Wow. A lot of people share Scylla’s views on Iraq, and will note the same points he brings up that are being dismissed here as bigoted and/or false. (Which are, most likely, correct.) It’s kind of an inside joke that lefties think all right-leaning people are somewhat deranged and morally bankrupt, but I’ve never really seen this in practice. 
Scylla. Cripes. Why do you bother?
Because this board is supposedly about fighting ignorance. But, I don’t know how you can argue with someone who says removing a brutal dictator from power is ‘immoral’ as one poster suggested earlier. That makes no sense at all.
Let´s see if I follow the analogy here, you are making an example of how to carry the War on Terror, right?
So, are you impling that Saddam was the leader of whom/what?
What did he have to do with terrorism?
And Uzi,
Could you point me to that, because, honestly, I don´t see anyone saying that.
I’ll try again, Scylla. It’s apparent that your “Big Dawg” theory was taught to you by your grandpa as a means of dealing with monstrous and evil niggers in the playground.
Maybe the theory has a few problems, wouldn’t you think?
Elucidator on page 5
As an American who tries to do the same thing…I’m equally sickened.
A report comes out about preventing 9/11 and partisan sheep can’t wait to spin the report about who is more to blame…Bush or Clinton. Of course using the report to learn about how to stop this from happening again…might be good thing to do…but we we don’t have time for that…we are too busy throwing and ducking mud to do that.
Saddam is captured and partisan lemmings can’t wait to take their place on the stage and trumpet their success or still proclaim the war as immoral because young men and women haven’t found WMD in Iraq…as if finding them (i.e., meaning they would exist on this planet) would be a good thing.
Sickening? Absolutely.
Surprising? Not really. And we wonder why so few people actively participate in this country’s political system.
One trick left-wing liberal whack job pony diving off the deep end.
Check.
Does not equal
Scylla:
Yes, you did. And then went on to mischaracterize them as implying that WE was arguing that US foreign policy should be pursued in such a manner that “no one’s feelings might ever be hurt.” That was missing the point.
Yes, I agree that nothing the US has done can “justify” 9/11. But much that the US has done can, perhaps, explain it, at least to a degree.
But we are looking a quid pro quo. The same can be said in reverse: that is to say, if nothing justifies terrorism, then by your own admission nothing can justify terrorist actions perpetrated by the US, or overtly/covertly supported by the US – like the illegal bombing of Laos during the Vietnam war, for example, or the US support for the Shah of Iran, or Pinochet in Chile, just to name a few random examples.
Well, I’m not sure about Kosovo, but the Mogadishu example is really a case in point, since it was in fact intended as a projection of American force, one that simply backfired. As Iraq now threatens to backfire.
Ah, I see. Your views are based on historical ignorance. That would explain it.
You must know better than that, and I’m surprised you would yourself believe such simplistic historical revision. But what does this mean, that the Palestinians “have been allowed to continue to exist?” Do you believe that they should not be allowed that right?
Not a very nuanced analysis, I fear.
Alas, my Google skills are not up to snuff. Seymour Hersch wrote extensively about this issue not too long ago. Can’t find it, though.
Well, that’s a relief. I’m wondering how you figure a country that weakened, one literally struggling to survive in the face of overwhelming international resistance, actually might be construed as such a threat to world peace that we must invade it. In point of fact, the US invasion showed just how weak Iraq really was. Yet you still seem to view it as a threat. Please connect the dots for me.
:dubious:
Quoting again from your previous post, now for the second time: “Pretending that Saddam has not committed atrocious attacks of terror against our allies and us is just stupid.”
Is this, or is this not, an argument stating that Saddam has “directly attacked the US?” Sure looks like one to me.
You are walking proof that propaganda really works.
Explain to me again what the hell Iraq has to do with the first WTC bombing or the attack on the Cole. Or are you arguing that, when attacked by big A while walking down the street, the most reasonable response is turn around and beat the living shit out of little B, who has in fact done nothing to you whatsoever?
As far as “invading Libya,” well, you’re right: we just bombed the unholy shit out its capital city, with the express intent of killing it leader and his family, because we suspected that he was involved in someway with the bombing of disco that took the life of one – one! – US marine. Gosh. We sure are permissive.
