Debate and Discussion

Saddam hangs !
lothar at 5:57AM, Dec. 31, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
what's up with this hanging thing? didn't we get over that in like 1890 ? anyway i think it's rather shamefull to see people celebrating and carrying on as such because a man was killed. don't get me wrong , i'm not a big fan of saddam , but it seems kinda sick that everybody is so jubilant about this. what do you think ?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
ozoneocean at 7:56AM, Dec. 31, 2006
(online)
posts: 25,008
joined: 1-2-2004
Oh I agree completely. It's the spectacle of the macabre. Certain sad, unevolved people find that sort of thing amusing. Some people, who could only be described as fools, feel some kind of celebratory vindication, as if he was an enemy of theirs who has been rightfully smitten. The only people who have a right to feel that way are various members of the Iraqi, Iranian and Kuwaiti populations who actually did suffer as a result of Sadam's actions. And even there, Kuwait has always been a pretty privileged, well looked after sort of place, and the only Iraqis that suffered because of Saddam were his political opponents, the Kurds, the families of the poor young men he sent to war etc, Iran suffered the worst because of his US sponsored wars and his liberal use of chemical weapons, but Saddam would NEVER be tried for THAT crime because then certain nations would have to admit that they actively encouraged it as well as BLOCKING movements brought against him in the UN at the time. ;) The US and Britain can be rightfully blamed for the state of Iraq before the current war due to their stupid sanctions and blockades.

It's a symbolic and meaningless death that won't calm the current situation, but it will make some Iraqis feel a bit better. It's just a pity most of those are returning exiles. -like the ones mostly responsible for encouraging the war and the chief sources of the invented WMD “evidence”, hmm.

But as for capital punishment, many countries have outlawed it completely, and to have executed the leader of a country you are actively occupying after invading sends a very, very dark signal.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 4:37PM, Dec. 31, 2006
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
Those first few sentences basically described Americans. Yay!
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM
ozoneocean at 4:50PM, Dec. 31, 2006
(online)
posts: 25,008
joined: 1-2-2004
Atom Apple
Those first few sentences basically described Americans. Yay!
They could :) But not all Americans feel that way, I'm sure. Quite a few Australians , British, and the peoples of many other countries would probably follow that description as well.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Eirikr at 12:28AM, Jan. 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,634
joined: 2-7-2006
I agree completely. So he's dead. Yippee. Know what's changed in the world as a result? In the words of Darth Helmet, “Absolutely Nothing!”
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:19PM
Finwik at 4:03AM, Jan. 1, 2007
(offline)
posts: 9
joined: 9-12-2006
I think ozoneocean might be brilliant. I can't find anything he said that I can argue or disagree with. and maybe we SHOULD say MOST americans. I don't like getting grouped and then stereotyped.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:29PM
Aurora Moon at 6:03AM, Jan. 1, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
yeah. I'm American and the whole thing was just.. blah. I didn't even care that he was dead. I was just thinking: “Why the big fuss? it was clear that even if he lived, he wouldn't had been able to get back into power. and even then, not as powerful as he was before. He had nothing to do with the whole terrorism deal. he didn't even have wmds like people supposedly said! It's like everyone forgot osma bin laden! it was because of osma bin laden that this whole stupid war got started in the first place. shouldn't people still be looking for him?”
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
Lords_of_Darkness at 10:31AM, Jan. 1, 2007
(offline)
posts: 134
joined: 4-5-2006
lol last night i saw a firework call Osama's Turbin Bomb. I felt kind of like I was played just by having something that sounds like a dirty bomb next to me. But yeah, I don't care if he died. Sure he needed to be disposed of for f**king with his own people like he did but I agree with Aurora, Sadam wasn't a MAJOR threat. Osama was the problem. I would say lets make a glass creator the size of the Middle East, but then I'd sound like most of my coutry. So I'll say this, Lets pull a Boondock Saints(awesome movie) and go over there with a couple pistols and kill all the insurgents and Al Kida(Spelling).
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
lothar at 12:19PM, Jan. 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
i guess most people don't get it ! the whole trial was a puppet show ! they didn't try saddam (as 0zone said) for the REAL crime of gassing the curds , he was convicted and hanged for some “minor” (minor only in comparisonn to the other thing) charge !
Because; if they had tried him for the gassing thing, it might have come to light that rumsfeld was in on it too !! OMG ! then they would have to hang old rummy too !!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
Lords_of_Darkness at 12:22PM, Jan. 1, 2007
(offline)
posts: 134
joined: 4-5-2006
Not saying your wrong or anything, so don't take this the wrong way or anything. But what was he tryed for? I thought it was for the Curds…?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
ozoneocean at 1:01PM, Jan. 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,008
joined: 1-2-2004
He was tried for a couple of things related to the “crimes against humanity” idea. -if starting a useless war isn't a severe crime against humanity, I don't know what is!
But anyway, I think I remember one of the things was about collective punishment meted out to the people of a town after a failed assassination attempt against him and some charges related to the gassing of some of the Kurdish population of Iraq (but of course not all of them, just the few hundred that were in those towns when the clouds drifted over, or however it worked…)

What I was referring to however was the Iraq/Iran war. You might remember it? It was massive in the 1980's. Literally millions died. Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians. Thousands died and many more were made seriously ill. This was MUCH worse than the Kurds and it happened before. The use of Chemical weapons was already a war crime too.

