War on Iraq?

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by lochinvar
You mistake me. I do not claim ignorance of Irag's Evil Nature.

No one is arguing that Iraq isn't a terrorist supporting state, nor is anyone arguing that Saddam Hussein is a peace-loving but misunderstood philanthropist. I will be the first to grant that Iraq probably is doing all you claim, hates us, and would be happy to plant a bomb in our belly.

But the government is not asserting any of this as their justification for attacking Iraq.

Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction, in the form of chemical agents which we gave him). It is less clear that he has or is on the verge of having biological and/or nuclear capabilities, or that he has or is on the verge of having the requisite means of delivering those agents or bombs to the United States.

The fact is that Bush/Powell/Rumsfeld are not calling for a war with Iraq because Iraq is harboring al Queda elements. They are calling for a war because they claim that Iraq as a nation is a threat to the United States.

If Saddam had intercontinental ballistic missles, I'd buy it. If he had a navy with aircraft carriers, I'd buy it. But he has neither.

As for the threat posed by terrorist agents and saboteurs smuggling nuclear weapons and/or biological-chemical agents into the country, that is best met by improved security and counter-intelligence agencies. It calls for good police work, not military action.

And beating up Iraq won't stop the terrorist agents; they'll find somewhere else to go and someone else to get help from. We can't just start blowing up countries one after the other. We don't have the men, we don't have the money, and--most importantly--we don't have the right.

So if George and Colin and Donald have convinced you that it's the right thing to do, good for you. But they haven't convinced me. I find their reasoning shallow and their justifications spurious.

At the end of the day, Bush is just picking a fight to re-direct the public's eye away from the fact that his administration is mis-managing the economy, and Powell and Rumsfeld are backing him 'cause he's their boss.

Bush is using the wrong argument for war? Probably right. So be it. I personally think the Iraq/al Qaeda connection is a little too shaky. But Iraq needs a swift kick in the butt anyway. There's only one reason he's limiting the weapons inspectors: He wants to build the weapons. There's only one reason he wants to build the weapons: He wants to use them on us. Do you need any further reason? How far along must we let him get before we go in and stop him?

Clarification: He IS on the verge of having nuclear weapons. And by "on the verge", I mean, "most likely within a few weeks, maybe months."

[135711]

they expect the messiah to go to one specific location? i didn't think it mattered, if a messiah wants to make an appearance, wouldn't everyone sort of know it? i think they should come here, we'll help them. Pack!!! we'll take you in. there's no strings.

Memory jog: a poor guy from california came here to our fair state, and he couldnt find one job, not one. he's a nice person, well educated, and jewish. couldnt find a thing. he sat at my desk and told me his story .......i figured out in about 1/2 hour, someone in our office was holding up his paperwork and he couldn't move......he ended up living in a mens shelter. it was horrible. i took him to burger king a couple of times to talk more, he told me more stuff. FINALLY......after writing a letter to the MAYOR, he was able to get his paperwork taken care of, and now he has a job. [there's more]

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by Swordsman
<snip> But Iraq needs a swift kick in the butt anyway. There's only one reason he's limiting the weapons inspectors: He wants to build the weapons.

Well, Duh... Anyone who's ever raised kids knows the likely reason why they don't want you to look in their closet: they've probably got something in there that they don't want you to see.

There's only one reason he wants to build the weapons: He wants to use them on us.

I think you're being a little simplistic, here. There are dozens of reasons why megalomanics want weapons, mostly having to do with ego. That doesn't necessarily prove that he intends to use them on us--although I think it's a fair bet that he's the type that would wake up one morning and decide to use them on somebody, just because he could. (My guess? Probably Israel...)

I have a neighbor that loves guns, has a whole collection of them, the bigger and more powerful the better. You can almost see his manhood swell when he talks about them. He owns them because they feed his ego, and we don't like each other much, but those two things taken together don't inevitabley lead to the conclusion that he's going to use them on me someday. However, in the case of Saddam I agree that it's probably not a good idea to let him have any sharp objects.

Do you need any further reason? How far along must we let him get before we go in and stop him?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do need further reason. Refusing to let the inspectors back in would be reasonable grounds for a limited military action, aimed at forcing him to comply; unreasonably interfering with the inspectors would be another. But if he lets them in, and doesn't mess with them, then we have no reasonable justification for attacking Iraq.

