What is interesting is that his tax cuts both hurt and helped America. It hurt America by causing more debt. It helped America bt helping to stabilize the economy. There are pros and cons, and this is a very bare description of the matter.

As for the war on Iraq, we still do not yet know the truth about WMD reports. It is highly likely that one of the following scenarios occured.

A) Iraqi ministers and subordinates of Saddam lied to him about dismantled or useless WMD programs so that they would not be punished when Saddam got angered.

B) Saddam said he did not have WMDs, but also acted like he did have them. By causing so much trouble for UN inspectors and delaying for so much time, it is possible that Saddam wanted to provoke an American attack. While Saddam is provoking America, he gets rid of his WMD program. He does this so that, when America attacks, Saddam can show to the world how evil and stupid the Americans are. It is too bad that his army didn't last as long as he had hoped.

C) It is possible that they have simply not been found. Right now, which is the higher priority, providing peace, stability, and security, or justifying the war with WMDs? It is possible that America might just be concentrating on the more humanitarian side of things than justifying its own policy.

D) We'll know the whole truth in 20 years, so, picking a side and closing all your other options is probably a bad idea. We need to keep an open mind, meaning that we cannot immediately condemn Saddam, nor can we immediately condemn Bush. To do either would be foolish as well as closed minded.

[Sneakgab]

''In my view my government was right not to in Iraq. That's true Saddam was a monster but the world knew it for many years.

But, keep in mind that the US gvt sold to him a biological weapon plant. Yes, france do the same thing with a nuclear plant.''

''But attack Iraq today was the biggest lie Iheard: he has forgotten weapons and he trheat the world. Let's me laught.''

Saddams actions, previous history, intelligence services, and the UN inspectors all indicated that Saddam has WMD's. You you'reself even said that America and Franca has given facilities that were supportive to producing WMD's... he had also threatened using WMDS against his neighbours in the past and had actually attacked them in some cases as well... Yet you find the thought that he still has some WMD's (I don't see why anyone thinks the WMD's/WMD related materials and weapons he was known by everyone to have (As they had sold them to him) just dissapeared, as their was no evidence that he got rid of all of those materials) and is some threat to the world laughable...

'' The reason of this war is only the fact that W (Bush) had to hide his economic failures since he was elected (by the minority of the americans..... ).''

He was not elected by the minority of the Americans, the recount was universal all over the states (unlike the recount of only 1 single state that Gore requested). Even so, before the recount Bush was not far behind Gore, and as such I am tired of hearing exagerations about how he was by far elected by the minority of the Americans (although you have not made this exageration, you are suggesting it)

''So it's a shame, if Saddam is dangerous now, he was dangerous in 1992 and Bush dad had to finish the job and kill him. ''

Are you trying to say that his dad should have finished the job? Well just look at the response Bush has received for finishing the job, his father would probably would not have gotten a much smaller amount of criticism. Besides, what do his father's actions have to do with current goverment?

[Anathema]

Wolfwiz: what you said makes sense but I get the impression that Bush shouldn't be trusted with any amount of money. Predictions are that the deficit will even be bigger next year, and on top of that he announces ambitious (and expensive) plans for NASA.

Come to think of it, Republicans in general shouldn't be trusted with any amount of money. Neither Bush senior or Reagan ever made any budget for any year with a positive balance.

[Wolf]

Well, to be honest, politicians shouldn't be trusted with any amount of money. Period. What's interesting, though, is that historically, Democrats are the biggest government spenders, and it used to be Republicans who wanted to save and lower taxes. I guess those roles have reversed, in the last few years. It will be interesting to see what happens to the two parties in the near future.

[Leto le Juste]

As a student of the economy, I would like to report that economic troubles began during the Clinton administration, and, due to practical lag, have only begun to get better because of the actions of the Bush administration. Bush and the economy during the 2000-2001 period (just this period), at the very worst, have nothing to do with each other. This is fact. It is non-debatable.

As a student of the business, I have been surprised that Bush government's (the most liberal government around the world) first act was to tax the import of iron which come from France or Japan. Everybody has to admit is a brilliant solution ;D to reduce tensions and in order to promote the ultra liberal system.... ;)