the 298 hershey kisses i just ate have no eased the pain i’m feeling at the continuation of the republican reich’s reign in the US, but they sure were tasty.
In so much as referring to the current administration as a “reich”, you dismiss the millions of people killed by the REAL reich. You compare job losses to genocide in an effort to bolter your point of view. How fucking sick is that?
And if you haven’t, google on “Saddam Mass Graves” to see where the real parallels are drawn. The rhetoric may say “blood for oil”, but at least we had SOME excuse for removing the madman from power before anymore children were killed, wrapped in plastic, and dumped in the desert to rot.
technically wasn’t nazi germany the third reich? and can’t i use any writerly hyperbole? sheesh. fucking conservatives. soon i won’t be able to write anything at all that’s disparaging to king george’s party.
It’s like saying Cher; The only one people think of is the Cher that was part of “Sonny and Cher”, even though there are millions of Cher’s in the world.
And that sort of hyperbole is fine, as long as you can happily skip along calling all fathers rapists because they do put penises in women, or calling all mothers whores because they allow penises in them. You also have to sit back and readily accept that after the next Democrat is elected president, conservatives call you and your closest party affiliation “Stalin-esque murderers” without trying to defend yourself in the least.
I thought it was Democrats that were AGAINST double standards on that grand a scale.
Holtz
03.Nov.04 at 3:41 pm
There are tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians dead because of Bush.
“Whose life would be on my hands had I, as commander in chief,
gone beyond international law and said we’re going to be macho?
That we’re going to become an occupying power? America in an
Arab land, with no allies at our side, it would have been disastrous.”
George H. Bush, from a 1998 interview after Gulf War 1
There were hundreds of thousands of Kurds systematically killed in a genocide at the hands of their country’s leader, Saddam.
Many of the “civilians” killed by the US were armed insurgents or harboring insurgents. It’s harsh to say, but a 12 year old shooting at American troops does not get to claim “civilian” as a title.
And GHWB never had to deal with a Saddam that was comitting mass genocide. That happened under Clinton’s rule. He decided to retaliate by bombing some empty warehouses and never having anyone see what he hit afterwards. You may cry “blood for oil”, but at least we had SOME excuse to get rid of Saddam. (Much like FDR’s administration ignored Japan’s warning about Pearl Harbor so we had a reason to enter WW2. Memo left on someone’s desk over the weekend my ass.)
heda
04.Nov.04 at 5:34 pm
“””You may cry “blood for oil”, but at least we had SOME excuse to get rid of Saddam”””
because bush wanted to? poor excuse. because saddam was a bad guy? you know how many countries have dictators that kill hundreds of thousands of people a year? we should go in and patrol what would amount to half the world? here’s the deal, we can’t do that. you want freedom for people? let them choose the kind of government they want, just like happened in this election. don’t force your value and mores on others.
you htink we SHOULD do something about all those other countries? then stop buying shoes made in communist china. stop buying t-shirts made in malaysia with child labor. better yet, stop using all products produced by american companies made in substandard conditions. we do not have the people power to start wars all over the world.
No, we donlt have the people power; That’s what the UN is supposed to do. But when there’s a madman buying favor with the UN by supplying key countries with oil in order to escape scrutiny, then SOMEONE must do something.
Honestly heda, Pearl Harbor was a skirmish with Japan. Then why did the USA delare war on Japan AND Germany? Because we have a moral obligation, not based on religion or personal beliefs, but on the very human moral of “people do not kill other people based on ethnicity”. To blindly bury your head in the sand of what other countries are up to is a Clinton like mistake that begged forth the 9/11 tragedy.
And as far as American beliefs? I will loudly and proudly say that “life, libery and the pursuit of happiness” is superior to anything else ever conceived, without apologizing for that belief. There’s far too much second guessing yourself in this world; If you don’t stand for something, you WILL fall for anything.
heda
05.Nov.04 at 11:57 am
you are right, when the un is being bought, someone must do something, we must bitch slap the un members (ok, i’m being dramatic and silly, but you get the point) and show them how wrong they are and make them do the right thing. iraq qould, though, be a poor place to shove the un’s nose in it, there are far worse/far bigger/far more countries related to the un that are getting away with enourmous-scale murder – the one of the top of my head? china. another? north korea. we even KNOW north korea has all the bad humans rights stuff AND nuclear weapons
when jodi used a comparison between the war in iraq and wwii you got upset, but now you are using it to prove a point? i understand you were doing it comparing japan/germany and saddam instead of the way she was using it, but i believe you to be just as inaccurate/dramatic as you thought she was. hitler was not limited to his own country, he was messing BIG TIME with many may other countries in very bad ways. iraq was just messing up its own country and kinda sort influencing some un memebrs a very little bit with oil (and that may have been, in big part because of our sanctions and the eu not agreeing with us on that).