The fact that he's thoroughly despicable as a man and a leader is not grounds for taking the nation to war (we'd be at war with half of Africa and large parts of South America if that were the case), nor is the fact that George just plain don't like him. The United States I grew up in and love was founded on the rule of law and the attempt at universal justice, not "do unto others before they do unto you" or the idea that the moral high ground belongs to whoever has the biggest divisions.

Clarification: He IS on the verge of having nuclear weapons. And by "on the verge", I mean, "most likely within a few weeks, maybe months."

This is news to me. Where did you get this information? Or is it supposition?

[edew]

Originally posted by Swordsman
Bush is using the wrong argument for war? Probably right. So be it. I personally think the Iraq/al Qaeda connection is a little too shaky. But Iraq needs a swift kick in the butt anyway. There's only one reason he's limiting the weapons inspectors: He wants to build the weapons. There's only one reason he wants to build the weapons: He wants to use them on us. Do you need any further reason? How far along must we let him get before we go in and stop him?

Clarification: He IS on the verge of having nuclear weapons. And by "on the verge", I mean, "most likely within a few weeks, maybe months."

There are a number of valid arguments why he doesn't people snooping around his compounds and palaces: he's got tons of money hiding there and he doesn't want his people to know that he's got plenty of money lying around while people are starving. He's got naked girls cavorting in the pools. He's got alcohol lined up on the shelves of the main palace. He's got pictures of Anna Nicole Smith and don't want US inspectors to realize he's got such terrible taste in women.

Who knows for sure. Of course, the fact that he's constantly hiding and obfuscating make it appear that he might have a nuke or two hiding somewhere.

[Gav]

I'm curious. If [and it's a whopper of an if] Saddam has a nuke. What's he going to do with it? How is he going to threaten the US with it exactly? Saddam is lacking ICBMs' to get them to the US (or to Europe for that matter). Last I heard he didn't have a an airforce to speak of. Smuggling out a suitcase bomb might work, however to get it to the US when it's in its current high state of alert seems a touch far fetched - unless you guys think your own [or even my own country's] security forces are incapable of detecting a bomb en route.

Once he's done the job of nuking something then what? He's has one extremely agitated, trigger happy government next door thats nuclear capable [Israel]. I would reckon they would love to drop 1st ask questions later just as much as Saddam is. I doubt they would even pause before hitting the big red button. I also think they are much more of a likely target for a nuclear attack than the US is. Lets face it Saddam does not want a country that glows in the dark. Does Saddam want nukes? Maybe in his sweaty fantasy addled mind, but they're probably not practical for his puposes.

No. Saddam wants Chemical and Biologicals. They are [by far] more insidious. They are easier to transport, easier to make, cost effective and in many ways much more worrying than nukes. Forget about the nukes, worry about creatures that you can't even see, smell or feel.

[Inquartata]

[quote]Originally posted by Spanky McFarland

You make a good point Inq (I only call you this because I can never remember how to spell Inqaratatataer)

:P

However, if our planes weren't over their country, they wouldn't be getting fired upon

This is awfully close to blaming the victim.

You know, she wouldn't have gotten raped if she hadn't gone into that bar in that short skirt.

Rather like saying "if our troops weren't in Saudi Arabia the WTC wouldn't have gotten bombed. So it's really our fault that the 9-11 attacks happened, and we should just cave to anything that any tinpot fanatic says if only it will keep us from being shot at...

so Iraq aren't actively being aggressive outwith their boundaries, which was my point. I am well aware that there are reasons why this conflict began in the first place. I'm just not sure they are still valid. 10 years is a long time to be bombing a country.

Why this concern with novelty as a prerequisite? The concept of statute of limitations is common in law---there is NONE for murder. We don't want to establish the notion that if only you can avoid getting caught for ten years you can do anything you want and get away with it, either for individuals or for regimes, I think.

A defeated nation will agree to almost any terms at the end of a conflict (if somebody has just kicked the **** out of you and is sitting on your back with your arm twisted, you'll do what they say). You can always expect a nation to backtrack.

You're arguing that it's understandable therefore OK? If so, then all law goes out the window.

Also, Iraq have been gassing Kurds and various other factions since the 80's, when we were chums with them, so I fail to understand why this is a reason to condemn the regime now.

Oy. Are you serious?

It was a reason then, AND it's a reason now. It'll be a reason tomorrow, too, if for one reason or another Saddam survives this episode.

