I’m aware of the less-than-stellar academic credentials of the Washington Times’ owners. The cite I was requesting is that the Washington Times “believe[s] that Rev Moon is the Messiah and has saved the souls of Hitler and Stalin.”
Just because the paper’s owners happen to believe something whacko doesn’t mean that the paper itself is staffed by a bunch of whackos. Just as I don’t get to say that the media is liberal just because many more journalists self-identify as liberal, you don’t get to say that the Washington Times are a bunch of loons just because they’re owned by a loon.
As the Oil for Food scandal shows, the French and the Russian Federation were perfectly capable of making money from Iraq while the UN Sanctions were in effect. In fact, they were making billions of dollars. By perpetuating the sanctions, they were able to perpetuate the Oil for Food scheme through which they made gobs of money.
I doubt that Russia and France’s opposition was purely a result of their desire to make billions of dollars, but it sure didn’t hurt. Nor did it hurt that the folks making the most money off the scandal in each of the Russian and French camps were well-positioned to exert influence over their govenment’s policies.
I have no idea if they were profiting, but I doubt it was done purely out of respect for the UN or Iraqi soveriegnty. All of the countries that opposed the war had their own interests at heart in their opposition. I doubt that any of them were entirely pure of heart.
Not that I think the US was entirely pure of heart, either. But there’s just as much evidence that those countries opposed the war out of self-interest as there is that the US and UK were motivated by war profiteering or political gain.
:dubious:
Yeah, I suppose the animus is there, since the U.S. was on very friendly terms with Iraq when it made its overtures against Kuwait, and a the whole mess could have likely been avoided diplomatically. You know, saying “We’ll kick your ass,” to Iraq might have done the trick, instead of insisting that it was none of America’s business, loudly and publicly, when the international community (and the loonie left) made all that noise asking for just such actions, as Iraqi troops amassed along the border.
WMD used in Iran and against Iraqi Kurds? I recall that Iran was the bad guy then, and Saddam was Uncle Sam’s shining light. And people who said he was a thug and a despot and complained that Americans were selling arms to Iraq in support of genocide got the “Why do you hate America?” treatment. Yeah, I remember that because was one of those teeming millions in the protest marches.
It really makes me fucking sick to hear people cynically use those atrocities as justification for more atrocities now when those voices went unheeded in the eighties. Do you need a goldfish memory to be a right wing asshole?
I’m sorry, lambchops, but I’ve spoken to all the things you say numerous times over the last few weeks and months and time grows short tonight. You misunderstand some of the things I’ve said, and I have differing opinions from you on the others. We’ll just have to agree to disagree for now. My apologies.
He’s fictional? Who do you suppose those people were talking to? A ghost? A figment of their imaginations?
And there are plenty more people who apparently have attested to witnessing human shredders in use. They aren’t listed by name in the articles I’ve linked, but that’s a long way from saying they don’t exist.
They don’t? It’s not contradictory to chastise Republicans for “brand[ing] anyone who disagrees with you as ‘unAmerican,’” and also brand people that disagree with you as unAmerican?
Relying on crimes that Iraq commited at a time when they were actively supported by the U.S. to justify a war sixteen years later for which the originally justification turned out to be largely fabricated doesn’t strike you as assholery?
You misunderstand. It isn’t the actions of sixteen years ago that pose the threat I spoke of, it’s the propensity for taking that kind of action that is the threat. As good ol’ Dr. Phil says, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and the threat Hussein posed was too great to ignore. And whether or not we were allied with Iraq at some point in the past is irrelevant. At one time or another we were allied with Iran, too. So what? As you are most certainly aware, things and alliances change. What does that have to do with anything?
What do you call complaining when the US won’t stop Hussein’s aggression before it happens, and then complaining when the US stops Hussein’s aggression before it happens again?
Seriously, relax. You seem to be getting more and more outlandish as you get more and more agitated. Take a deep breath. I don’t think anyone’s trying to provoke you. We’re just talking here.
[Now would be a good time to be able to quote the SNL episode with Dan Akroyd imitating Jimmy Carter talking a kid down from a bad trip. Something about “just remember that you’re a part of the world and everything in it.”]
I don’t think “those people” talked to anyone; they just regurgitated what they read in the Washington Times.
And if you trace the stories back to their source, they go back to Joseph.
