Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I think you need to read where these people are coming from. It might help. Strawman. Saddam broke the ceasefire agreement that was signed after the first gulf war. He never once did what he promised to do. He was not only starving his people; he was selling oil under the table (oil for food) to enrich himself and further deprive his people of anything more than a dirt-like existence. The previous resolutions were in effect, you should also read the iraq war bill that lists the reasons for the attack as well. It's all really, very straight forward I really suggest you study up a little more here, as well. But, really, you can argue how we got there. But we are there. And things are improving, some might not be willing to admit it. But at this point, given that Iraq will have control over all provinces by the end of the year, it makes no sense to leave now. Again. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. You could make a better argument if you suggested that Clinton's lack of engagement of terrorists (pulling out of somalia, etc) gave them ideas how to successfully counteract us. They learned, rather quickly, that americans don't have the stomach for drawn-out conflicts. So the battle plan was learned and re-inforced and is now being acted upon. Again, I'd look into this as well. The history on this is not hidden. Weren't no germans killin' american before FDR attacked em! Weren't even a cold war before the berlin airlift. (both post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies that you are engaging in - still!) That's wonderful. Too bad that after the invasion, they moved to the pakistan badlands. Is your enemy still confined to afghanistan or are you actually willing to engage them where they go and where they receive support? Grim, you are in the right direction, but you're forgetting a lot of important points. And it's leading you to real errant conclusions.
Guerilla saved your butt on that one again. Guerilla - Keeping Mia with a roof over his head No, but the 500,000 kids under the age of 5 who were killed by US and UN sanctions were victims. And you can try to blame Saddam for those, but what sort of morally superior people kill a half million children to get to 1 man? Btw, didn't Saddam work for the CIA?
ahh I have read. Bush = good can do no wrong, Clinton = sucks I myself hated Clinton and extremely dislike Bush so I do not have a favorite, I call it how it is. I suggest you study up a bit more yourself, at the end UN inspectors were allowed to go where ever they wanted, whenever they wanted, our imminent threat to invade caused them to withdraw. How does any of your reasoning change the fact that under Bush more have been killed by terrorists? The answer is, IT DOESN'T. Ahh like the fact that Bush didn't take terrorism seriously until 9/11, or the fact that the US public would not have backed Bush or anyone for that matter in the scaled of Afghanistan until 9/11? Yes I suggest you take a look at history. Again this has what to do with more being killed under Bush how exactly? Germans were allies, you bringing up WWII comparisons into this is simply astonishing. Ahh yes thanks for giving this debate to me hook line and sinker here. They moved to Pakistan, which I would have supported to follow them. 'But' instead we allied with Pakistan, and instead attacked Iraq. Great sound logic there.. Creating more terrorists and giving the opportunity for the terrorists and others to attack our troops in an area we should not have been in the first place. Creating the circumstances for even more death of our citizens/troops at the hands of the terrorists while dropping the ball on the actual terrorist problem. Yep that is sound logic and a reason to jump up and down that Bush handled things so greatly. The problem is I am A. Not forgetting facts. B. Not twisting items to meet my agenda.
While I appreciate you getting your news from the world socialist sites now. LOL I suggest you read up on the oil for food scandals and how Saddam and other governments were diverting funds from the program to suffer their coffers while letting the people starve. While laying the blame of this on the US/UN is cute, I suggest you read more than the socialist sites to get a grasp on what happened. ok? When did I make this claim? I do not believe I did. Strawman. Really Grim? Come on. Inspectors had a hard time getting into Iraq and the plants for years before the invasion. What do you think prompted Clinton to launch a missile at them now and again? They had to announce where they were going (against the ceasefire), when they'd be there (against the ceasefire), and were not always allowed to go where they wanted (against the ceasefire). In office all of 8 months prior to 9/11, yet you lay it all on one guy. Yet you aren't twisting anything to fit an agenda. Okay! Post hoc ergo propter hoc! Missing the point, aren't you? I'll try again. This is the problem Grim. You are automatically supporting an ally of ours (albeit not the best) who has promised - and in some cases succeeded, in others failed - to help deal with the problem of terrorists in its borders. But you go - part of the problem. Let's git em! On the other hand, a country who has attacked an ally of ours (kuwait), who does support terrorist activities, who is not complying with a ceasefire, and killing thousands upon thousands of its own citizens you are cool with. The confusion is astounding here. Anyways, as I said, you can continue to moan about how we got there. But we are there now. And leaving as things are turning quite quickly in the right direction is stupid. So live in the past if you want. 2003 was a good year, I guess. Doing both, as I've shown. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Ad Hominem. Here are the Seattle Intelligencer, Hartford Courant and The Nation. Sanctions in Iraq Hurt the Innocent Iraqi Sanctions:Without Medicine And Supplies, The Children Die A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions So you can lose the "socialist" ad homs and focus on the facts. Btw, I don't have to lay blame. Madeleine Albright was willing to take the blame for killing 500,000 kids. In fact, she thought it was worth it to kill 500,000 kids. Great lady. I assume she is a blood relation of yours?