I've used this analogy before, but here it is again: if you find a rattlesnake in your house, you don't say "Well, hey, it hasn't bitten anyone yet, so let's just wait and see", you get rid of it, one way or another.

From what I understand (and admittedly, I am speaking, like most of us, from a position of opinionated ignorance), I don't think this is a bargaining stance. Much has been made in the British press of documents which showed Bush intended to take out Saddam before he got into power and before 9-11. He considers it 'unfinished business'.

I haven't seen word one about this, but of course I am sure that the British press would know more about what Bush thinks or thought than the American press. Their access to our "documents" is so much better, after all.

But seriously---which documents? I'd like to read further on this.

Saddam has made the offer of unconditional access to weapons inspectors, but Bush's immediate response has been to dismiss it out of hand.

"And sure, Saddam is an honorable man..."

I know this is a common argument, and has been touched on elsewhere, but every reason we apply to going to war with Iraq could equally be applied to going to war with other rogue nations. There are, as usual, other forces at work, and we can be sure that none of the publicly quoted reasons are the full picture.

I suspect you're right---there are always buried motives. But for me the ones above the surface suffice on their own merits.

All the arguments advanced do apply to other nations; but none apply to ALL, that I have been able to find. Every situation is different, and each has to be examined individually and an assessment of risk made. Foreign policy cannot be founded upon the "But mom, everyone ELSE does it, too!" principle...

The more martyrs the West creates, the more terrorists will rise up. You can't bully terrorists into giving up. The more fear we try and apply, the more resentment and desire to fight back there will be.

]

Are you familiar with the one---that's one---experience the Soviets had with kidnapping during the Beirut abduction fad of the 1980's?

And if this "the Arab world will rise up" theory is correct, it ought to have happened already, after Afghanistan, should it not?

At the margin, new terrorists can only be created up to a point. If we kill them faster than they're being created, it will give potential recruits pause, I think. The effect has been noted in Pakistan already, where talk is just as tough and angry and fists are shaken just as hard, but recruits crossing the border to join the Taliban jihad dropped to near zero once the B-52s started making themselves felt and the war started going badly for the zealots. Strangely, the students from the madrases still professed to hate America, but suddenly found that they had pressing business elsewhere when it came to actually going off to fight...

I live in Scotland, and I have seen this close up with the IRA over the last 25 years. That conflict is now well on the way to solution, and that happened politically, as the British government was unable to stamp out the terrorists. Bush will also fail.

Weeell...I think a civil war situation is a little bit different. Saddam doesn't go around in a ski mask because he hasn't had to---thus we know who he is, for one thing. It's not like Iraq is going to present a guerilla war situation.

The only solution to this whole sorry mess is for the West to stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. If there had never been any oil in the Arab world, we wouldn't be in this situation right now.

So we "let them go", and the worst of regimes eventually welds the whole Middle East into one big despotic new Ottoman Empire---a West-hating one, with nuclear weapons and a stranglehold on the region's resources. That's a good thing?



Oops, that's it for me tonight. More anon...

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by Inquartata

"And sure, Saddam is an honorable man..."

"So are they all, all honorable men..." ~W. Shakespeare, Julius Ceasar

FINALLY!! Someone has decided that Father Knows Best is just not a good enough argument to go to war.

Tony Blair has begun releasing intelligence reports and briefing his senior party members on the reasons for supporting an attack on Iraq.

Too bad Georgie Porgie can't be as forthcoming with his fellow citizens...

[sallearmourer]

Pepole as one person who saw first hand what Iraq troops did it Kuwitt he needs to be taken out. But I don't believe that at this time he is a theart to me or to the US. Bush has to come clear with the fact that he as weapons of Nuke class and not CB . weapons.

What the US goverement dosen't what the pepole to know that Saddam during the gulf war did use chemical weapons aganist US troops.


We had several chances at Saddam during the war and we didn't take him out then. So why now.


Personally leave him alone.

TIM

[135711]

Originally posted by sallearmourer
Pepole as one person who saw first hand what Iraq troops did it Kuwitt he needs to be taken out. But I don't believe that at this time he is a theart to me or to the US. Bush has to come clear with the fact that he as weapons of Nuke class and not CB . weapons.

What the US goverement dosen't what the pepole to know that Saddam during the gulf war did use chemical weapons aganist US troops.


