Oh. Well, that settles that, I guess.
Unfortunately it was a *lie * then, told for marketing purposes. You knew that too, of course.
Now about your insistence that Clinton is just as much a war criminal as Bush - care to drop that foolishness yet?
:rolleyes: Come on now. *Do * try to be honest.
They mean different things. But if you want to insist on using them interchangeably, then explain how either applies to only Milosovich and not to Hussein.
Well, if you have a cite that the majority of Iraqis would prefer that Saddam were still in power, let’s see it.
There’s a difference in degree in what they did, but not in kind. You have yet to counter any of the points I’ve made, and have in fact made several factually incorrect assertions. I said I didn’t think either was a war criminal, but if you insist that Bush is one, you need to explain how his actions differ in kind from Clinton’s. You haven’t done that.
Some of them are. Most of the conservatives and moderates on this board are at least able to see Bush as something like what he is, though I don’t think they see it with the clarity that people on the left do. But you know and I know that there are a lot of people out there who are totally cool with torturing any Muslim raghead the US can find who seems Al Qaeda-ish, no matter how flimsy the proof. And they’re totally cool with the invasion of Iraq, either unwilling to admit they bought a lie or unconcerned with the lie. They are scum. They’re vile cretins who don’t deserve to live in the land of Jefferson, Lincoln and Washington. They belong in some stinking Third World cesspool where you can be hauled in for questioning and disappear any day of the week … 'cause they’re OK with that sort of thing.
I really hate thinking about Americans like that, and I didn’t used to, but by damn that second time they elected Bush, they crossed a fucking line, as far as I’m concerned.
You can first provide your own definition. I do not intend to play your favorite game, “Semantics”, with you, nor let you pretend you haven’t meant what you’ve said.
If you can actually *underatnd and address * what you’re being told, let’s see that. :rolleyes:
Clinton told the *truth * about his reasons for wanting to end the Serbian/Bosnian genocide, as demonstrated by his subsequent actions. Bush lied about his reasons for his Iraq invasions, as demonstrated by his own actions. You do know that as well, but apparently you enjoy petty argumentation even more. 
You confuse making an assertion with making a point. A point is supported. You’ve only handwaved and repeated.
What part of “war of aggression” do you *still * not understand?
I said I’d accept that they are synonyms. Now, explain how Milosovich was different from Saddam wrt to either or both of those terms.
Which brings me back to my original question. No one has answered it so far, so perhaps you’d like to: “So, it’s OK to wage aggressive war as long as you don’t lie?”
No, I corrected your factually incorrect assertions. For instance, you claimed Russia was the only barrier to a UNSC resolution backing the Kosovo war. That was incorrect. China was against the action as well. The military action against Serbia violated the UN charter and the charter of NATO. Just like the war in Iraq did (although it wasn’t really an issue for NATO). I’ve already said they differ in degree, but they do not differ in kind. If you think they differ in kind, what are the facts that support that view? I’ve given you mine. You’ve done nothing but state an opinion without one supporting fact. Not one.
The Kosovo military action was not defensive, hence it was aggressive. We were not being attacked. We might have been defending the Kosovars, but then were defending the Shi’a and Kurds in Iraq, too.
I think the majority did fear him, but a good number tolerated him and others supported him. I assume that based on what did happen, not on what the administration told us to expect.
Most Iraqis wanted Saddam out? Maybe, but I have strong doubts that was so when they experienced the price for removing him. Protests against invasion were mostly ignored or repressed, and one of the first big lies of the invasion was the toppling of the Saddam statue:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3024.htm
Months later in some papers, but never on the headlines, was the revelation that the toppling of the Saddam statue was a Psy-ops US military action:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001971815_statue04.html
Less than a year after the invasion:
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17867/article_detail.asp
That was back in 2003, the other articles are more optimistic! Yet, one has to remember how the situation has deteriorated since then. Around early 2004 there were polls showing a slight approval of the invasion (It was pure coincidence that an election in the US was coming, right after Bush got reelected I remember then that hard line actions to deal with the insurgents in cities controlled by them was increased); then polls in 2005, specially in a secret poll made by the British, showed that the numbers got much worse for the US. Today it is not a bad guess to assume the numbers are worse than in 2005.
