Gross, let me address your points.
1) About the prisons, we have a lot of inmates in the United States to be sure. I guess you can twist anything I say andrew. When I say that Iraq had children prisons where they placed children of Saddam's political opponents, you would say that we have Juvenile prisons. When I meantion torture chambers, you would say that American prisons aren't such great places either, such is your twisted logic. I agree that the number of prisoners in itself is not enough to condemn Saddam, but the reasons for which they were being held and the conditions they were kept in speaks volumes about the regime. I am glad it has fallen and you should be too. Unfortunately, your political ideology has blinded you.
2) The prisoners that "had fought wars against Iraq" are the lucky ones, for they were not killed as most people like them were. When they say that they were "fighting wars against Iraq," it is another way of saying they were opponents of Saddam Hussein. These were the people Saddam was most scared of, the Iraqis who rose against him. According to one iraqi in Baghdad, "he killed millions of us." There is a reason why Iraqis were jubilant when his regime fell. It was their fellow countrymen who were imprisoned by Saddam. It was their fathers, Uncles, and cousins who were tortured, given chemical baths, and put in human shredders. This imprisoning of political opponents would never happen in the United States (Don't even think of fucking jumping on me for that). It would be like Bush putting Ted Kennedy in prison for opposing the war.
3) Finally, your Johnny Walker conspiracy theory is incredible. He did not get arrested and sentenced for his beliefs, he was because of his actions. If you went to a military base and started shooting at soldiers, you would be arrested too. Why, of all people, would they choose to arrest this one 19 year old? If makes no fucking sense, but neither do the rest of your arguments or your twisted logic.
That is very observant of you to notice the self-centeredness of the pro-war signs. It is probably just another one of the subliminal messages that our government uses all the time in order to brainwash for support. Keep cracking on those signs! One thing that I always noticed about the ant-war signs how they are brown, and not red, white, and blue. Before the anti-war people were proven completely wrong about the entire thing, they were claiming that they were the true patriots because they didn't want to see American troops get hurt. If they were the true patriots, shouldn't the "No War in Iraq Signs" have been more patriotic? Makes you think...
Gross, I the reason why I accused Annan of impurity that hasn't happened yet is because I wanted to illustrate the outrageousness of you accusing the United States of future illegal actions. I totally respect Kofi Annan as an idealist. I believe that the comparison to Mother Teresa is a good one, and like Mother Teresa, Kofi Annan should work to aid people in need of food and medicine. As great of a woman as Mother Teresa was however, I would not have wanted her to control an entire country. She was a humanitarian, not a politican. Same with Mr. Annan. As much as I respect his humanitarian work, I do not believe that he would succeed in setting up a stable democracy in Iraq. First, he would be operating with his hands tied behind his back by the Security Council, who would not be able to agree on anything. Second, even if was given the freedom of action that would be required, he is too kind of a soul. Kofi Anan is the ultimate compromiser and would not be able to make the hard decisions that are needed to make in such a volitile region. Whether the U.S. or U.N. control the country, there will be resistance from both remaining Saddam loyalists and different factions who want a bigger piece of the pie. Because of these circumstances, the only logical choice would be for the U.S., UK, Japan, Australia, South Korea and others who are willing to join in the efforts to rebuild the country. Kofi Annan would do a very good job making sure the basic needs of the Iraqi people are met and that aid gets too them.
About my "love" of Dubbya. I have never respected him as a self-made man, and in fact find that his kind of background is what's wrong in American politics. I dissagree with most of his economic and domestic policy, and do not admire the way he handles himself as a politician. I do not know where you get that he is my idol. That said, it is not unreasonable to agree with Bush on foreign policy despite his background, just as it is not unreasonable to agree with Bill Clinton on some issues although you do not admire his personal life. I admire the fact that Kofi Annan has gone through a lot in his life, but I still do not think that he should not have too much political influence. When I put my faith in the United States in the effort to rebuild Iraq, I am putting my faith in a country that I believe has done far more good for the world than harm, and a country that has been very kind to those who come to it poor and malnourished. I am not putting my faith in one man at all. That is the concept you fail to grasp.
