Many of the victims are believed to have been murdered during the 1991 Shiite revolt against Saddam Hussein's (search) regime.
Not that the killing stopped after this time, but essentially what was going on back then amounted to a civil war. A civil war that the U.S. encouraged because they wanted Saddam taken out by his own people instead of by us. They should have done it back then as there would have been far more worldwide support for it, but we didn't. But I suppose you're going to instead say it was France's fault that these people died because they didn't want to agree to a war 12 years after the fact?
Not that the killing stopped after this time, but essentially what was going on back then amounted to a civil war.
Tell me, during a civil war are women men and children supposed to be tied up, tortured shot or buried alive ?
A civil war that the U.S. encouraged because they wanted Saddam taken out by his own people instead of by us. They should have done it back then as there would have been far more worldwide support for it, but we didn't. But I suppose you're going to instead say it was France's fault that these people died because they didn't want to agree to a war 12 years after the fact?
No it was because the U.N coalition didn't want it in 91' But we were supposed to listen to them this time too right ? Easy to say if your daughter wasn't buried alive with a bunch of other murdered corpses. There were also uprisings in 95', and 98'. All which were thwarted by Huissein in the same fashion not to mention the mass killing of numerous Kurds around Aluufajah (sp) So since they were already dead I mean who cares if they sold weapons and gave passports to those who commited the crimes not to mention blocked efforts to remove him. I mean heck the Vichy helped the Nazi's get otu of France in 44 too so what the hey. Oh that's right, I forgot you only cared when it was something we did. Well we did something. Some supported it some didn't. In 45, some supported and some didn't history has a way of repeating itself.
Ask yourself how many would have died in the next uprising ? How many would have died here nad there by death squads ? Ah well water under the bridge right Alison ? Moral relativism at it's finest.
Would the outrage be as high right now if the mass graves were the result of the Shi'ite revolution against Saddam's regime?
What if the Shi'ites were the perpetrators? Who can say that they would not be every bit as brutal. But if they would have played ball with the U.S. who knows the policy we would take.
"Moral relativism at it's finest."
C'mon. The US looks the other way at atrocities all the time. Don't get on the high horse. Rumsfeld has had tea with the "murdering POS," with full knowledge of his capabilities.
Tell me, during a civil war are women men and children supposed to be tied up, tortured shot or buried alive ?
No, they're all supposed to line up in an orderly fashion and lob water balloons at one another. Since when was there a way that a civil war was "supposed" to be conducted?
No it was because the U.N coalition didn't want it in 91'
I don't think the U.S. was really arguing for it.
Easy to say if your daughter wasn't buried alive with a bunch of other murdered corpses.
We didn't go to war to end the brutality. We didn't even make much of an issue of it for 12 years until we decided it seemed like a good idea to go to war and we needed reasons to justify it that the public would go for. I remember hearing it on the news here years ago that there was a Shiite uprising after the Gulf War and that Saddam had put it down. So we knew he was killing people then. So if this is why we went to war, why didn't we do it back then?
There were also uprisings in 95', and 98'. All which were thwarted by Huissein in the same fashion not to mention the mass killing of numerous Kurds around Aluufajah (sp)
And again we didn't so anything about it then. Sure, it's a good thing to put such bloodshed to an end, but do we really even know if we have? Unless we decide to stay in Iraq indefinitely and impose our will on them, it's quite possible a new government will take power that is also pretty brutal. There are a lot of factions in Iraq that aren't naturally inclined to get along.
So since they were already dead I mean who cares if they sold weapons...
The weapons sales were all completely legal and took place before Iraq was condemned and sanctions were imposed.
gave passports to those who commited the crimes
I haven't heard anything about this, though given the other accusations thrown around here, I'd be a bit skeptical of how legitimate it is.
not to mention blocked efforts to remove him.
The only effort I'm aware of them trying to block was starting a war. They're perfectly entitled to believe that war was not the right answer just as many Americans do.
Moral relativism at it's finest.
Personally I find your moral arguments to ring rather hallow when you can't even acknowledge that we've had our own moral failings.
"Isn't this what you wanted us to do with Sadam? Shouldn't we give peace a chance? "
No that's not what I wanted. I could never really decide whether I was for or against the war. But once it started, I made some pointed comments about how it was covered in the media, but that was about it.
"You just proved that no matter which way the current administration goes on a subject, you will denounce it for political gain."
I guess you don't read my stuff very carefully. I don't think I've "denounced" the administration for much of anything. I was playing the Devil's Advocate in the post. I don't think you gain much politically by doing it, either.
"Since when was there a way that a civil war was "supposed" to be conducted?
Since the Geneva Convention."
I don't think your run-of-the-mill brutal civil uprising is going to respect Geneva protocols. Wouldn't a civil war, by definition, be outside the law? It's not like both sides are soveriegn states that would follow rules of war.