Whining? I just find it interesting that you believe stories where the numbers dispute themselves in the same story (!) and you don't even question it. I suppose it'll help you and your inevitable pivot later on, so I understand You should stop linking to common dreams: Numbers here are flawed and based upon assumptions (extrapolations). Tisk tisk. Fits your story, though doesn't it? The US's fault! Saddam the victim! Our fault (for the war and the result - that's a new one on me!). Fits the narrative you making, so please do continue!
Ah yes. Now you are attacking CommonDreams when they are reprinting from mainstream press. I knew you would come weak and with the Ad Homs, but this is really making you look bad and desperate. The numbers have been in dispute. I believe the final UN estimates were in fact 500,000. Of course, if you would like to go with a lower estimate, like 250,000 that's fine with me. What's interesting is that you haven't addressed Madeleine Albright's comments. Do you think it was worth it to kill 250,000 kids to put pressure on Saddam? And how come no comment on Saddam working for the CIA?
I don't believe its our fault that Saddam failed to deliver food, etal to his own people. He bears that responsibility. He had the ability to alleviate sanctions at any point with compliance. I know it's fun for you to push responsibility onto other parties, but unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Saddam made his mess with an invasion and put a finishing touch on it by not only willfully killing his own people but by starving them by not complying with the ceasefire. Put the blame where it belongs, it's really not too difficult. But I do agree with the point you are attempting to make. Had the US/UN finished the job in 1991 and ousted Saddam then (as Bush promised the Kurds), those lives would have been spared and we'd have saved billions in the process. Too bad we can't go back and change that, right Guerilla?
Right. By that rationale, we shouldn't track down criminals, we should just start holding knives to the throats of their loved ones until they surrender. If they don't give up and we kill a wife and a couple kids, it's the criminals fault. Albright clearly indicated she took responsibility. No one is pushing it. Food for Oil was a Clinton program. Shame you can't own up to what was done by our leaders. They have a lot more character than you, and I wouldn't have said that 2 days ago. The Iraqi people (civilians) have been the subject of genocide for the last 30 years. We have been there, every step of the way, supporting CIA Saddam, giving him the chemicals that would kill them, using phosphorus to melt their bodies in Falluljah. May God save their souls. Actually, if we had stayed the F*** out of WWI, then Iraq would never have been organized into the ethnic mess it has been. Of course, if we hadn't supported Saddam, the very progressive Iraq may have become a functional democracy on it's own. Or if we had not gone in during Gulf War one, and fabricated those lies about the babies in the incubation chambers, then maybe the Saudis, Iranians and Israelis would have taken out Saddam and divided up the state on ethnic lines, the way it should have been done after the fall of the Ottoman empire. That said, we were directly involved in the deaths of 500,000 children. Blockades and sanctions are technically acts of war. We chose the most despicable route of killing civilian children instead of attacking our old CIA buddy Saddam and his military forces.
As is this statement. No one said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Don't you get tired saying that over and over again? Are you hoping that if you say it enough it will make it true? I'm perplexed.
Of course not. Iraq is about the continuing genocide of the Iraqi people. 4,000 Americans have died in Iraq since the war. Quite possibly ONE MILLION (or more) Iraqis have been killed since Gulf War One, most of them at the hands of western bombs or policy. It speaks volumes to the level of media discourse, that 1 MILLION people can be killed, and it doesn't get much notice or criticism. Instead, people are worried exclusively about what the war costs, or if we will look bad for leaving prematurely. Absolutely little to no value placed on human life.