But the US is responsible as well for bombings of the sort perpetrated by Libya. The CIA has financed bombings to take out leaders that oppose us; some of those bombings have even gone awry and killed innocent bystanders. Does that give these leaders the right to bomb Washington, ya think? The right to try to kill Bush and his family? Yes, I would argue, by your logic it does.
Regarding your story about Irv and your Grandfather, well… of course I understand your point, but you couldn’t have picked a better example of what I’m talking about. You would model the conduct of US foreign policy on the basis of a boy’s schoolyard brawl. When I was five, I had a fight in a sandbox; doesn’t mean that, at my current age, I would reduce my views on international relations to those events.
Ah, yes, one of my favorites: the old “America, love it or leave it” refrain.
Anyway, I did, you goofball. After serving my country for two years (have you, by the way? Or do you merely “reap the benefits?”) I left for the sunny shores of Sweden, which is where I now reside, here in the heart of beautiful downtown Mooseville. And while I don’t “fight it,” per se, I do my bit to stand up for what I believe is right.
Yes, I do, in a sense. I am complicit, but it ain’t my fault, because if I had the power to change things, I would.
Nope. That’s a myth. I had it spoon-fed to me as a child as well, but I grew up.
Well, we’re not responsible for what Al Queda has become since the mujhadeen won Afghanistan, that much I agree with. I didn’t intend otherwise. But we did create them (or more accurately, help create them). That is a matter of undisputed historical fact, even if you don’t buy it.
And under what conditions, do you think, does Muslim extremism flourish? What allows it to gain a foothold among the masses?
I used to get this a lot back when I lived in the States. As if one can simply pick up and move to another country if one disagrees with US foreign policy. And here I was of the impression that free thought and critical discourse were the very foundation of American civil society, one of the things that supposedly made it “great.”
I once again direct you to the homepage of PNAC, official internet organ of the neocons, and ask that you take some time to review the materials contained therein. In particular, take out an hour or so to download and skim through the pdf file entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century.”
Your tax dollars at work. Judging from your predilections, I think you’ll really like it.
Please explain why not.
If the only way to remove someone from Iraq is through the use of force, why is it immoral to do so? Personally, I say it would be more immoral to let a thug like him continue to exist in power. It is unfortunate that people have to die to rid the world, and Iraq, of his presence. But that is the way with dictators, they usually don’t go willingly.
Big Svin: Seymour Hersh: ‘A Case Not Closed’, New Yorker magazine, 1993. Doesn’t look like theres a way to get a cached copy of the story itself, New Yorker doesn’t seem to support archive searches. I did, however, find this extract:
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2001/msg00849.html
'In making its case, the Administration released a series of colour
photographs comparing, among other things, the circuit boards of the
radio-controlled firing devices seized in Kuwait and the circuit boards of
what was said to be a similar Iraqi device. The photographs were made public
by Ambassador Albright. ‘Even an untrained eye can see that that these are
identical except for the serial numbers,’ she said, holding up photographs
of the two devices. ‘Next we have a similar comparison of the insides of the
two firing devices … As you can see, the selection of the components and
the construction techniques in the two devices - including soldering, the
use of connectors, and the wiring techniques et cetera - are also
identical’.
… Most reporters - and the public - found the photographs, with their
obvious similarity convincing.’
‘One notable exception,’ writes Hersh, was an editorial in the New York
Times stating that the information presented by Albright was ‘not convincing
enough for a reasonable citizen to join her in being ‘highly confident’ that
force … was the wisest course.’
However ‘The [New York] Times editorial led to no reassessment by the public
or by the newspaper’s Washington Bureau … There is no published evidence
known to me of any effort by the [New York] Times to verify independently
the Administration’s specific claims against Iraq.’
Hersh asked seven independent experts in electrical engineering and bomb
forensics to look at the photographs.
They all told him ‘essentially the same thing: the remote-controlled devices
shown in the White House photographs were mass-produced items, commonly used
for walkie-talkies and model airplanes and cars, and had not been modified
in any significant way. The experts, who included former police and
government contract employees and also professors of electrical engineering,
agreed, too, that the two devices had no “signatures”. They said that there
was no conceivable way way that the Clinton Administration, given the
materials made public at the United Nations, could assert that the
remote-controlled devices had been put together by the same Iraqi
technician.’
The whole article, if my aging synapses yet serve, made the case that America was essentially taking the word of the Kuwaiti intelligence service, who, if it need be pointed out, clearly had a “dog in the fight.”