We had several chances at Saddam during the war and we didn't take him out then. So why now.


Personally leave him alone.

TIM

War is Hell. That's not just a cliche. there are no rules in war, that's why we don't want one. there's no such thing as a clean war, talking about it, is like armchair general. each side uses whatever weapons they think they need to win, it's very simple.

as an aside: some of you should request an annual report from general dynamics and find out where those weapons are going.....to the highest bidder. people like you and me sit in their homes and hope no-one drops it on their head.

[Swordsman]

First of all, I think we can all agree on this: NO MORE NAME CALLING, PEOPLE!!

Ahem. Moving on...

First, I think it's naive to think that Saddam has any other ideas for nuclear (or chemical or biological) weapons than to use them on another country - most likely us. And even if it's not us, it's still bad. But it is STILL MOST LIKELY US.

Second - as you said, "refusing to let the inspectors back in would be reasonable grounds for a limited military action, aimed at forcing him to comply; unreasonably interfering with the inspectors would be another. But if he lets them in, and doesn't mess with them, then we have no reasonable justification for attacking Iraq." Exactly. We issue an ultimatum: Let UN weapons inspectors back in, without the slightest bit of interference, within the next WEEK. Or get inspected by the US Armed Forces. It's up to you, but I think the UN inspectors will be nicer.

My big concern with Saddam is the WOMD. The terrorist connections, the gassing of Kurds, etc. - we can't do much about those. Terrorist connections are shaky, and as has been said, too widespread among other nations. How he treats his own citizens, while despicable, is his national policy - not for us to dictate. For if we were to do that, then we would be forced to send Marines to just about every nation in Africa, not to mention most of the rest of the world. Our concern comes in when his bad behavior extends internationally. Which it has, and is.

As for the information regarding the nuke: A relative of his (cousin, brother, I can't quite remember) recently managed to defect, along with reams of documents on the nuclear (and possibly others, I'm not sure) program. The CIA has also been voicing, in low tones, that it thinks we might be overestimating the time we have.

Where did I hear this? I can't give you an absolute source. But it's nice to be in a military family (I hear some things that, while not classified by any means, aren't widely publicized), and in a current issues class at school - a lot of information flows through there.

Going back to my earlier point (Yes, I know I'm skipping around and incoherent here): We don't need to go nation-building. We don't need to stay for a long occupation, or anything like that. We just need to go in, trash the place, and go home. A combination of traditional ground invasion and the special forces/high altitude warfare from Afghanistan should work nicely to give us Baghdad and Saddam (not necessarily together, granted, but we will get him), and to remove his regime. Will another dictator just set up in his place if we don't put in our own government? Yes. Will he be dangerous? No. He'll have no army, no air force, no WOMD, and no money. Because we'll have taken all of those with us when we go home. Destroy the Iraqi armed forces. Screw UN inspectors; raid every palace we find with US forces. Take what scientists we can; offer the rest a choice between defection and imprisonment/execution (We can't have these guys just out on the job market). Either confiscate or destroy any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, materials, etc. that we find. Then pick up and go home.

The people will be no worse off than they are now; probably better, even. After all, with no threat, there will be no reason to press sanctions - which hurt nobody BUT the common people.


Gav: You speak as if a nuclear detonation in America would be horrible (it would be), but a suitcase bomb in, say, France? wouldn't be so bad? I don't care where it is, it's going to be horrific in any sense you'd like to use. Because I guarantee you he's NOT going to just set it off out in the middle of the desert. And I think just about ANY level of military action is appropriate to prevent this. (Note: JUST ABOUT, before you get on me about Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

Inquartata: THANK YOU!!!

Sallearmourer: We didn't take him out then because somebody said that it's unconstitutional to assassinate foreign leaders. Which may very well be true. Fine, he's a criminal. NOW kill 'im. Just because we didn't do it before doesn't mean we shouldn't now.


Yes, war is hell. But so is everyday life for a lot of Iraqi citizens. And so is the aftermath of a nuclear blast.

[Swordsman]

Pop quiz, Lochinvar:

1. You're in a foil bout. You see your opponent winding up for a flick. You have three options:

A. Let him hit you, then try an attack for the next point.
B. Wait for him to start the attack, then HOPE your parry will suffice, and try for a riposte.
C. Lunge and skewer him in preparation.