“life, libery and the pursuit of happiness” sounds great to me. but what about those who bush isn’t giving that to. homosexuals don’t deserve it? the patriot act (we already had all the info needed to stop 9/11, we new osama was attacking with planes and al qaida had people in the u.s. training as pilots – 9/11 wasn’t a prob with info gathering, but rather executing based on that info)? and what about catching osama? bush has said he doesn’t care where he is (even if that’s because he is marginalized, which isn’t for sure, he should stand trial for his crimes.
btw, i DO enjoy being able to discuss this with someone who doesn’t hold my beliefs without things turning into “screw you” and “dumbass”.
kinda sort influencing some un memebrs a very little bit with oil (and that may have been, in big part because of our sanctions and the eu not agreeing with us on that).
“life, libery and the pursuit of happiness” sounds great to me. but what about those who bush isn’t giving that to. homosexuals don’t deserve it?
Kerry was against it too. Don’t heap THAT blame on Bush when Kerry is just as guilty. The problem is that (generously) 10% of the population is gay, but 30% (at the least) hold religious beliefs that being gay is a sin. It’s a numbers game for the two party system. Be against gay marriage and you net 20% more votes. Let that battle be fought in the individual states.
9/11 wasn’t a prob with info gathering, but rather executing based on that info
Did you read the 9/11 comission results? Our intelligence gathering was crippled, making any information about 9/11 part of the unreliable garbled data among all the false leads. And CLINTON was the first one with that data. Bush also failed to act, but watch where you point that finger! Both of the faulty parties had a hand in that tragedy.
And you are right, I questioned Jodi’s comparison of Bush to Hitler because of how it belittled the Millions of Jews killed versus the hundreds of thousands of Americans who aren’t getting handouts from the government. I was comparing Hitler to Saddam, both genocidal maniacs. I suppose he would have had to invade another country to be really bad… Oh, that’s right, he TRIED that. I suppose he wasn’t all that bad because he wasn’t targeting a group of people who had a presence in the US like the Jewish people did. Shame on us for intervening on behalf of a people who don’t control the jewlery district in New York.
I must agree that I enjoy a debate when it’s based on the facts. And I assure you, I don’t resort to name calling… Unless it’s Heathen… who goes like this… (waves hand under chin while eyes are crosses and tongue is sticking out)
heda
05.Nov.04 at 4:37 pm
“Let that battle be fought in the individual states” – as it should, my prob with bush over kerry is bush wanted the constitution ammended. the constitution is supposed to be there to preserve rights, not limit them. and as for 20% more people wanting to limit rather than grant gay marriage. that may be, but they should be very careful of limiting those kinds of freedoms. we’re not talking about the freedom to hurt others here, we are tlaking about the freedom of expressing love.
“but watch where you point that finger” – all i’m syaing is the info was there. the patriot act is to get even more info. we don’t need more info, we need better analysis and carry through – which is not what the pstriot act is about.
yes, he tried attacking others and failed…multiple times. and we DO have a lot of people saying we should be there for the oil, these would be the people getting rich off the oil. so instead of jewels its oil now. so a war wanted by christians for oil is better than a war wanted by jews to protect their homeland?
(not waving hand under chin or crossing eyes or the reat)
heda
05.Nov.04 at 7:38 pm
“Let that battle be fought in the individual states” – as it should, my prob with bush over kerry is bush wanted the constitution ammended. the constitution is supposed to be there to preserve rights, not limit them. and as for 20% more people wanting to limit rather than grant gay marriage. that may be, but they should be very careful of limiting those kinds of freedoms. we’re not talking about the freedom to hurt others here, we are tlaking about the freedom of expressing love.
“but watch where you point that finger” – all i’m syaing is the info was there. the patriot act is to get even more info. we don’t need more info, we need better analysis and carry through – which is not what the pstriot act is about.
yes, he tried attacking others and failed…multiple times. and we DO have a lot of people saying we should be there for the oil, these would be the people getting rich off the oil. so instead of jewels its oil now. so a war wanted by christians for oil is better than a war wanted by jews to protect their homeland?
