Well, I certainly weep with something when I read Elucidator’s posts. But I think it’s mostly for the lack of critical reasoning and fairness disguised beneath a layer of impenetrable abuse of the English language.
For example, if you were to read his post above, you might conclude that the mass graves of Kurdish children, complete with dolls and toys, was nothing but a rhetorical flourish of the eeevil Bush administration instead of a bitter fact. It’s certainly possible to be too gullible in believing the claims of the Bush administration, but you can go to far in the other direction and be fed some amazing codswallop by people with an agenda.
See? This is what I get for drive-by posting. I hadn’t seen elucidator’s post re children in Iraqi graves. I still think you’re a kick, elucidator, but **Finagle **has an excellent, excellent point. You and Equipoise are so down on “Bushco” that you can’t view things objectively.
Well, you might conclude that if’n you was an ignernt moron. Anyone reasonably educated knows at least the basics of what happened there. I can’t speak for elucidator, but it seemed clear to me that he was talking about Bush using emotional hammers to drum up support for war that would kill thousands more innocent people.
The impression I got from reading Finagle’s link is that it refers to Hussein’s actions prior to GWI. It is my understanding that Charlie McCarthy sold GWII on the grounds that the policy of containment that had been in place since 1991 was ineffective for purposes of keeping SH from posing a threat to the US and US interests. Using pre-containment information to support that argument strikes me as more than a little disingenuous.
Feel free to provide clarification, if you can, that the link refers to post-containment graves. I’ve been known to miss such nuances in the past.
Well, thank Heavens! Don’t piss off somebody, might as well keep my day job at Hallmark Cards. OK, your dog’s dead but
He didn’t really like you anyway, so
No biggie.
But, gee, Finagle, this isn’t any fun if you don’t put up some sort of fight, when you post a pretty much anonymous hearsay from a blogger, its kind of like winning a dance contest against a spaz.
Equipoise, I admire the discipline that restrains your eloquence, so I hesitate to point out that your kind note might be improved by a few more adjectives, of the sort commonly found in descriptions of the Pyramids, cataclysms and deitys.
Starv, I don’t know what the girls at Mensa may have told you, but I am not that easy. (Maybe you have me confused with that slut, Diogenes). Dinner and a show remains the standard, and flattery will not avail unless applied with extravagant abandon.
Do you understand that the fact that at least one single child was executed by Saddam’s goons turns your sentimental epistle into the vilest shit on Earth?
I believe that there is a good argument that Saddam intended and perpetrated a form of genocide of the Iraqi Kurds. During the Anfal campaigns of the late 80s, led at one point by the infamous “Chemical” Ali Al-Majid, well more than 100,000 Kurds were killed, directly (with chemical and traditional weapons) and indirectly (by starvation, lack of shelter). It is impossible to estimate the number of dead.
Simultaneuously, many hundreds of thousands were moved from their home villages and cities to camps across Iraq. In their place, Saddam moved in hundreds of thousands of Arab settlers from the rest of Iraq.
It is true that there doesn’t seem to have been an attempt to slaughter all members of the ethnic group, as in the Holocaust. However, the Anfal campaign was an attempt to kill as many Kurds as possible, and create a diaspora-style situation which would lead to a loss of national identity. These actions do deserve the title of genocide.
Bush words might sound like “hammers” to you, because you are determined to find nothing but bad intentions in all of them. Thus, when Bush proposes to do something good, like taking out Saddam, it gives you a mental torment, probably comparable to loud din of “hammers” inside your head or somesuch. Me? I just say, “Finish Saddam? Good idea!”.
Does anybody here understand the idea of credibility?
If you have a fact you state it as a fact. You do not multiply it by a factor of 100 and throw in some embellishments just for the Baroque esthetics and the overall effect. If you fancy up the truth enough then no one will accept the nugget of fact buried in the middle of an artistic froth that has been put in for sensation and emotional appeal.
Saddam was a bad man. He did bad things. Fine. Those are facts.
Just as soon as you start saying that Saddam was a bad man because he boiled Labrador puppies for breakfast and ate them with relish then you have embellished your fact with a falsehood and you run a fair chance that the whole thing will be taken as a lie, the central truth not with standing.
Embellishing the truth is a foolish, misguided and ill advised practice. It is especially all those things when your safety and prosperity and grasp on power depends on the things you say being accepted as absolute, leather bound, iron strapped, copper bottomed verities. The truth, it is said, will make you free. An artistic mixture of truth and falsehood – not so much.
Are we now reduced to the removal of Saddam from power as the sole, lonely, naked justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Is there no claim that there was some other valid excuse for this foreign adventure – that for instance slapping Iraq around would intimidate the daylights out of AlQaida, et al? Are we certain that Saddam had to be removed from power no later that April 2003 lest terrible things happen? Are we so sure that it was so important to remove Saddam now that the sacrifice of the lives of 900 American service members was necessary, the expenditure of an inconceivable amount from the national treasury was required and necessary that the credibility of the nation be lost? Was there no way to get rid of Saddam, annoying windbag that he was, but invasion and occupation? Could we have not put up with him until some less expensive method of removal was formulated?
As the captain of the Titanic is reputed to have said as he bobbed in the North Atlantic, “Well, we did get rid of the rats. That’s a good thing.” To which I say, he didn’t really have to run into the iceberg to get rid of the rats.
We are not talking about violence of war here. It is true that Saddam didn’t kill any US children during the war and US did. But we are talking about executions of Iraqi citizens by Saddam’s goons.
You do know that at the end of GW1 our troops sat and watched as Saddams troops massacred and rounded up Shites.
So perhaps we could be called accessories because we allowed some of it to happen.
Yeah, and guess what? Many of them were somebody’s grandchildren!
And guess what else? It’s not happening now!
And while this isn’t the sole justification for our going to war, it’s a damn good thing nevertheless. A hell of a lot fewer Iraqis are being killed now than were being killed as a matter of course during Hussein’s regime, and a hell of a lot of people will survive into the future that would have been killed had Hussein stayed in power. Mothers, fathers, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will live as a side benefit because we had the courage to remove that murderous and terrorist-supporting regime (I know, I know, financing Israeli sucide bombers doesn’t really count as terrorist support to those such as you, but it does to me and it convinces me even more that Hussein would aid al-Qaeda if given the chance) from power.
Again…grandchildren are not being burned, gassed, or shot because of the U.S. That is a good thing!