Try to think for a minute here, Age. Industrial-sized plastic shredders are huge honkin’ things. If a blood-smeared shredder actually existed in Iraq, how come American soldiers haven’t even tripped over one by now? Especially considering most of the shredder stories alleged that the atrocities occurred in Abu Giraid prison, which is just swarming with American servicemen these days…
You must’ve flunked reading comprehension in school. One quote says that it’s a common Republican tactic to brand as “unAmerican” anyone who disagrees with you (example: Michael Moore). Another quote says that the principles of this nation do not endorse punishing people because they’re expressing a dissenting view (again, see right-wing pundits vs. Michael Moore).
Entirely consistent, and entirely hypocrisy-free. Though Las Vegas is only giving me 5-to-1 odds that you’ll comprehend, since I’m actually using words with more than three syllables in them…
I know that’s tongue-in-cheek, but in the first instance, the U.S. had Saddam’s ear, and it wouldn’t have required carpet-bombing to stop his aggression, and in the second instance, there’s no evidence that any aggression was in the offing.
I don’t believe I’ve seen that. Although I can picture it well enough.
Okay, sorry I read it as tit-for-tat. With elaboration, it’s not so offensive, but it’s still quite misguided. You can’t seriously compare the actions of a despot at the height of his military power, supported by powerful allies, to Saddam’s potential threat in 2003. He was isolated. Aggression against the United States would have been suicidal. His actions in the eighties were marked by a possibilty for success. (If genocide is an enterprise which can be described as a “success.”)
You still misunderstand my concern. It’s never been my fear that Hussein would initiate aggressive action against the U.S., whether at the height of his power or not. My concern regarding the present is that he would either have, obtain, or develop WMD, and that some of these weapons could easily fall into the hands of al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group, given Hussein’s animosity toward the U.S.
As far as his fearing retribution, I have no feeling he would fear this at all. First of all, he would simply deny Iraqi involvement. Then if there are people who could provide substantiation of his involvement, he would simply deny it and call them liars, and most likely liars guided by the U.S. to make Iraq a scapegoat for whatever destruction took place. Or if it could be shown without a doubt that the weapons came from Iraq, he would claim some military officer or scientist sold the weapons to al-Qaeda, etc. without his knowledge. Then there would be calls for U.N. investigation upon U.N. investigation to determine Iraq’s culpability. And on and on it would go, ad infinitum, ad nauseum!
Well, that kind of buggers the question. Why hadn’t he already done so?
According to you, he seethes with hatred for the US and spends his days writhing to take vengeance, has just oodles and gobs of dreadful nasties (or at least dreadful nasty related programs…) and ObL is just his bestest buddy in the whole wide world…
So why hadn’t he already done so, if, as you seem to believe, he could have gotten away with it? Was he awaiting instructions from his dog?
I offer a counter-thesis, pulled out of my ass rather than yours.
If Saddam knew that ObL was planning an attack on the US, he would have dropped the dime, he would have ratted out Al Queda in a New Yawk minute. He would have realized that any such attack would be pinned on him by the neo-con cabal. Who had been loudly and publicly calling for his recieving a jolly good rogering by 1st Cav for years!
An attack by Al Queda on the US was in no wise in Saddam’s interest. A terrorist attack infurtiates an enemy without substantially weakening that enemy. Even a nutcase like Saddam knows this is a bad policy. Really bad policy.
Amen brother - speaking as a similar protester against the western arming and support of Hussein. The West supported him and turned a blind eye against his atrocities. The shit BBC (or possibly ITV in the UK) caught in the eighties from the govt for a documentary suggesting he gassed his own people was outrageous. But he was, to quote Kissinger ‘our son of a bitch’ then because the USA was pissed off at Iran for overthrowing their US installed dictator so that was alright. Just like we now support the Uzbekistan torturers, yet somehow without the usual suspects here calling for the bombs to start falling. Hypocritical shits.
Oh, you’re the gullible and irrational guy they were pitching that ludicrous yarn to.
The reason Saddam was Uncle Sam’s boy for so long is because he’s always been strongly against the influence of radical islamacists. No way would he arm them (especially with mythical WMD) – there’s no guarantee that so-armed terrorists within Iraq’s borders would take the trouble to leave before blowing their payload. Saddam’s just gonna say “Here! Have some WMDs! I don’t really mind that you guys are working with Ansar al-Islam in Kurdistan for the overthrow of my government. We’re all friends here, right? Now get thee to New York Harbor, my minions!”