As the Shiite protests in favor of Hisballah showed, it is MHO that Iraqis are way past the time they thought of us as just occupiers, many now see us as colonizers.
It could be worse, also during wartime Nixon won reelection by more than 23 points, in 2004 Bush barely made it over 2%. Also since today 60% think the Iraq war was a mistake I think one could be mad at them in 2004, but I can not be angry now when Americans are uniting against the war mongers.
I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing. None of what you’ve posted contradicts anything I said, btw.
I don’t think your assumptions, (like this one btw) are safe at all.
Taking you at your word, and assuming that you’re not posing the question for its annoyance value…
No. Of course not. But I sincerely doubt that the aggressive war would have been possible without the lies. This war was packaged, focus grouped and sold like so much Ovaltine. Without the lies, without the fear and misplaced rage, this war would never have happened, GW’s bluster would have been ignored as quickly as if he were threatening to colonize Mars.
It only has annoyance value if you want to play fast and lose with terms like “war crimes”.
So, is Bush or Clinton (or both) guilty of war crimes? Assuming that your earlier post about war crimes was relavent to the discussion and wasn’t posted simply to smear one of them as a war criminal w/o the inconvenience of having to actually prove it.
So, you’ve posted some info that the toppling of the Saddam statue was staged, and you posted (with no cite) that by 2004 only a slight majority of Iraqis approved of the invasion. How does that contradict anything in my post? Was I negligent in not adding “Bush is a poopypants” at the end?
I’d still be interested in knowing what you think the difference is, if in fact you weren’t making that claim merely for the fun of argumentativeness.
Just did. Scroll up. :rolleyes: And *do * learn to spell.
I did ask you to try to be honest. I’ll ask that again. Take down your strawmen if, in fact, you are actually interested in an actual discussion here. That is less apparent with every post, unfortunately.
You didn’t get *that * point, either. The action to stop the genocide in Yugoslavia was by, and on behalf of, the bulk of the civilized world (China as well had, and still has, its own good reasons not to support the cause of human rights in so direct a manner). The action in Iraq was *despite * the desires and interests of the civilized world. Got it now? :rolleyes:
Cite? Relevance, for that matter?
Already stated. Do a text search on “genocide” on this page. :rolleyes: Really now. You *do * know better; I’m sure of that.
Excluded middle, between two false premises at that. You know that, too.
Now do yourself a huge favor. Step way back, take a long, deep breath, and reconsider if this is *really * a view, or line of reasoning, that you wish to associate yourself with, if simply acting out your favored gadfly role is really contributing anything useful here to anyone, least of all yourself. Okay, pal?
Just for clarity’s sake, here you can read all about the principles which the civilized world declared to be crimes against humanity, not all that long ago, and upon which rest our claims ever since to be the “good guys”. I do understand that this post is wasted upon those, like our interlocutor here, who dismiss it as mere “winner’s justice”, but it has its importance nonetheless. It’s short and public domain:
Ignoring that that was to show that saying that “We actually were greeted as liberators-- for the first few weeks.” to be an ignorant thing to say.
I posted the polls before in both the pit and in GD, maybe you missed them, but most likely you forgot. In any case, I pointed to the poll of 2003 to show that around the time we were killing Saddam’s sons and capturing Saddam 2/3 of Iraquis wanted us out in a year, or wanted to follow a system of government like Saudi Arabia (no democracy) or Iran (democracy for fanatics) it is not clear still that Iraqis wanted Saddam out so you are the one that is dodging a cite. The biggest Iraqi support for that idea came from exile groups commanded by weasels like Chalabi. That showed to me that the Bush administration flushed down the toilet the lessons of the Bay of pigs regarding another exile community: don’t ever rely on information from exiles with axes to grind.
That would have help. 