(thanks, jodi, for letting the discussion get this far)
so a war wanted by christians for oil is better than a war wanted by jews to protect their homeland
I feel as though the “war by christians for oil”, as it were, was more of a “war by people who don’t like genocidal madmen to overthrow a genocidal madman”. Yes, we had a vested interest with the oil, but as gas dropped 20 cents a gallon once the news hit that Bush was re-elected (and is still falling), it’s the guy shlepping his butt to and from Pizza Hut customer locations that is feeling the relief in his wallet in the long run. (Yes, gas prices have rised under Bush; Only because he allowed natural inflation to occur, and not suppress it unnaturally as his predecessors have done since the early 60’s.)
And re-check history; There was no Israel at all until well after the END of WW2. Hitler wasn’t threatening the Jewish homeland; He was killing Jews in his own country. When he invaded other countries, he killed Jews there too. Israel is an artificial entity, carved against the wishes of the indigenous Palestinians by a young UN, to “compensate” the Jewish people because of the tragedy they endured. If you think opposition to the war we’re currently fighting is a novel concept, Henry Ford (founder/owner of the Ford Motor Corporation) was vehemently opposed to the US’ involvement in WW2 and stated so loudly and proudly, gathering signatures and organizing rallies. Of course, you may not know he was an author. His worldwide bestseller was entitled, “The International Jew: A worldwide problem.” Yes, he was THAT anti-semitic, but 45% of Americans also felt we shouldn’t be in WW2 at one time too for various reasons.
Sometimes being opposed to a war doesn’t make it a superior moral position. Only history can make the call of how “just” a war is.
heda
06.Nov.04 at 3:54 pm
so, because this madman had oil (along withtheo other madmen in the region. we should do the morally right thing and go to war. what about all the other madmen leaders out there.
The UN should step in, in those cases. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough excuses for the US to march in (no reports of WMD, reliable or otherwise. And yes, the faulty infor about WMD was unfortunate, but it was an excuse nonetheless. A leader has to act on the information he’s been given. Thank Tony Blair for helping us out with that.)
heda
07.Nov.04 at 9:21 am
but since the un won’t, shouldn’t we. even without the excuses? isn’t it moral?
In this case, I would. But only when we have our over extended troops pulled out of whatever hell-hole we have them in now.
Personally, I’d focus on getting Osama next; We got Saddam, so we know our troops CAN find a leader in hiding. After that’s I’d head into the Sudan; Another place where genocide and ritual female mutilation holds sway.
The problem is, without a REASON, even one that later proves to be unreliable, we’re entering into a conflict with another set of standards based off extremist religion. As I’m not trying to get approval rating from the world or even my own country, I’d say blow the current regime to hell and let God sort them out. But Bushie already has a black eye for the WMD debauchle in Iraq, so running at that windmill would be political suicide for the ‘Pubs; And for both sides, it’s about having the puppet chair of power in the next election. The two party system isn;t about doing what’s right; It’s about doing what it takes to make sure your party wins the next election. Hence my vote for Nader.
Tiptoptom
10.Nov.04 at 4:32 pm
Thomas wrote: “And GHWB never had to deal with a Saddam that was comitting mass genocide. That happened under Clinton’s rule.”
You are wrong. Saddam began to use chemical weapons against the Kurds in April of 1987. The mass killing in Halabja happened on March 16, 1988, at the start of George HW Bush’s term as president. Six months later, the Bush I administration lent Hussein a billion dollars. The fact is Hussein committed his worst atrocities before the first Gulf War when he was a trusted friend of the US. And we did nothing about it. Ugly, but true.
It was also not known that Hussein was doing that when the money was lent. The ugliness, as you call it, was discovered in the aftermath of the first Gulf War when Hussein was temporarily crippled by the US retaliation for the Kuwaiti invasion (another excuse).
Later, Hussein continued his genocidal ways while being closely monitored with photo survelance during Clinton;s term(s), who did NOTHING except issue stern warnings about it. I’m sure he would have put together an online petition to get Saddam to stop, but Gore wasn’t through inventing the internet yet.
Be careful of your own “misinformation”.
Thanks.
Tiptoptom
15.Nov.04 at 1:16 pm
Actually, I did pass on a bit of misinformation in my last post: March 16, 1988 was not the beginning of Bush Sr.’s first term; it was the end of Reagan’s second term. Sorry about that.