Whatever. There were 4 years of Bush administration in there too. The truth is it's never been American policy to go to war with other countries just to stop their government from killing their own people. Even now we're letting it happen elsewhere in the world. So to try and prop this up as an argument for the war is weak at best. Or is it your argument that we should go and enforce a regime change in every country where people are being undemocratically abused?
Since the Geneva Convention.
The Geneva Convention covers war between countries pretty well, but a civil war is so much messier. It's often not even referred to as a war, but rather an "uprising" or some such thing. Either the government wins and it's seen as an internal matter, or it's called a revolution. In neither case is it very common that other countries will step in to see that the war was conducted fairly. And it's one thing when everyone gets together to go fight someone else. But when you have neighbor fighting neighbor, brother fighting brother, it's going to get ugly.
Iraq bought illegal weapons during the past 12 years.
From who, and what's your proof? Hopefully not that chart again.
C'mon. The US looks the other way at atrocities all the time. Don't get on the high horse. Rumsfeld has had tea with the "murdering POS," with full knowledge of his capabilities.
And Chirac once called Saddamn a personal friend, so what ?
Did I say we always did things right Rick ? Nope, I'm the first to admit we didn't ? I also said that regardless of motive the end result was a good thing IMO. We've also done numerous humanitarian missions and stepped in to help people and put our troops in harms way doing so many many times. So what's your point Rick ?
The weapons sales were all completely legal and took place before Iraq was condemned and sanctions were imposed.
Really ? wow, I guess the Guardain, the Telegraph, CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, the NT times, San Fransico chronicle, Etc. etc. were all wrong then.
Personally I find your moral arguments to ring rather hallow when you can't even acknowledge that we've had our own moral failings.
Really ? I said that? Go back and look, I've never said we were perfect. Find me a country that is and we'll both move there I'm sure. Of course we have but just because we have made mistakes and done things wrong apparently we are forever doomed in your book as to not doign anything right.
gave passports to those who commited the crimes
I haven't heard anything about this, though given the other accusations thrown around here, I'd be a bit skeptical of how legitimate it is.
And you're so right on the illegal weapons sales I guess I'll take your word for it.
The only effort I'm aware of them trying to block was starting a war. They're perfectly entitled to believe that war was not the right answer just as many Americans do.
That's fine but when you actively support the same regime that buried the 11,000 men women and children just found a spade ought to be called a spade.
The first? I don't know about that. I think I said it before you :-P
I also said that regardless of motive the end result was a good thing IMO.
Yes, it was a good thing. And Hitler did a lot to improve a devastated German economy, push science forward, and probably a few other things. Doesn't mean that we look back on him fondly though when you consider the big picture. So just because something is a good thing, doesn't always mean it's the best thing.
We've also done numerous humanitarian missions and stepped in to help people and put our troops in harms way doing so many many times.
Nixon did a lot of good things for the U.S. Benedict Arnold helped us win some key battles in the Revolutionary War. Even Trent Lott had a pretty good career going in the service of his country. Doesn't take much to lose all that though. And all those rights still don't entirely erase a wrong.
The truth is it's never been American policy to go to war with other countries just to stop their government from killing their own people.
Ever heard of Kosovo ? A couple million dead there, our troops going in without the UN ? Ring a bell yet ? Ever hear of Somolia ? It made all the papers, even made a movie about it.
Yes, it was a good thing. And Hitler did a lot to improve a devastated German economy, push science forward, and probably a few other things. Doesn't mean that we look back on him fondly though when you consider the big picture. So just because something is a good thing, doesn't always mean it's the best thing.
Nixon did a lot of good things for the U.S. Benedict Arnold helped us win some key battles in the Revolutionary War. Even Trent Lott had a pretty good career going in the service of his country. Doesn't take much to lose all that though. And all those rights still don't entirely erase a wrong.
Where on God's green earth did I say it erased them ? Sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong. Perhaps you think it was a mistake to remove Saddamn, I don't, the hundreds and thousands that died each year by his hand deserve a little justice. The thousands he would have killed this year or in the next uprising certainly are happy about it.
Really ? wow, I guess the Guardain, the Telegraph, CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, the NT times, San Fransico chronicle, Etc. etc. were all wrong then.
I'm looking through the news archives trying to find such a story but I don't see anything yet.
Ever heard of Kosovo ?
Here's an interesting article about that from a few years back:
So why is NATO now bombing in the Balkans?
Just as killings by the (U.S.-trained) junta in Haiti did not concern U.S. policymakers until large numbers of refugees started fleeing to the United States, so too human rights abuses in Kosovo did not concern U.S. policymakers as long as they didn't threaten regional stability. But as the fighting in Kosovo escalated, with large numbers of displaced Albanian refugees, U.S. officials decided they needed to curb the problem--not to aid locally affected people, but to prevent losses to U.S. interests due to the conflict spreading into other parts of Europe.