Dead chidren were always “In”, together with their dead parents and grandparents executed by Saddam’s goons, and their importance was always paramount. It was WMD and AQ ties that were secondary. It says volumes how far you are prepared to distort reality, that you put WMD and AQ ties ahead of execution victims.
The prospect of Saddam posessing WMD was frightening because he was a murderous dictator, killing his own people.
The prospect of Saddam making connections with AQ was frightening because he was a murderous dictator, killing his own people.
Saddam had to go because he was a murderous dictator, killing his own people.
Can you see what preceding three sentences have in common?
Dead children were brought up by outrageously vile ‘elucidator’ post, accusing Bush of inventing Saddam’s massacres. Let’s leave them in peace. The subject of this thread was how many Iraqi people Saddam really killed and whether it changes anything. Many people used this opportunity to condemn Bush (and Blair) yet again, because so far it can be verified that Saddam killed 80 times less Iraqis than estimated before. Those people were perfectly comfortable with a larger original number of victims; now they are suddenly outraged that the number was too big. Those people are scumbags.
Regarding your preference for continuing sanctions, they certainly are an alternative to war. Just don’t try to paint them as a superior alternative, because they were also horrible in many respects, as already was pointed out by others. May be we can have an honest debate on sanctions vs. invasion someday.
I still can’t comprehend Equipose, Larry Mudd and Tagos position: because they remain pissed at US for supporting Saddam in the 80-s, they are now double pissed at Bush for removing Saddam? This is schizophrenia.
No, they’re pissed at Bush for spreading the Orwellian “Saddam is our enemy, Saddam has always been our enemy” bullshit – which gullible people like yourself keep swallowing. Especially since Saddam wasn’t always our enemy, as Bush’s dad knows dang well.
And the only reason Bush is even spreading that bullshit in the first place was because it’s the only way for him to sell the war with Iraq. “I wanna invade Iraq for its oil” wouldn’t have worked half as well as “I wanna invade Iraq because Saddam is our enemy and was responsible for 9/11” did.
You seem to have about as much contact with reality as Saddam had with ObL.
Not I, nor anyone here, as suggested any such thing. What we do resent, and rightly so, is the exploitation of such horror, coupled with the self-righteousness of the exploiters. Does one really need to point this out? Others on these boards, as you no doubt know, have used those very same figures to justify an otherwise unjustifiable war, having seen all the other allegations turn into just so much Bushwah.
Are you suggesting that we are wrong to demand the whole and unvarnished truth from our “leaders”? Or that those leaders restrain themselves from seizing upon rumor and exaggeration to support a failed argument? Or that our leaders refrain from painting themselves as the paragons of recently minted nobility?
Saddam slaughtered thousands, and we did nothing, said nothing, not even a semi-official “Tut, tut! Bad show, that.” But now that it is to thier advantage to discover a moral outrage not noted before, you are eager to serve, eager to fling turds at people who have done nothing more to you than point out the weakness of your arguments.
Recently discovered virtue, like new wine, sets the teeth on edge.
Are there not fora more suited to your adamant and unalterable prejudices? Where vituperation and bile is more welcome? Where nasty little tantrums, like yours, go unchallenged by argument and evidence? A poisonous garden of fungi, protected from the sunlight of reason, where you can blossom and flourish amongst your own kind?
OK, Saddam was a murderous dictator who killed his own people. I don’t think anyone is denying that.
But what made him more important than other murderous dictators who kill their own people, like, say, Kim Jong Il? After all, Kim Jong Il is claiming to actually have nukes. Millions of North Koreans have died of starvation. Why aren’t we in North Korea?
Bottom line: why this murderous dictator instead of all the other murderous dicators in the world?
[QUOTE=rjung]
No, they’re pissed at Bush for spreading the Orwellian “Saddam is our enemy, Saddam has always been our enemy” bullshit – which gullible people like yourself keep swallowing. Especially since Saddam wasn’t always our enemy, as Bush’s dad knows dang well.
How anyone could be as intelligent as you apparently are and yet so wrong about almost everything he says is an amazement to me. Where and when did Bush ever say Saddam has always been our enemy, and when did he ever use it as justification for the war if that’s what you’re implying.
And how anyone as intelligent as you apparently are could believe ridiculous bullshit such as this is a mystery to me as well. What is your justification for your belief Bush invaded Iraq for its oil, and where did Bush ever say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Keep this up and you’ll lose what little (and I admit it’s almost nonexistent now) credibility you ever had. Criminy!