But the rest, as far as I can tell, is accurate.
Thomas wrote: “It was also not known that Hussein was doing that (committing acts of genocide against the Kurds) when the money ($1 billion from Bush Sr. to Saddam) was lent. The ugliness, as you call it, was discovered in the aftermath of the first Gulf War”
Where are you getting this information from? This is spectacularly wrong. The Gulf War began on August 2, 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The first news reports of the Halabja gassing occurred just one week after the incident on March 22, 1988 in the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, and the New York Times. On March 31, 1988, the conservative Washington Times newspaper published an article about the incident called “Grisly Revival of Gas” by Ken Adelman. In fact, virtually every major paper on the planet covered it. On March 23, 1988, Nightline actually showed film footage of the carnage.
In May of 1988, the US Foreign Relations Committee sent a team to Turkey to interview Iraqi Kurdish refugees and assess reports of Saddam’s use of chemical weapons. Their report affirmed the chemical attack at Halabja that left more than “4,000 people dead” as well as other incidents of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. This is more than two years before the first Gulf War.
In response to Halabja, the US Senate passed (unanimously) the “Prevention of Genocide Act” on September 8, 1988. It would have cut off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil. Reagan immediately announced his opposition to the Bill, and worked to stop its passage through the House. He succeeded. The Bill died there.
Later, in October 1989, when most international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush Sr. signed National Security Directive 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. Obviously, Bush Sr., at this point, was well aware of Saddam’s … ummm … genocidal tendencies. Your assertion that Saddam’s atrocities were not known is completely false.
Thomas also wrote: “Later, Hussein continued his genocidal ways while being closely monitored with photo survelance during Clinton;s term(s), who did NOTHING except issue stern warnings about it.”
Saddam continued to be a brutal, murderous thug after the first Gulf War, but not at quite the same horrific levels as before the war, especially in regards to the Kurds. After some initial horrors right at the end of the war when the US was slow to protect the Kurdish population, things have been relatively quiet in the northern Kurdish-controlled part of Iraq. The No-Fly Zone, insituted by Bush Sr. and maintained under Clinton, was quite successful in protecting the Kurds. They were basically living under defacto self rule.
And finally Thomas wrote: “I’m sure ?linton would have put together an online petition to get Saddam to stop, but Gore wasn’t through inventing the internet yet.”
I’m not interested in partisan sniping and related sarcastic bullshit. I never said I supported Clinton or Gore. I was addressing some or your assertions which are absolutely and completely false.
In so much as referring to the current administration as a “reich”, you dismiss the millions of people killed by the REAL reich. You compare job losses to genocide in an effort to bolter your point of view. How fucking sick is that?
And if you haven’t, google on “Saddam Mass Graves” to see where the real parallels are drawn. The rhetoric may say “blood for oil”, but at least we had SOME excuse for removing the madman from power before anymore children were killed, wrapped in plastic, and dumped in the desert to rot.
technically wasn’t nazi germany the third reich? and can’t i use any writerly hyperbole? sheesh. fucking conservatives. soon i won’t be able to write anything at all that’s disparaging to king george’s party.
It’s like saying Cher; The only one people think of is the Cher that was part of “Sonny and Cher”, even though there are millions of Cher’s in the world.
And that sort of hyperbole is fine, as long as you can happily skip along calling all fathers rapists because they do put penises in women, or calling all mothers whores because they allow penises in them. You also have to sit back and readily accept that after the next Democrat is elected president, conservatives call you and your closest party affiliation “Stalin-esque murderers” without trying to defend yourself in the least.
I thought it was Democrats that were AGAINST double standards on that grand a scale.
There are tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians dead because of Bush.
“Whose life would be on my hands had I, as commander in chief,
gone beyond international law and said we’re going to be macho?
That we’re going to become an occupying power? America in an
Arab land, with no allies at our side, it would have been disastrous.”
George H. Bush, from a 1998 interview after Gulf War 1
There were hundreds of thousands of Kurds systematically killed in a genocide at the hands of their country’s leader, Saddam.
Many of the “civilians” killed by the US were armed insurgents or harboring insurgents. It’s harsh to say, but a 12 year old shooting at American troops does not get to claim “civilian” as a title.