In February and March at Rambouillet in France, the United States and its European allies invited the Albanian Kosovars and the Milosevic government to sign an agreement that provided for the withdrawal of Serbian security forces from Kosovo, the disarming of the KLA, autonomy for Kosovo, a NATO peacekeeping force, and follow-up final-status negotiations after three years. Milosevic said he was unwilling to accept foreign troops on his territory. NATO said it would bomb him if the Albanians signed and he didn't. (Compare this with U.S. mediation efforts in Northern Ireland where threatening to bomb a recalcitrant party was not part of the equation.) The Albanians reluctantly accepted the Rambouillet agreement and Milosevic refused.
Now the primary NATO goal became maintaining its credibility. The Clinton administration had invested heavily in expanding NATO, to make it a primary instrument of U.S. policy not only in Europe, but beyond. There is an elementary point of big power politics that no one denies: threats made need to be carried out if the credibility of future threats are to be maintained. And, likewise, threats carried out but not yielding total victory need to be escalated until the adversary is crushed.
So why make the initial threat to bomb? There is a predisposition in Washington to favor military solutions. A diplomatic approach would have strengthened the UN and international law and made Russia a player, all of which would interfere with U.S. freedom of action. Bombing, on the other hand, leads with the U.S. strong suit. It provides a rationale for U.S. domestic military spending, and an international arms bazaar. It tells the world that the U.S. response to problems with other nations is to bomb them. "What good is this marvelous military force," Albright asked Gen. Colin Powell a few years back, "if we can never use it?"
And another quote:
Before World War II, for example, the United States could have admitted many Jews fleeing from Hitler's Europe; it did not.
During World War II, the United States could have bombed the death camp at Auschwitz, slowing down the Nazi killing machine; it did not.
When hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in Indonesia in 1965; the killers were cheered on by the U.S. government who even provided lists of communists to exterminate.
When the Pakistani army began slaughtering and raping hundreds of thousands of Bengalis in 1971, sending millions into exile, U.S. policy was to (in Kissinger's words) "tilt in favor of Pakistan."
When Indonesia invaded East Timor, leading to the deaths of one third of the population, it received weapons and diplomatic support from Washington. Just this past week, White House press secretary Joe Lockhart was asked whether the United States supported independence for East Timor. "Not that I am aware of," he replied.
When the Khmer Rouge was responsible for monstrous killings in Cambodia, the United States encouraged China to aid the Khmer Rouge and provided covert aid of its own.
When the government of Guatemala killed 200,000 people in the 1980s, it was with United States aid and encouragement.
When upwards of half a million people, mostly members of the Tutsi ethnic minority, were exterminated in Rwanda in 1994, the Clinton administration demanded that a UN force already on the scene be reduced and obstructed efforts to save lives, even failing to apply diplomatic pressure against the killers.
Investigation of all these cases and many more -- the Turkish treatment of Kurds in Turkey, for example -- reveals a consistent pattern which has nothing to do with concerns for repressed populations and everything to do with calculations of U.S. elite and geo-political interests. In every case policy would have been roughly opposite to what took place, if there had been humanitarian concerns. There weren't, and there aren't.
Where on God's green earth did I say it erased them ? Sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong.
And again I ask the question, tell me something the U.S. has done wrong.
Perhaps you think it was a mistake to remove Saddamn,
I'm questioning how we did it. I don't think anyone was actually sorry to see him go.
The thousands he would have killed this year or in the next uprising certainly are happy about it.
Actually we have yet to see whether or not thousands might die anyway if Iraq descends into civil war in the wake of Saddam's abrupt removal.
Before World War II, for example, the United States could have admitted many Jews fleeing from Hitler's Europe; it did not.
We should have. FDR turned them away.
During World War II, the United States could have bombed the death camp at Auschwitz, slowing down the Nazi killing machine; it did not.
Of course it would have killed everyone inside since at the time we had no way of knowing the death rate. Some suvivied Auschwitz you know. Geez. Notice the author fails to mention that we lost thousands of our troops defeating the Nazi's but hey, it's a little detail. Slow it down ? I have news for the author, you weren't going to slow it down much until you took him out, bombing a camp filled with Jews would have only sped up the death rate of the Jews. They would have gone into overdrive if they knew we had knowledge of them. Not only that but we'd be doing the work for Hitler if we had. What a friggen boob.
I wonder then if the author would get a tad upset if we bombed the prisoins of Saddamn to slow the death rate. ?
When hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in Indonesia in 1965; the killers were cheered on by the U.S. government who even provided lists of communists to exterminate.
Proof ?
When the Pakistani army began slaughtering and raping hundreds of thousands of Bengalis in 1971, sending millions into exile, U.S. policy was to (in Kissinger's words) "tilt in favor of Pakistan." Â Â
Proof ?
When Indonesia invaded East Timor, leading to the deaths of one third of the population, it received weapons and diplomatic support from Washington. Just this past week, White House press secretary Joe Lockhart was asked whether the United States supported independence for East Timor. "Not that I am aware of," he replied.