I sure hope you'd pick C as the fastest, surest, and safest action. A loses you a point, and possibly some blood, no contest. B might get you the touch, but then it might not. And even if you get the touch, you'll still probably get a nice welt to go with it. C will get you the touch, and under the arc of the flick itself - thus saving you even the chance of getting hurt/hit.

----------------------------

2. You're in a regular, plain-ole' fistfight. Your opponent has a massive right arm - and he's winding up with it. Do you:

A. Try to roll with the punch, then hope you stay conscious long enough to hit back.
B. TRY to dodge, then take a swing at him.
C. Grab his wrist with your left and knock his teeth out with your right.

----------------------------

It's pass/fail, really. Get one wrong and that's a 50%

Why would you NOT get Iraq with a pre-emptive strike right now? Because I guarantee you Saddam's winding up for one NASTY flick.

[Gav]

Swordsman.

1st of all I wouldn't compare war to a fencing bout. One is a sport where both compete on more or less equal terms where the application of skill and endurance leads to one party gaining a relatively painless win. The other is event which robs people of their lives, creates atrocities (on both sides) and leaves an entire world changed.

Secondly I wouldn't compare 'a plain old fist fight' to war either. For me [and I may be the lucky one] to get into a fight is extremely rare. I seem to have the knack of 'talking my way out of it' [ie diplomacy]. When forced to fight I can take a little pain in order to restrain my opponent. I rarely lose and generally noone gets a worse injury than a small cuts and bruises. I don't punch first and ask questions later. The preemptive strikes which are being proposed have the potential to kill a lot of people and destabilise and further alienate an entire region.

Saddam is a bad man. In fact Saddam is a very nasty specimen indeed. However does dislike give one nation the right to have him deposed? If you depose him what do you do next? looking at the West's last couple of forays into the musrky world of Arabian politics that means either walking away (Bush snr) or installing puppet rulers (ie the Shah of Iran for all you history buffs).

Has Saddam doen bad things to his own people - yes. Has Saddam done bad things to other nations - ohhh yes? Have other Arabian nations - yes. Which ones? Ohhhh Saudi Arabia and Israel to name a couple. Have they violated UN security resolutions? Israel certainly has. Not too sure about SA but they regularly torture, supress individuality, maim their own populace and commit various other vile acts [like support terrorists] to make them quite an unsavoury bunch. Why are these not on the lists? Could it be that they are either 'allies' or that they have enough political clout to cause an American administration bother?

I recently saw a televised press conference with Bush in which he stated that, " he would do anything to safeguard peace". Hang on a sec, preemptively wage war to protect peace? Doesn't that strike anyone as an oxymoron? Hasn't anyone heard the terms 'War is Peace' or 'Freedom is Slavery'. Think about it

[sallearmourer]

Swordman we were trying for him but he kept moving his location on us. As a veteren of two wars and two little South American deals. I been there and done that . Some of which as I far as I know is still classified today. There is reason why I used a cane.

The air force built a bunker buster to go after is bunker built by the Swiss.


Tim

[Inquartata]

I'll make all of you a deal.

Name me one other country---just one----which meets ALL of the following criteria ( not one, or two, or a few, but ALL ) and I will join the refusnik camp.

---Possesses chemical and biological agents

---Has USED same, both against foreign enemies and internal
population

---Has or is attempting to develop nuclear weapons

---Is ruled by a murderous, despotic megalomaniac

---Is openly and presently inimical to the national interests of the
democratic world in general and the US in particular

---Has invaded neighboring sovereign countries on the thinnest of
pretexts and "annexed" them

---Signed accords with the UN promising to abide by certain
conditions in order to obtain a ceasefire, and violated all of
them

---Makes weekly attempts to shoot down our planes patrolling
the no-fly zones to which it agreed by treaty

---Has harbored known international terrorists

---Has attempted to have a President of the US assassinated on
foreign soil

---Has provided aid, intelligence and financing to terrorist groups
in carrying out attacks on US soil

---Has openly called for the destruction of the US and allies such
as Israel


I could go on, but I think the point is made. There may be other states which meet, say, conditions 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9; others which meet this or that criteria; but so far as I know ONLY Iraq meets them ALL. It is the sum of the infractions and dangers which matter, and which put it at the top of the list of dangerous states.

And those are only the reasons we KNOW about.

I cannot help but shake my head at the self-styled psychics who, despite all evidence, simply "know", somehow, that "the real reason" behind the initiative against Iraq is that "Bush needs to hike his approval ratings".