I wonder why , those who support Iraq war, not talking about more than 1 MILLION people. Is it because they are just iraqis people ?
Yes. Because they are brown and Muslim, their lives are worth less. That is why this genocide has been allowed to continue. If Ahmadinejad had killed 1 million people and created millions of refugees, we would be appalled. When we do it, it's business as usual. That's why I think that polygamy thread was so much nonsense. Kaethy was the only one in that thread who is unequivocally anti-war. Other people cry about kids being married too young and molested, while the skulls of 500,000 Iraqi kids are piled up in their backyards and they won't say a peep about it.
Never said you did, you told me and I quote I was responding to what those people say, you know the ones you wanted me to read. Yes really, at the end before the war inspectors were able to go anywhere they pleased, whenever they wanted, Saddam was caving like a scared little child. Nope not twisting one bit, using facts. Facts that you appear to not like. Is this seriously the best you can do? You had a point? An ally who is not the best of 'allies' in more than one way... I said I was 'cool with it' hmm really I did? Also it has been proven over and over Saddam was basically given the go ahead to attack Kuwait, Saddam was also once our ally now was he not? This was also well in the past. Every country can be guilty of supporting some form of terrorist activity, even the US. The point is it was not the terrorists we were fighting. What is truly astounding here is you still can not give up the failed attempt to simply admit the truth, under Bush more have died via terrorist attacks that are US citizens, under Bush the single biggest terrorist attack on US soil occurred. But nope, can't admit to facts, lets twist it off the subject, lets go to WWII of all things, lets bring anything and anything up to change the subject. Nope actually my point was that under Bush the biggest terrorist attack happened on US soil, the fact that more attacks have happened under Bush, it was you who brought other things into the conversation No matter 'how we got there' us being there has caused our troops to be nice juicy targets for the terrorists, while not really making a dent in the actual terrorist problem. Still the fact remains more have died under Bush, but lets not simply admit that, lets bitch and moan and twist and turn, because facts scare us. But you are right, we should not learn from our mistakes! We should allow our leaders to fuck up and just move on, never to question. 'Yet' you bring up the past non stop to justify going after Saddam, your logic here is not only troubling, it simply is non existent. Not one bit, you've shown nothing more than pretty much changing the rules of the game depending on your stance 'use the past for your point' but 'lets not dwell in the past' when it's against your point. Seriously this is the best you can do?
I take it you did not read Loriens post? Actually many have said it before, the point here however that obviously sailed clear over your head was as follows: He is trying to tie in deaths in WWII to those in Iraq. WWII and those we fought were either direct enemies or allies of our enemies. Iraq was NOT an ally of the terrorists we are fighting. Pearl Harbor is the 9/11 in this instance. From Pearl Harbor we attacked those who bombed us and or their allies. How you did not get this is simply amusing, but you sure had no problem to try to twist it out of context.
Actually I did... I've kinda enjoyed the smack down. Lorien always seems to have greater patience for silly posts. No, only you have. No one in the Bush admin ever said it. I've heard liberal media pundants claim it, and I've heard you say it quite a lot. Again, if you say it enough, eventually it might become true. So? The two are rather related. We are fighting direct enemies, and enemies of our allies. What's different? No, Iraq was not. Who said they were? Iraq was a country run by a dictator that refused to follow a simple set of 14 instructions doled our over a decade. Since he continued to ignore requests made by the UN and the world, the US sought to force him to do so. The result of which we see today. Iraq is, and will continue to be better as a result. This has nothing to do with 9/11. It has everything to do with the US's new mandate after 9/11 though. We are now a nation that preemptively avoids attack by heading off conflict where ever it may be. We spent quite a few years trying it the other way, and we see where it got us. I like it better this way. Yes, and we went on to attack those who did not as well GRIM. Germany never attacked us. But we went after them too. Using your logic, we should have only fought a war in the Pacific. Brilliant as usual... What is amusing is how you continue to avoid reality, overt the truth with nifty catch phrases and falsehoods, and get smacked by Lorien. To tell you the truth. I'm more amused watching this thread unfold, rather than participating in it.
Bush and Cheney. I believe that the Senate has just completed an investigation on their claims, and turned up that they were both lying.