Might have said that, I don't know. If he did it was the wrong opinion to take IMO.
When the Khmer Rouge was responsible for monstrous killings in Cambodia, the United States encouraged China to aid the Khmer Rouge and provided covert aid of its own.
What a load of B.S Yes we loved the Khmer Rouge, we loved the communists and I'm sure we would have gone to China who we had such close relations with and said hey, here's some money go give it to ol Rougy'. Perhaps it might have had something to do with being politically unable at that time to intervene militarily since it was right after Vietnam.
When the government of Guatemala killed 200,000 people in the 1980s, it was with United States aid and encouragement.
And the author and proof of that is ??????
When upwards of half a million people, mostly members of the Tutsi ethnic minority, were exterminated in Rwanda in 1994, the Clinton administration demanded that a UN force already on the scene be reduced and obstructed efforts to save lives, even failing to apply diplomatic pressure against the killers.
We should have went definately. Why didn't the UN put a stop to it ?
Actually we have yet to see whether or not thousands might die anyway if Iraq descends into civil war in the wake of Saddam's abrupt removal.
You're right, guess what, there's no guarantees in life. The Nazi's could have come back, they tried to right after VE day. Hirohito's Bushido's could have made a comeback too, Germany and Japan could have reverted to civil war, heck I might win the lottery too, you just don't know what will happen. But you take the action you think is best. I happen to think removing him is a great idea.
You know what you can do with it Allison. As if anyone ever said that we would end all terrorism by war with Iraq. You know that isn't true. It is dishonest. I guess that is what I should have expected.
Call them what you want, they were promises that *Bush* made.
This is NOT, a TAX CUT. But call it one, if you like.
I don't know, you can't say Bush didn't try. But personally I'm glad to see it fail. At at time when we're already running record budget deficits, cutting taxes makes no sense. That money has to come from somewhere, and the government will most likely just borrow it. But will all this money they're borrowing, you're likely to see interest rates start going back up over the next year which will harm business investment just as much as a tax cut would help it. Or on second thought, what will probably happen is the rich will pay less in taxes and they will put that money in the bank. Theoretically what happens next is all that extra saving drives down the interest rate and business investment goes up. But with the interest rate already so low, and government budget deficits so high, what will happen is that instead of that money going towards more investment, it will just get lent right back to the government to pay for the deficit of not having gotten it through tax revenue. Only instead of the government having a right to that money through taxes, now they owe interest on it too. So this tax cut doesn't really benefit anyone but Bush when come election time he can try and claim he cut "our" taxes.
Probably a better analogy is everyone thought the first George Bush would win after the Gulf War. Not too many people saw Clinton on the horizon at that point (though I actually did have a friend of mine who was from Arkansas tell me around then that he thought Clinton would be the next president).
I wasn't as into politics all that much back then, but I didn't think Daddy Bush was a sure bet. Things are quite different today. Like I said, it's the Democrats in power that will get Dubya re-elected, not Dubya's outstanding Presidency. The Democrats simply have no one that appeals to the American voter. It would take a major screw up on Dubya's part for him not to get re-elected.
C'mon, JT. There must be a way for you to diminsh Gore's popular vote win in more creative terms than that.
It doesn't count for squat. It goes back to the whole debate I saw yesterday about whether we were a Democracy or a Republic.
For example: Perot got like 20% of the popular vote in 1992. How many electoral votes did he get? Zero!
Once again, there was NOBODY in the front-runners spot on the DEM side at this point in Daddy Bush's first term either.
Well, you did have Kerry running back then too, but Clinton was ahead of Daddy Bush from the get go.
And if you think DEMS are happy with or will vote for GDubbya, then you are sadly mistaken...or perhaps you can show some data on how you came to that decision...???
Loyal Lefty's won't vote for Dubya, but moderates that can go either way will.
"When the sun goes down, the streets empty quickly. Curfew unofficially begins at 11 p.m., but few drivers, even those earning dollars from foreigners, stay out that late. One learns to fear the shadows that move. "
Well, you did have Kerry running back then too, but Clinton was ahead of Daddy Bush from the get go.
I don't think Clinton was ahead of Bush in May 1991. I don't think most people even knew who Clinton was yet while Bush was still riding pretty high from the first Gulf War.
Loyal Lefty's won't vote for Dubya, but moderates that can go either way will.
Maybe if the election were today. When will the Bush family learn to schedule their wars closer to the election?
One of these candidates will emerge as an alternative to Bush. There's several intelligent, qualified, capable people in the group. You'll see those capabilities as the race unfolds.
They'll run a hard, honest campaign right at Bush.
They'll either win or lose.
If you listen to people on the right, they'll say the election's over before it even starts. Well. it's not.
Has anyone noticed Clinton looks better now that he's not President anymore?
Last time I saw him on TV I thought that he didn't look so old.
Being President must suck the life right out of ya. Dubya looks like he's aged 10 years since becoming President. Clinton looked the same when he left.