And GHWB never had to deal with a Saddam that was comitting mass genocide. That happened under Clinton’s rule. He decided to retaliate by bombing some empty warehouses and never having anyone see what he hit afterwards. You may cry “blood for oil”, but at least we had SOME excuse to get rid of Saddam. (Much like FDR’s administration ignored Japan’s warning about Pearl Harbor so we had a reason to enter WW2. Memo left on someone’s desk over the weekend my ass.)
“””You may cry “blood for oil”, but at least we had SOME excuse to get rid of Saddam”””
because bush wanted to? poor excuse. because saddam was a bad guy? you know how many countries have dictators that kill hundreds of thousands of people a year? we should go in and patrol what would amount to half the world? here’s the deal, we can’t do that. you want freedom for people? let them choose the kind of government they want, just like happened in this election. don’t force your value and mores on others.
you htink we SHOULD do something about all those other countries? then stop buying shoes made in communist china. stop buying t-shirts made in malaysia with child labor. better yet, stop using all products produced by american companies made in substandard conditions. we do not have the people power to start wars all over the world.
No, we donlt have the people power; That’s what the UN is supposed to do. But when there’s a madman buying favor with the UN by supplying key countries with oil in order to escape scrutiny, then SOMEONE must do something.
Honestly heda, Pearl Harbor was a skirmish with Japan. Then why did the USA delare war on Japan AND Germany? Because we have a moral obligation, not based on religion or personal beliefs, but on the very human moral of “people do not kill other people based on ethnicity”. To blindly bury your head in the sand of what other countries are up to is a Clinton like mistake that begged forth the 9/11 tragedy.
And as far as American beliefs? I will loudly and proudly say that “life, libery and the pursuit of happiness” is superior to anything else ever conceived, without apologizing for that belief. There’s far too much second guessing yourself in this world; If you don’t stand for something, you WILL fall for anything.
you are right, when the un is being bought, someone must do something, we must bitch slap the un members (ok, i’m being dramatic and silly, but you get the point) and show them how wrong they are and make them do the right thing. iraq qould, though, be a poor place to shove the un’s nose in it, there are far worse/far bigger/far more countries related to the un that are getting away with enourmous-scale murder – the one of the top of my head? china. another? north korea. we even KNOW north korea has all the bad humans rights stuff AND nuclear weapons
when jodi used a comparison between the war in iraq and wwii you got upset, but now you are using it to prove a point? i understand you were doing it comparing japan/germany and saddam instead of the way she was using it, but i believe you to be just as inaccurate/dramatic as you thought she was. hitler was not limited to his own country, he was messing BIG TIME with many may other countries in very bad ways. iraq was just messing up its own country and kinda sort influencing some un memebrs a very little bit with oil (and that may have been, in big part because of our sanctions and the eu not agreeing with us on that).
“life, libery and the pursuit of happiness” sounds great to me. but what about those who bush isn’t giving that to. homosexuals don’t deserve it? the patriot act (we already had all the info needed to stop 9/11, we new osama was attacking with planes and al qaida had people in the u.s. training as pilots – 9/11 wasn’t a prob with info gathering, but rather executing based on that info)? and what about catching osama? bush has said he doesn’t care where he is (even if that’s because he is marginalized, which isn’t for sure, he should stand trial for his crimes.
btw, i DO enjoy being able to discuss this with someone who doesn’t hold my beliefs without things turning into “screw you” and “dumbass”.
kinda sort influencing some un memebrs a very little bit with oil (and that may have been, in big part because of our sanctions and the eu not agreeing with us on that).
“life, libery and the pursuit of happiness” sounds great to me. but what about those who bush isn’t giving that to. homosexuals don’t deserve it?
Kerry was against it too. Don’t heap THAT blame on Bush when Kerry is just as guilty. The problem is that (generously) 10% of the population is gay, but 30% (at the least) hold religious beliefs that being gay is a sin. It’s a numbers game for the two party system. Be against gay marriage and you net 20% more votes. Let that battle be fought in the individual states.
9/11 wasn’t a prob with info gathering, but rather executing based on that info
Did you read the 9/11 comission results? Our intelligence gathering was crippled, making any information about 9/11 part of the unreliable garbled data among all the false leads. And CLINTON was the first one with that data. Bush also failed to act, but watch where you point that finger! Both of the faulty parties had a hand in that tragedy.