Really, on top of ignoring the lessons of the past, Bush following Chalabi’s advice to fire all military and police forces in Iraq ended up helping the insurgency and Iran, allowing what in all intents was a mole from Iran to be close to the president was bad enough, stalling investigations against Chalabi points to Bush liking what he got. With the cover blown the investigation against Chalabi and administration leakers has stalled for reasons that now amount IMO to butt covering only, truth be dammed, stay the course!
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/10962352/iran_the_next_war/5
Why? Just because it was staged (if it was) doesn’t mean we weren’t greeted as liberators. Are you contending that the Iraqis who participated in the shoe-slapping did so under duress? All the polls that I saw showed (and continue to show) that most Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone, and did support the invasion (at least in the early phase). That’s all I’ve said. Do you really need me to dig up those news articles from 2003? Now, do you want to quibble over whether “approved of the invasion” = “viewed as liberators”? If so, then I’ll pass on that semantic debate.
You want to launch into a discussion about how Iraqis want us out now (actaully, I think the polls show they want us out “sometime soon”). I don’t dispute that and that doesn’t contradict anything I posted. I specifically said that Iraqis now view us as occupiers.
And just to be clear: Bush is a poopypants! 
Elvis: It’s nice that you’ve posted that cite for war crimes. Now, take the next step and apply it to both situations. There is no way you can claim that Bush is guilty under those terms and that Clinton isn’t. The Kosovo military action violated the UN Charter, plain and simple. So, unless you don’t consider that to be a treaty, it was a “crime against peace”. Your handwaving of the objections by the Russians and the Chinese sounds just like the handwaving we heard by Bush et al of the objections by the French, the Russians and the Chinese in the lead up to the Iraq War. You’d make a terrific neocon!
I’m not sure then what to call a request by armed soldiers to get on the pulling tank and celebrate.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10224234&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=68561&rfi=6
It seems to me that most of the [del]Gosh darned[/del] “Alash darned” “we are glad for the invasion!” numbers showing support were based on questions regarding wishful thinking for the future, like asking for example if they think Iraq “will be in better condition five years from now than it was before the U.S.-led invasion”.
Also the British poll from 2004 with the horrid numbers was done in secret, IIRC the people polled thought it was Iraqi students making the questions for an Iraqi university, the best poll numbers for the west are obtained when western media identifies as the questioners, I do think knowing who is making the questions has tainted the results in our favor, and I think fear (unfounded in this case but still there) makes many Iraqis tell the west what we want to hear.
I have to mention here it is fascinating to check back on how reports can apparently say one thing and in reality the opposite was true, this war remains a treasure trove for propaganda researchers.
You missed the bolded “they want us out in a year” from 2003.
No problem there, the more than a nitpick item still remains that it is not safe at all to assume Iraqis were mostly glad for getting rid of Saddam, doubtful just before and during the invasion and a doubtful thing to assume in recent times.
And to be clear also: I’m glad Saddan is gone, but there was a chance to do a Haiti maneuver and send Saddam to exile, and leave most of the military and police power base in place, but there would not have been any propaganda footage from that, or oil and contracts for Bush’s cronies, so never mind.
Only the BBC bothered to correct the record by reporting that the celebration was staged, to this day outfits like FOX (I still remember one reporter saying gleefully that “this footage is gold” for the Bush administration) and CNN and the other big three have not bothered to correct the record yet.
What other evidence do you have to present that we were?
Apparently you don’t understand *any * part of “war of aggression” any more than you understand “genocide”, then. Go do your homework.
Repetition =/= cite, as already explained (but, sadly, not grasped).
Further, UN =/= civilized world, not with the Security Council permanent members each having a veto. If you don’t get that distinction by now, there’s not much hope you ever will.
No, I think you’re wrong on that. This 2005 ABC poll shows that in 2004 well under 50% of Iraqis thought it was wrong for the US to invade in 2003, although the number is about half now:
That’s not an inference from questions about optimsim about the future, but a direct question about the invasion iteslf. Nevertheless:
And…
Now, I’m not presenting that as some shining example of how great things are, but clearly only a minority wants us “out now” even if they disapprove of our presence longterm.
Polling Iraqis has got to be a problem. If a white guy with a translator shows up, they’ll probably tell him something different than if one of the Shia militia types asks.