Many of the victims are believed to have been murdered during the 1991 Shiite revolt against Saddam Hussein's (search) regime.
Not that the killing stopped after this time, but essentially what was going on back then amounted to a civil war. A civil war that the U.S. encouraged because they wanted Saddam taken out by his own people instead of by us. They should have done it back then as there would have been far more worldwide support for it, but we didn't. But I suppose you're going to instead say it was France's fault that these people died because they didn't want to agree to a war 12 years after the fact?
Tell me, during a civil war are women men and children supposed to be tied up, tortured shot or buried alive ?
No it was because the U.N coalition didn't want it in 91' But we were supposed to listen to them this time too right ? Easy to say if your daughter wasn't buried alive with a bunch of other murdered corpses.
There were also uprisings in 95', and 98'. All which were thwarted by Huissein in the same fashion not to mention the mass killing of numerous Kurds around Aluufajah (sp) So since they were already dead I mean who cares if they sold weapons and gave passports to those who commited the crimes not to mention blocked efforts to remove him. I mean heck the Vichy helped the Nazi's get otu of France in 44 too so what the hey. Oh that's right, I forgot you only cared when it was something we did. Well we did something.
Some supported it some didn't. In 45, some supported and some didn't history has a way of repeating itself.
Ask yourself how many would have died in the next uprising ? How many would have died here nad there by death squads ? Ah well water under the bridge right Alison ? Moral relativism at it's finest.
I'll play the Devil's advocate, too.
Would the outrage be as high right now if the mass graves were the result of the Shi'ite revolution against Saddam's regime?
What if the Shi'ites were the perpetrators? Who can say that they would not be every bit as brutal. But if they would have played ball with the U.S. who knows the policy we would take.
"Moral relativism at it's finest."
C'mon. The US looks the other way at atrocities all the time. Don't get on the high horse. Rumsfeld has had tea with the "murdering POS," with full knowledge of his capabilities.
Rumsfeld has had tea with the "murdering POS," with full knowledge of his capabilities.
Isn't this what you wanted us to do with Sadam? Shouldn't we give peace a chance?
You just proved that no matter which way the current administration goes on a subject, you will denounce it for political gain.
Tell me, during a civil war are women men and children supposed to be tied up, tortured shot or buried alive ?
No, they're all supposed to line up in an orderly fashion and lob water balloons at one another. Since when was there a way that a civil war was "supposed" to be conducted?
No it was because the U.N coalition didn't want it in 91'
I don't think the U.S. was really arguing for it.
Easy to say if your daughter wasn't buried alive with a bunch of other murdered corpses.
We didn't go to war to end the brutality. We didn't even make much of an issue of it for 12 years until we decided it seemed like a good idea to go to war and we needed reasons to justify it that the public would go for. I remember hearing it on the news here years ago that there was a Shiite uprising after the Gulf War and that Saddam had put it down. So we knew he was killing people then. So if this is why we went to war, why didn't we do it back then?
There were also uprisings in 95', and 98'. All which were thwarted by Huissein in the same fashion not to mention the mass killing of numerous Kurds around Aluufajah (sp)
And again we didn't so anything about it then. Sure, it's a good thing to put such bloodshed to an end, but do we really even know if we have? Unless we decide to stay in Iraq indefinitely and impose our will on them, it's quite possible a new government will take power that is also pretty brutal. There are a lot of factions in Iraq that aren't naturally inclined to get along.
So since they were already dead I mean who cares if they sold weapons...
The weapons sales were all completely legal and took place before Iraq was condemned and sanctions were imposed.
gave passports to those who commited the crimes
I haven't heard anything about this, though given the other accusations thrown around here, I'd be a bit skeptical of how legitimate it is.
not to mention blocked efforts to remove him.
The only effort I'm aware of them trying to block was starting a war. They're perfectly entitled to believe that war was not the right answer just as many Americans do.
Moral relativism at it's finest.
Personally I find your moral arguments to ring rather hallow when you can't even acknowledge that we've had our own moral failings.
We didn't go to war to end the brutality. We didn't even make much of an issue of it for 12 years
That's because Clinton was President.
Since when was there a way that a civil war was "supposed" to be conducted?
Since the Geneva Convention.
The weapons sales were all completely legal and took place before Iraq was condemned and sanctions were imposed.
Iraq bought illegal weapons during the past 12 years.
"Isn't this what you wanted us to do with Sadam? Shouldn't we give peace a chance? "
No that's not what I wanted. I could never really decide whether I was for or against the war. But once it started, I made some pointed comments about how it was covered in the media, but that was about it.
"You just proved that no matter which way the current administration goes on a subject, you will denounce it for political gain."
I guess you don't read my stuff very carefully. I don't think I've "denounced" the administration for much of anything. I was playing the Devil's Advocate in the post. I don't think you gain much politically by doing it, either.
"Since when was there a way that a civil war was "supposed" to be conducted?
Since the Geneva Convention."