Though it cannot be fairly said that Mr. Hersh positively proves that the “assassination attempt” was bogus, at the very least he introduces an element of doubt.
Your question assumes the necessity. “If the only way to remove someone from Iraq…” You presume that we all agree that the removal of Saddam from Iraq was a necessity, and whatever means to that necessity were therefore justified.
But that’s not the pony they sold us. What they sold us was that Saddam was a direct and growing threat to the US, and that he was intimately involved with “terrorist groups” to that end. As you no doubt must know by now, that claim falls somewhere between dubious and horseshit.
Perhaps by your lights it is entirely kosher to change the story as unpleasant facts surface. Clearly, it is a tactic much beloved by our Admin.
The full text is available here:
November 1, 1993
A Case Not Closed
By Seymour M. Hersh
It came up in GD recently: Bush’s Whitehall Palace Speech–opinions?
**
(emphasis gleefully added)
Well, now, which is it? “Just speculating” or “for a fact”?
**
Beggin’ yer pardon, squire, but you’ve yet to prove such a thing even exists, much less that I am knowledgeable.
True to form. Self-righteous hooey supported by snide innuendo, “signifying nothing.”
Good cache, Demostylus!
goddam smartass Aussies…
Can anyone recall the last time a thread to which Scylla posted didn’t become All About Scylla? Fwiw, it reminds me a little of the dear departed december and his need for attention, no matter what the price.
Of course, for december much of the motivation was a general addiction - and, in particular, the pleasure he gleaned from notoriety - whereas with Scylla it’s pure, unadulterated egotism.
Thus I fear considered responses just provide our nuance-free political Neanderthal with material with which to wank all over his monitor.
Nonetheless, I believe the very few old timers <spit, ting!> who still chose to respond to this poster deserve credit for their fortitude, as for newbies who bother . . . I wish you well.
I’m afraid I’m with the overwhelming majority now, it surely ain’t worth even the shits and giggles. Ta ta.
Spot on London_Calling.
BTW, I saw this story this morning. Note well: I put little credence in the article since it is all based on “unnamed sources”. But I am not familiar with the British Sunday Express and I am curious if it has any credibility at all.
BTW, apologies if that story has been brought up already, I haven’t read all that much of this thread.
Well, I’m quite sure that the groom who just had his bride raped at the behest of Saddam et al would have thought it necessary, but I guess the UN was addressing such issues so there was no need for the US to get involved…I mean the UN was doing something about things like this weren’t they? :mad:
So, you are pissed that you MAY * have been lied to in order to stop a kook whose continued presence at the least caused a destabilizing influence upon its neighbours and at the worst could threaten their very existance. At least now there is some hope that the Iraqis can have a better life and the region can gain some stability. When countries are stable there is less support for terrorists who might cause things to become unstable again.
*From what I understood the UN said he had WMD, but the issue was how do deal with them: The US preferring direct action, the UN preferred to continue inspections. Maybe someone could point me to the link where the UN now says Iraq never had WMD and they were doing inspections at the time for the hell of it.
Hey, way to go, Uzi! That’s the ol’ Party Line spirit! When rational argument will not avail, wrap needless war in the trappings of virtue! This wasn’t about the threat to America, that was last month. The new! improved! Party Line is “America - Guardian of Virtue!”
When exactly, did we become the palladin of virtue? Did anyone tell such noblemen as Pinochet, Duvalier, Somoza, Nhu, Diem, Batista…oh, the list goes on and on…did anyone tell those bloodthirsty monsters that they were in big trouble if America ever finds out how naughty they were? Well, of course, we did find out, didn’t we? Remember what we did? I do.
So when did we don this shining armor? Was it after we dropped baskets full of $100 bills on the Afghan warlords? Those shining examples of noble democracy? The trouble with recent virtue, like new wine, it rather sets the teeth on edge.
“MAY have been lied to”? We’re pretty well past that, in case you haven’t been paying attention. Wasn’t even fibs, or a shovel full at a time, but an avalanche of pure horseshit, cascading over the landscape. Now, if you’re determined to dig in with a spoon, rub your happy tummy and say “MMmmmmmm! Good!” I sure as hell can’t stop you. But I’m damned if I’ll pretend its an opinion worthy of respectful attention.