Gross, you seem to think that Iraqis, in general, hate the United States. I am sure you get that from a generalization of all Arabs into one group, believing since they are in the same ethnicity they have the same opinion (e.g. believing that Jordanians protesting the war are actually Iraqis!) and believing that Iraqis are actually in favor of Saddam Hussein. Let me tell you about the real world. The real world is run by ruthless dictators. These dictators control their citizens with fear, not with aid workers in blue hats. Saddam Hussein controls or should I say controlled his citizens with fear imposed by a paramilitary organization called the "Fedayeen Saddam." This group, founded in 1996 under the command of Uday Hussein (Saddam's eldest son in case you don't know), is most notorious for its beheading campaign from June 2000 through to May 2001. Women whose family members who were in prison as "opponents" of Saddam were most likely to be targeted. It was Fedayeen who were resisting the United States in Southern Iraq, in the Shi'ite (that's a branch of Islam in case you didn't know Andrew) town of Najaf. The reason why they were fighting so long is because they know that if the Coalition doesn't kill them, the Iraqi people probably will. If you don't believe that the Iraqi people are welcoming the coalition, please look this Reuters story about how the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani issued a fatwa (edict in case you do not know) urging Muslims not to resist the coalition (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030403/wl_nm/iraq_fatwa_dc_6). I agree that the Iraqis don't like a foreign military in their country, but they hate Saddam Hussein even more.
I could easily make a case about Kofi Annan's conflicts of interests, how the United Nations makes billions of dollars overseeing off of the oil-for-food program, all the while allowing Saddam to ignore resolutions to keep the profit flowing, but I won't. I like arguing with you too much Andrew and I don't want to see you leave the forum.
Let's see, I remember that just a couple of weeks ago, the United Nations was screaming to keep Saddam Hussein in power, now we want them to run the very country that they would rather see repressed? Don't get me wrong, I think that the UN should have a role in post-war Iraq, a humanitarian role. They can send food and healthcare to the citizens of Iraq. That corresponds with the purpose of the United Nations. If the UN actually supported taking Saddam out, and sacreficed in the effort, I would feel much differently, but because of their past behavior, I do not trust them to put in a brutal dictator just like their beloved Saddam Hussein. I don't trust the United States completely either. I do trust them more then the UN to take the right innitial steps and provide administrative assistance. The people who should rebuild Iraq are the Iraqi people. They even have most of the resources they need to do it with (gasp) the oil. At present, the Iraqi people trust the US much more then the UN. It wasn't the UN who liberated them from the repression of Saddam Hussein, in fact it was the UN who tried to prevent that from happening. If this post-war rebuilding does not succeed, free-world will be fucked forever. If it succeeds, it could start a wave of freedom in the middle east a kin to what happened at the end of the cold war in eastern europe. This is too important for the UN to run, and frankly, I see no reason to trust them. Who is to say that Kofi Annan won't steal the Iraqi oil money and use it the same way he uses the money from the rest of the international community - to benefit his friends in higher position ( I have no evidence of this, but that is the same amount of evidence you have for accusing Bush of the same deed). The countries who sacrificed, instead of dragging their feet, have much more of an interest in a successful, democratic post-war Iraq. They even have a much more impressive record of helping rebuild countries than the United Nations itself (US: all of Western Europe, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Eastern Europe; UN: Bosnia). Let those who started the job, finish it. France doesn't exactly have a great record installing regimes. Just look at nearly every country in Africa.
Finally, there are thousands of US troops still in Afghanistan, as well as troops from many different nations. Billions of dollars are still pouring into the country every year. We did not go into Afghanistan when it was a unified country, and we are still far from finished there. The bullshit tag-line that we fucked up and abandoned Afghanistan is a malarkey and everyone who follows any sort of international politics closely knows it. To say that there is no roads have been built, and no steps towards democracy taken is a pack of lies. I wonder where the men who clubbed women showing some ankle went...