I don't think your run-of-the-mill brutal civil uprising is going to respect Geneva protocols. Wouldn't a civil war, by definition, be outside the law? It's not like both sides are soveriegn states that would follow rules of war.
That's because Clinton was President.
Whatever. There were 4 years of Bush administration in there too. The truth is it's never been American policy to go to war with other countries just to stop their government from killing their own people. Even now we're letting it happen elsewhere in the world. So to try and prop this up as an argument for the war is weak at best. Or is it your argument that we should go and enforce a regime change in every country where people are being undemocratically abused?
Since the Geneva Convention.
The Geneva Convention covers war between countries pretty well, but a civil war is so much messier. It's often not even referred to as a war, but rather an "uprising" or some such thing. Either the government wins and it's seen as an internal matter, or it's called a revolution. In neither case is it very common that other countries will step in to see that the war was conducted fairly. And it's one thing when everyone gets together to go fight someone else. But when you have neighbor fighting neighbor, brother fighting brother, it's going to get ugly.
Iraq bought illegal weapons during the past 12 years.
From who, and what's your proof? Hopefully not that chart again.
Iraq bought illegal weapons during the past 12 years.
From who, and what's your proof? Hopefully not that chart again.
Come on man. The proof has been out there all along. Why do you think Saddam was forced to destroy those missles just before the war?
I don't know how old those missles were or where they might have come from.
I don't know how old those missles were or where they might have come from.
That is the problem, YOU don't know.
Do you?
I believe that I do.
Care to share?
I wonder where those circa 1996 French missle radars came from?
Since when is radar an illegal weapon?
In Iraq? Since the Gulf war, via UN sanctions.
Rick,
And Chirac once called Saddamn a personal friend, so what ?
Did I say we always did things right Rick ? Nope, I'm the first to admit we didn't ? I also said that regardless of motive the end result was a good thing IMO. We've also done numerous humanitarian missions and stepped in to help people and put our troops in harms way doing so many many times. So what's your point Rick ?
AW,
Really ? wow, I guess the Guardain, the Telegraph, CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, the NT times, San Fransico chronicle, Etc. etc. were all wrong then.
Really ? I said that? Go back and look, I've never said we were perfect. Find me a country that is and we'll both move there I'm sure. Of course we have but just because we have made mistakes and done things wrong apparently we are forever doomed in your book as to not doign anything right.
gave passports to those who commited the crimes
And you're so right on the illegal weapons sales I guess I'll take your word for it.
That's fine but when you actively support the same regime that buried the 11,000 men women and children just found a spade ought to be called a spade.
Did I say we always did things right Rick ?
So what have we done wrong?
Nope, I'm the first to admit we didn't ?
The first? I don't know about that. I think I said it before you :-P
I also said that regardless of motive the end result was a good thing IMO.
Yes, it was a good thing. And Hitler did a lot to improve a devastated German economy, push science forward, and probably a few other things. Doesn't mean that we look back on him fondly though when you consider the big picture. So just because something is a good thing, doesn't always mean it's the best thing.
We've also done numerous humanitarian missions and stepped in to help people and put our troops in harms way doing so many many times.
Nixon did a lot of good things for the U.S. Benedict Arnold helped us win some key battles in the Revolutionary War. Even Trent Lott had a pretty good career going in the service of his country. Doesn't take much to lose all that though. And all those rights still don't entirely erase a wrong.
Alison,
Ever heard of Kosovo ? A couple million dead there, our troops going in without the UN ? Ring a bell yet ? Ever hear of Somolia ? It made all the papers, even made a movie about it.
Where on God's green earth did I say it erased them ? Sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong. Perhaps you think it was a mistake to remove Saddamn, I don't, the hundreds and thousands that died each year by his hand deserve a little justice. The thousands he would have killed this year or in the next uprising certainly are happy about it.
Really ? wow, I guess the Guardain, the Telegraph, CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, the NT times, San Fransico chronicle, Etc. etc. were all wrong then.
I'm looking through the news archives trying to find such a story but I don't see anything yet.
Ever heard of Kosovo ?
Here's an interesting article about that from a few years back:
So why is NATO now bombing in the Balkans?
Just as killings by the (U.S.-trained) junta in Haiti did not concern U.S. policymakers until large numbers of refugees started fleeing to the United States, so too human rights abuses in Kosovo did not concern U.S. policymakers as long as they didn't threaten regional stability. But as the fighting in Kosovo escalated, with large numbers of displaced Albanian refugees, U.S. officials decided they needed to curb the problem--not to aid locally affected people, but to prevent losses to U.S. interests due to the conflict spreading into other parts of Europe.
In February and March at Rambouillet in France, the United States and its European allies invited the Albanian Kosovars and the Milosevic government to sign an agreement that provided for the withdrawal of Serbian security forces from Kosovo, the disarming of the KLA, autonomy for Kosovo, a NATO peacekeeping force, and follow-up final-status negotiations after three years. Milosevic said he was unwilling to accept foreign troops on his territory. NATO said it would bomb him if the Albanians signed and he didn't. (Compare this with U.S. mediation efforts in Northern Ireland where threatening to bomb a recalcitrant party was not part of the equation.) The Albanians reluctantly accepted the Rambouillet agreement and Milosevic refused.