And you are right, I questioned Jodi’s comparison of Bush to Hitler because of how it belittled the Millions of Jews killed versus the hundreds of thousands of Americans who aren’t getting handouts from the government. I was comparing Hitler to Saddam, both genocidal maniacs. I suppose he would have had to invade another country to be really bad… Oh, that’s right, he TRIED that. I suppose he wasn’t all that bad because he wasn’t targeting a group of people who had a presence in the US like the Jewish people did. Shame on us for intervening on behalf of a people who don’t control the jewlery district in New York.
I must agree that I enjoy a debate when it’s based on the facts. And I assure you, I don’t resort to name calling… Unless it’s Heathen… who goes like this… (waves hand under chin while eyes are crosses and tongue is sticking out)
“Let that battle be fought in the individual states” – as it should, my prob with bush over kerry is bush wanted the constitution ammended. the constitution is supposed to be there to preserve rights, not limit them. and as for 20% more people wanting to limit rather than grant gay marriage. that may be, but they should be very careful of limiting those kinds of freedoms. we’re not talking about the freedom to hurt others here, we are tlaking about the freedom of expressing love.
“but watch where you point that finger” – all i’m syaing is the info was there. the patriot act is to get even more info. we don’t need more info, we need better analysis and carry through – which is not what the pstriot act is about.
yes, he tried attacking others and failed…multiple times. and we DO have a lot of people saying we should be there for the oil, these would be the people getting rich off the oil. so instead of jewels its oil now. so a war wanted by christians for oil is better than a war wanted by jews to protect their homeland?
(not waving hand under chin or crossing eyes or the reat)
“Let that battle be fought in the individual states” – as it should, my prob with bush over kerry is bush wanted the constitution ammended. the constitution is supposed to be there to preserve rights, not limit them. and as for 20% more people wanting to limit rather than grant gay marriage. that may be, but they should be very careful of limiting those kinds of freedoms. we’re not talking about the freedom to hurt others here, we are tlaking about the freedom of expressing love.
“but watch where you point that finger” – all i’m syaing is the info was there. the patriot act is to get even more info. we don’t need more info, we need better analysis and carry through – which is not what the pstriot act is about.
yes, he tried attacking others and failed…multiple times. and we DO have a lot of people saying we should be there for the oil, these would be the people getting rich off the oil. so instead of jewels its oil now. so a war wanted by christians for oil is better than a war wanted by jews to protect their homeland?
(thanks, jodi, for letting the discussion get this far)
so a war wanted by christians for oil is better than a war wanted by jews to protect their homeland
I feel as though the “war by christians for oil”, as it were, was more of a “war by people who don’t like genocidal madmen to overthrow a genocidal madman”. Yes, we had a vested interest with the oil, but as gas dropped 20 cents a gallon once the news hit that Bush was re-elected (and is still falling), it’s the guy shlepping his butt to and from Pizza Hut customer locations that is feeling the relief in his wallet in the long run. (Yes, gas prices have rised under Bush; Only because he allowed natural inflation to occur, and not suppress it unnaturally as his predecessors have done since the early 60’s.)
And re-check history; There was no Israel at all until well after the END of WW2. Hitler wasn’t threatening the Jewish homeland; He was killing Jews in his own country. When he invaded other countries, he killed Jews there too. Israel is an artificial entity, carved against the wishes of the indigenous Palestinians by a young UN, to “compensate” the Jewish people because of the tragedy they endured. If you think opposition to the war we’re currently fighting is a novel concept, Henry Ford (founder/owner of the Ford Motor Corporation) was vehemently opposed to the US’ involvement in WW2 and stated so loudly and proudly, gathering signatures and organizing rallies. Of course, you may not know he was an author. His worldwide bestseller was entitled, “The International Jew: A worldwide problem.” Yes, he was THAT anti-semitic, but 45% of Americans also felt we shouldn’t be in WW2 at one time too for various reasons.
Sometimes being opposed to a war doesn’t make it a superior moral position. Only history can make the call of how “just” a war is.
so, because this madman had oil (along withtheo other madmen in the region. we should do the morally right thing and go to war. what about all the other madmen leaders out there.
The UN should step in, in those cases. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough excuses for the US to march in (no reports of WMD, reliable or otherwise. And yes, the faulty infor about WMD was unfortunate, but it was an excuse nonetheless. A leader has to act on the information he’s been given. Thank Tony Blair for helping us out with that.)
but since the un won’t, shouldn’t we. even without the excuses? isn’t it moral?
In this case, I would. But only when we have our over extended troops pulled out of whatever hell-hole we have them in now.