We have an Administration which, from its place atop the "food chain" of the most powerful nation on earth, has greater and faster access to the best intelligence, the best technical expertise, the most expert and experienced advice in any and every field, and more resources to synthesize same into a coherent view of world situations----and yet there are those who without any of these advantages feel qualified to second-guess it to the point of dismissing out of hand all counterarguments and simply asserting "Bush is a wicked rascal, I KNOW this, therefore any policy he favors must also be wicked and I must oppose it automatically..."

What a basis for national dialogue!

[Gav]

---Possesses chemical and biological
I'm wonder if the US has any, it certainly did in the past. However it doesn't need them any now [see below]

--Has USED same, both against foreign enemies and internal
population
OK so the US hasn't tested BorC weapons on its general populace. But it did carry out it a chemical testing program oon its own armed forces

---Has or is attempting to develop nuclear weapons
The US doesn't need to develop them it already has H-bombs the most destructive weapon ever created.

---Is ruled by a murderous, despotic megalomaniac
Sounds like Bush to me

---Is openly and presently inimical to the national interests of the
democratic world in general and the US in particular
can we say 'The Patriot Act'

---Has invaded neighboring sovereign countries on the thinnest of
pretexts and "annexed" them
The US again

---Signed accords with the UN promising to abide by certain
conditions in order to obtain a ceasefire, and violated all of
them
The US

---Makes weekly attempts to shoot down our planes patrolling
the no-fly zones to which it agreed by treaty
Now I doubt that US pilot are shooting each other down however the US has recently [and continues] to kill allied nations troops on peacekeeping missions in so-called friendly fire 'mistakes'.

---Has harbored known international terrorists
The US again

---Has attempted to have a President of the US assassinated on
foreign soil
Couldn't tie the US to this one however some would say that the US has assasinated one of it's own presidents on it's own soil.

---Has provided aid, intelligence and financing to terrorist groups
in carrying out attacks on US soil
Yknow that the US isn't the only nation on the Earth to suffer terrorist incidents. The UK has had problems with terrorists funded by the US and the UK is allegedly an ally

---Has openly called for the destruction of the US and allies such
as Israel
Iraq used to be supported by the US so the US could be applied here by default. Israel doesn't exactly smell of roses either.

[Gav]

Now before you all open up a can of 'whup' on my '***'. Let me just say that I'm [mostly] poking fun and trying to point out that you should think before throwing your toys out of the pram. Inq' I'm disapointed I actually had you down as lot smarter than this.

Feel free to flame me...

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Gav
---Possesses chemical and biological
I'm wonder if the US has any, it certainly did in the past. However it doesn't need them any now [see below]

--Has USED same, both against foreign enemies and internal
population
OK so the US hasn't tested BorC weapons on its general populace. But it did carry out it a chemical testing program oon its own armed forces

---Has or is attempting to develop nuclear weapons
The US doesn't need to develop them it already has H-bombs the most destructive weapon ever created.

---Is ruled by a murderous, despotic megalomaniac
Sounds like Bush to me

---Is openly and presently inimical to the national interests of the
democratic world in general and the US in particular
can we say 'The Patriot Act'

---Has invaded neighboring sovereign countries on the thinnest of
pretexts and "annexed" them
The US again

---Signed accords with the UN promising to abide by certain
conditions in order to obtain a ceasefire, and violated all of
them
The US

---Makes weekly attempts to shoot down our planes patrolling
the no-fly zones to which it agreed by treaty
Now I doubt that US pilot are shooting each other down however the US has recently [and continues] to kill allied nations troops on peacekeeping missions in so-called friendly fire 'mistakes'.

---Has harbored known international terrorists
The US again

---Has attempted to have a President of the US assassinated on
foreign soil
Couldn't tie the US to this one however some would say that the US has assasinated one of it's own presidents on it's own soil.

---Has provided aid, intelligence and financing to terrorist groups
in carrying out attacks on US soil
Yknow that the US isn't the only nation on the Earth to suffer terrorist incidents. The UK has had problems with terrorists funded by the US and the UK is allegedly an ally

---Has openly called for the destruction of the US and allies such
as Israel
Iraq used to be supported by the US so the US could be applied here by default. Israel doesn't exactly smell of roses either.

TELL me you're not serious. The previous is simply...absurd.