Now the primary NATO goal became maintaining its credibility. The Clinton administration had invested heavily in expanding NATO, to make it a primary instrument of U.S. policy not only in Europe, but beyond. There is an elementary point of big power politics that no one denies: threats made need to be carried out if the credibility of future threats are to be maintained. And, likewise, threats carried out but not yielding total victory need to be escalated until the adversary is crushed.
So why make the initial threat to bomb? There is a predisposition in Washington to favor military solutions. A diplomatic approach would have strengthened the UN and international law and made Russia a player, all of which would interfere with U.S. freedom of action. Bombing, on the other hand, leads with the U.S. strong suit. It provides a rationale for U.S. domestic military spending, and an international arms bazaar. It tells the world that the U.S. response to problems with other nations is to bomb them. "What good is this marvelous military force," Albright asked Gen. Colin Powell a few years back, "if we can never use it?"
And another quote:
Investigation of all these cases and many more -- the Turkish treatment of Kurds in Turkey, for example -- reveals a consistent pattern which has nothing to do with concerns for repressed populations and everything to do with calculations of U.S. elite and geo-political interests. In every case policy would have been roughly opposite to what took place, if there had been humanitarian concerns. There weren't, and there aren't.
Where on God's green earth did I say it erased them ? Sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong.
And again I ask the question, tell me something the U.S. has done wrong.
Perhaps you think it was a mistake to remove Saddamn,
I'm questioning how we did it. I don't think anyone was actually sorry to see him go.
The thousands he would have killed this year or in the next uprising certainly are happy about it.
Actually we have yet to see whether or not thousands might die anyway if Iraq descends into civil war in the wake of Saddam's abrupt removal.
That's a great and oh so unbiased of an article.
We should have. FDR turned them away.
Of course it would have killed everyone inside since at the time we had no way of knowing the death rate. Some suvivied Auschwitz you know. Geez. Notice the author fails to mention that we lost thousands of our troops defeating the Nazi's but hey, it's a little detail. Slow it down ? I have news for the author, you weren't going to slow it down much until you took him out, bombing a camp filled with Jews would have only sped up the death rate of the Jews. They would have gone into overdrive if they knew we had knowledge of them. Not only that but we'd be doing the work for Hitler if we had. What a friggen boob.
I wonder then if the author would get a tad upset if we bombed the prisoins of Saddamn to slow the death rate. ?
Proof ?
Proof ?
Might have said that, I don't know. If he did it was the wrong opinion to take IMO.
What a load of B.S Yes we loved the Khmer Rouge, we loved the communists and I'm sure we would have gone to China who we had such close relations with and said hey, here's some money go give it to ol Rougy'. Perhaps it might have had something to do with being politically unable at that time to intervene militarily since it was right after Vietnam.
And the author and proof of that is ??????
We should have went definately. Why didn't the UN put a stop to it ?
You're right, guess what, there's no guarantees in life. The Nazi's could have come back, they tried to right after VE day. Hirohito's Bushido's could have made a comeback too, Germany and Japan could have reverted to civil war, heck I might win the lottery too, you just don't know what will happen. But you take the action you think is best. I happen to think removing him is a great idea.
I see we're back to an orange alert now. Good thing taking out Saddam scared those terrorists and showed them who's boss, eh?
You know what you can do with it Allison. As if anyone ever said that we would end all terrorism by war with Iraq. You know that isn't true. It is dishonest. I guess that is what I should have expected.
So why is the terror alert getting higher insted of lower? Sounds liek it's getting worse instead of better.
sure.
'Bill - Fold' 5/21/03 3:26am
'Bill - Fold' 5/21/03 3:33am
My, that's a long list of entitlements.
Gimme, gimme, gimme
Shit, I ask for use of my education tax dollars, and I get raked over the coals.
My, that's a long list of entitlements.
Call them what you want, they were promises that *Bush* made.
This is NOT, a TAX CUT. But call it one, if you like.
I don't know, you can't say Bush didn't try. But personally I'm glad to see it fail. At at time when we're already running record budget deficits, cutting taxes makes no sense. That money has to come from somewhere, and the government will most likely just borrow it. But will all this money they're borrowing, you're likely to see interest rates start going back up over the next year which will harm business investment just as much as a tax cut would help it. Or on second thought, what will probably happen is the rich will pay less in taxes and they will put that money in the bank. Theoretically what happens next is all that extra saving drives down the interest rate and business investment goes up. But with the interest rate already so low, and government budget deficits so high, what will happen is that instead of that money going towards more investment, it will just get lent right back to the government to pay for the deficit of not having gotten it through tax revenue. Only instead of the government having a right to that money through taxes, now they owe interest on it too. So this tax cut doesn't really benefit anyone but Bush when come election time he can try and claim he cut "our" taxes.