Personally, I’d focus on getting Osama next; We got Saddam, so we know our troops CAN find a leader in hiding. After that’s I’d head into the Sudan; Another place where genocide and ritual female mutilation holds sway.
The problem is, without a REASON, even one that later proves to be unreliable, we’re entering into a conflict with another set of standards based off extremist religion. As I’m not trying to get approval rating from the world or even my own country, I’d say blow the current regime to hell and let God sort them out. But Bushie already has a black eye for the WMD debauchle in Iraq, so running at that windmill would be political suicide for the ‘Pubs; And for both sides, it’s about having the puppet chair of power in the next election. The two party system isn;t about doing what’s right; It’s about doing what it takes to make sure your party wins the next election. Hence my vote for Nader.
Thomas wrote: “And GHWB never had to deal with a Saddam that was comitting mass genocide. That happened under Clinton’s rule.”
You are wrong. Saddam began to use chemical weapons against the Kurds in April of 1987. The mass killing in Halabja happened on March 16, 1988, at the start of George HW Bush’s term as president. Six months later, the Bush I administration lent Hussein a billion dollars. The fact is Hussein committed his worst atrocities before the first Gulf War when he was a trusted friend of the US. And we did nothing about it. Ugly, but true.
Please do not spread misinformation.
Thanks.
It was also not known that Hussein was doing that when the money was lent. The ugliness, as you call it, was discovered in the aftermath of the first Gulf War when Hussein was temporarily crippled by the US retaliation for the Kuwaiti invasion (another excuse).
Later, Hussein continued his genocidal ways while being closely monitored with photo survelance during Clinton;s term(s), who did NOTHING except issue stern warnings about it. I’m sure he would have put together an online petition to get Saddam to stop, but Gore wasn’t through inventing the internet yet.
Be careful of your own “misinformation”.
Thanks.
Actually, I did pass on a bit of misinformation in my last post: March 16, 1988 was not the beginning of Bush Sr.’s first term; it was the end of Reagan’s second term. Sorry about that.
But the rest, as far as I can tell, is accurate.
Thomas wrote: “It was also not known that Hussein was doing that (committing acts of genocide against the Kurds) when the money ($1 billion from Bush Sr. to Saddam) was lent. The ugliness, as you call it, was discovered in the aftermath of the first Gulf War”
Where are you getting this information from? This is spectacularly wrong. The Gulf War began on August 2, 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The first news reports of the Halabja gassing occurred just one week after the incident on March 22, 1988 in the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, and the New York Times. On March 31, 1988, the conservative Washington Times newspaper published an article about the incident called “Grisly Revival of Gas” by Ken Adelman. In fact, virtually every major paper on the planet covered it. On March 23, 1988, Nightline actually showed film footage of the carnage.
In May of 1988, the US Foreign Relations Committee sent a team to Turkey to interview Iraqi Kurdish refugees and assess reports of Saddam’s use of chemical weapons. Their report affirmed the chemical attack at Halabja that left more than “4,000 people dead” as well as other incidents of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. This is more than two years before the first Gulf War.
In response to Halabja, the US Senate passed (unanimously) the “Prevention of Genocide Act” on September 8, 1988. It would have cut off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil. Reagan immediately announced his opposition to the Bill, and worked to stop its passage through the House. He succeeded. The Bill died there.
Later, in October 1989, when most international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush Sr. signed National Security Directive 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. Obviously, Bush Sr., at this point, was well aware of Saddam’s … ummm … genocidal tendencies. Your assertion that Saddam’s atrocities were not known is completely false.
Thomas also wrote: “Later, Hussein continued his genocidal ways while being closely monitored with photo survelance during Clinton;s term(s), who did NOTHING except issue stern warnings about it.”
Saddam continued to be a brutal, murderous thug after the first Gulf War, but not at quite the same horrific levels as before the war, especially in regards to the Kurds. After some initial horrors right at the end of the war when the US was slow to protect the Kurdish population, things have been relatively quiet in the northern Kurdish-controlled part of Iraq. The No-Fly Zone, insituted by Bush Sr. and maintained under Clinton, was quite successful in protecting the Kurds. They were basically living under defacto self rule.
And finally Thomas wrote: “I’m sure ?linton would have put together an online petition to get Saddam to stop, but Gore wasn’t through inventing the internet yet.”
I’m not interested in partisan sniping and related sarcastic bullshit. I never said I supported Clinton or Gore. I was addressing some or your assertions which are absolutely and completely false.
Thanks.