Legally, some speech is not protected. Although it is not in the Constitution, it is a precedent just as important as separation of church and state, another practice by the government that is not expressed in the constitution. In Schenck v. United States (1917), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force." It is not free speech for someone to induce panic knowing full well there is no reason because that kind of speech has the capacity to harm the population as a whole.
Likewise, it is not legal to use speech as a weapon. One cannot legally use speech to incite acts of violence or other illegal acts. For example, it would not be legal, or appropriate for me to say, "Go and kill black people on Tuesday." One can also use speech as a weapon against a person's livelihood. This can be tried in civil court. For example, if a student lied and accused a teacher of sexual harrassment, that teacher would be fired. The teacher probably not be able to find any teaching job again and their livelihood would be greatly diminished. If you do not have some sort of deterance for that kind of speech, like "if you lie about me and destroy my life doing so, it's illegal, and i'm going to sue you," every American would fear being destroyed by lies. As far as political speech goes, there are very few limits on that. You can express any viewpoint you want so long as it does not involve inciting people to act violently. Do you think that it is free speech to order people to blow up city buses or to lynch certain groups of people?
Before you start getting up and arms about post-Iraq, let events play out. It could be very possible that we could screw the country, yet is also possible that we will be thanked forever by the Iraqi people for our work. Hans, you said, "I envision an economy and government run by the rich." WELCOME TO AMERICA! Our economy and government is run by the rich, and have always been. That is what allows our economy to expand and grow. I don't hear the cries of the American Proletariat crying out for revolution right now! In fact, most Americans prefer the American form of government over any other. I don't think that the American people want Iraq to turn into a communist country! Hopefully, Iraq will have an economy and government run by the rich (Capitalism!!). God willing, it will be democracy.
I admit, the United States did not have a great record of installing regimes in the Cold War. Back then the US had a Machiavellian foreign policy where defeating communism was the only thing taken into consideration. Before you can say that America has been horrible installing regimes and has never liberated anyone however, you must look at post-WWII Europe, Japan, South Korea, and post-Cold War Eastern Europe before you judge the entire American record. I trust that America will install a democratic government in Iraq because they cannot afford not to. If 9-11 taught us anything about the Middle East, it taught us that that drastic democratic reform was needed in that region. Now that all eyes are on America, they cannot afford to fuck this thing up. I am sorry that I "bull that shit" by implying that America will do the right thing in a post-Saddam Iraq. It is not without reason or rationality though Andrew.
Fine Gross, encourage the Iraqis to destroy the fucking oil fields!! Do you give a damn about a post-war Iraq, or would you like the Iraqi people to continue to live in hoplessness and poverty? Now that the cards are on the table Gross, all we can do is pray. Hopefully the war will be quick and successful, with the minimum casualties on all sides. After the war, that oil is absolutely essential for making Iraq a democratic nation and rebuilding the countries economy. If you want another brutal dictator Gross, encouraging the Iraqis to destroy the oil fields is a great first step!
Mr. Hussein for every American that dies you will be held responsible,
for every Iraqi that dies you will be held responsible.
For every American city that is destroyed you will be held responsible,
for every Iraqi city that is destroyed you will be held responsbile.
For every slightest moment of discomfort an American feels you will be held responsible,
for every slightest moment of discomfort an Iraqi feels you will be held responsible.
For every human that has to fear the bombs of the United states or your own bombs, you will be held responsible. You have decided to not listen to the world's opinion and the opinions of the Security council. You have decided through your ruthlessness and your ignorance to continue to brutalize your citizens and defy the world. You have brought this war upon yourself by denying prospects of peace. You have had the choice to spare your country from suffering and misfortune , and instead welcomed war and committed genocide. You destablized this world, your country, and this country. You have killed far too many! You don't care about your countries citizens, so now it is time for them to finally be rid of you.