GW will have no problem getting elected again. Who do the democrats have to offer? Nobody!
Oh Yeah! I almost forgot. The good Reverend Al!!
Just another reason why this man is not up to the job, and not the guy we want for another 4 years.
Another example of just how out of touch the Left is.
Dubya's gonna get elected again, and it's the Left that's gonna get him elected.
Probably a better analogy is everyone thought the first George Bush would win after the Gulf War. Not too many people saw Clinton on the horizon at that point (though I actually did have a friend of mine who was from Arkansas tell me around then that he thought Clinton would be the next president).
he DID win the popular vote
Which doesn't count for squat in this country.
Allison Wonderland 5/22/03 4:58am
I wasn't as into politics all that much back then, but I didn't think Daddy Bush was a sure bet. Things are quite different today. Like I said, it's the Democrats in power that will get Dubya re-elected, not Dubya's outstanding Presidency. The Democrats simply have no one that appeals to the American voter. It would take a major screw up on Dubya's part for him not to get re-elected.
"Which doesn't count for squat in this country."
C'mon, JT. There must be a way for you to diminsh Gore's popular vote win in more creative terms than that.
You gotta make it mean less than squat.
Worthless, meaningless. Wasted, actually. Utterly futile, miniscule, vapor.
Not worth the air expended to discuss it.
C'mon, JT. There must be a way for you to diminsh Gore's popular vote win in more creative terms than that.
It doesn't count for squat. It goes back to the whole debate I saw yesterday about whether we were a Democracy or a Republic.
For example: Perot got like 20% of the popular vote in 1992. How many electoral votes did he get? Zero!
Once again, there was NOBODY in the front-runners spot on the DEM side at this point in Daddy Bush's first term either.
Well, you did have Kerry running back then too, but Clinton was ahead of Daddy Bush from the get go.
And if you think DEMS are happy with or will vote for GDubbya, then you are sadly mistaken...or perhaps you can show some data on how you came to that decision...???
Loyal Lefty's won't vote for Dubya, but moderates that can go either way will.
Baghdad nights are full of menace.
"When the sun goes down, the streets empty quickly. Curfew unofficially begins at 11 p.m., but few drivers, even those earning dollars from foreigners, stay out that late. One learns to fear the shadows that move. "
Well, you did have Kerry running back then too, but Clinton was ahead of Daddy Bush from the get go.
I don't think Clinton was ahead of Bush in May 1991. I don't think most people even knew who Clinton was yet while Bush was still riding pretty high from the first Gulf War.
Loyal Lefty's won't vote for Dubya, but moderates that can go either way will.
Maybe if the election were today. When will the Bush family learn to schedule their wars closer to the election?
I don't think Clinton was ahead of Bush in May 1991.
Of course he wasn't. The election hadn't even got rolling yet, nor has it now for 2004.
I take that back. The Democrats have started abnormally early this election cycle. Lots of candidates, very little leadership.
When will the Bush family learn to schedule their wars closer to the election?
Like I said, it has less to do with Dubya than it does the Democrats lacking a viable candidate.
A viable camdidate will the the one that survives the battering by his colleagues, raises money and breaks out from the field.
Viable against each other maybe, not viable against Dubya.
Maybe "able to win" would have been better wording.
I don't see any of these people as currently able to win against Dubya.
http://www.democrats.org/whitehouse/index.html
http://www.rnc.org/newsroom/demsindepth/
Of course as AW pointed out, that could change by November 2004.
I just wish we had more than Dubya on the playing field.
Rush, 2112 PalinaJOE!
One of these candidates will emerge as an alternative to Bush. There's several intelligent, qualified, capable people in the group. You'll see those capabilities as the race unfolds.
They'll run a hard, honest campaign right at Bush.
They'll either win or lose.
If you listen to people on the right, they'll say the election's over before it even starts. Well. it's not.
Hey, I'm old enough now to be president!
They'll run a hard, honest campaign right at Bush.
Are the Democrats capable of running an honest campaign?
They'll either win or lose.
Wow! Bold prediction! I bet the sun will rise in the east tomorrow! =)
Cheap shot noted.
If one of them wins, I'd wager you will say it was done dishonestly.
If you listen to people on the right, they'll say the election's over before it even starts. Well. it's not.
Well, I think Dubya will win but I wouldn't wager on it.
Hey, I'm old enough now to be president!
Good luck on that. You couldn't pay me enough to be President. I couldn't stand to read or hear what jackasses like me, say about me.
Has anyone noticed Clinton looks better now that he's not President anymore?
Last time I saw him on TV I thought that he didn't look so old.
Being President must suck the life right out of ya. Dubya looks like he's aged 10 years since becoming President. Clinton looked the same when he left.
Cheap shot noted.
Lighten up Rick, just teasing you.