I'm pretty sure they were supplied to him by Britain and of course the fact that he had considerable support from the US is well known. The Iranians Protested about the use of Chemical weapons in the UN, but whatever they did was blocked because a certain group of countries preferred that Iran didn't receive any help… But fortunately for the Iranians they still managed to beat Saddam back anyway despite his powerful sponsors. ;)

So yes. Saddam's regime committed terrible war crimes with the full support (moral, financial, military etc.) of the people who've just executed him for that very offence. The irony hurts my soul.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Lords_of_Darkness at 4:52PM, Jan. 1, 2007
(offline)
posts: 134
joined: 4-5-2006
if it was up to me, I'd put him in a firing range and tell them to shoot his legs till he dies…
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
mapaghimagsik at 1:26AM, Jan. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
There were some interesting elements that wanted Saddam killed *right away*. It was a demonstration of power by the Sadrists, who defacto own Bagdhad. Its interesting because the Sadrists are the targets of the new escalation going on, but everything that is done is done at Sadr's behest.

The US had a definite interest in not letting Saddam be tried for the gassing of the Kurds. Curds are a dairy product, Kurds are an ethnic minority in Iraq and Turkey. Well, since the US and Briton provided weapons in the proxy war with Iran, including the chemical weapons, that's not something the US would want done on the world stage.

For the truly macabre, there's a cellphone video of the hanging. Saddam refused a hood. I guess being a heartless murdering bastard, he knew it was coming, and knew how he wanted to go out.

I can't help but thing if the tables were turned, the current US president won't face his death the same way, and is happy sending other people to do his dying for him.

Saddam's hanging gives Bush something positive to say at the State of the Union. It gives the warbloggers one last wargasm before reality hits again. It does *nothing* on the ground in Iraq, other than remind the Sunni that they are fucked under a Shiite dictatorship. I don't think it gives Al-Maliki any breathing room.

It makes Iran *very*very* happy. But certainly not happy enough to actually help us.

On a side note, *of course* I had to do a “Saddam is dead” comic. Its mandatory for the political comics.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
kingofsnake at 7:34AM, Jan. 2, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
I can't afford cable so the only channel I have is NBC, which seems to be nearly 24 hours of news/talkshows. I have learned this much: The more I know about politics the less I wish I knew about politics. So, now I just listen to bbc1 (which is almost all music, and compared to american radio the amount of quality music and lack of commercials is outstanding) and play Katamari, or I watch an early 70's kung fu movie on mute. When I saw on yahoo that saddam had been killed i thought “meh”
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
Ronson at 2:21PM, Jan. 2, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I understand your disinterest, kingofsnake. The only problem is that if you ignore events going on around the world, you're not going to understand when something big happens that pulls the rug out from under you. I had hoped that if nothing else, 9-11 would have done that. But instead, most Americans bought the stupid “they hate us for our freedom” rationale that the flag waving criminals fed us.

Saddam was a bad guy. Because of him thousands died. He was not elected into office. He gassed people (with gas bought from us and our allies) and we propped him up for more than a decade. We pulled our support when it was convenient to us, and we invaded Iraq due to some pie-in-the-sky neocon wet dreams.

And I know it's said fairly often, but I don't think often enough, Saddam and Iraq had absolutely no connection to Al Queda or 9-11, had no WMDs (chemical or nuclear) and everything the weapons inspectors said prior to the war were 100% correct in regards to WMDs.

I don't care that Saddam is dead. One less cruel dictator in the world. Fine.

But there's one crazy leader that has started a war with no rational reason, destabilized a stable government after winning the war, caused the deaths of 3,000 of his own soldiers and well over 60,000 innocent citizens of the opposing country.

His army used uranium tipped weapons – that is, WMDs – to conquer the opposing country and there's eveidence that uranium depletion causes many diseases and birth defect for years to come.

His army also used white phosphorous - which burns on contact - on the opposing country's citizens just to light up the darkness. That's using chemical weapons on innocent victims. Children and women were injured and killed in the application of white phosphorus.

So, what do you think we should do to someone who has caused the deaths of more than 63,000 people and used WMDs and chemical weapons against a country that had not even attacked them?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
marine at 7:58PM, Jan. 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,425
joined: 1-6-2006
Well guys, one good thing came of this, I've got some really hilarious images to put macros on…

I could show some if Ronson would allow. Some are REALLYfunny.

To contribute my opinions:

I don't care. Saddam had to die one way or the other, and hanging him was cartoonishly funny. I just hope when I get excecute, its by being chased off a cliff by topless rollerblading japanese women.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:52PM
Vindibudd at 8:11AM, Jan. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Gawd, Ronson, you WOULD turn this into a Bush Diatribe.

As for why are people making a big deal? The same reason people have made a big deal for eons whenever an oppressor got his. Saddam murdered millions of people. He is responsible for all the problems that country had. Oh, yeah, mean old America and Britain made all these mean stupid sanctions. Oh wait, maybe Saddam could have been less of a jerk and then there would not have been the sanctions? No that's too hard to understand.

Anyway. Good riddance.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Ronson at 9:12AM, Jan. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Vindibudd
Gawd, Ronson, you WOULD turn this into a Bush Diatribe.

I notice you figured out who I was talking about, even though he was unnamed in my post. Very good, at least we agree on the actions taken, now if we only thought about them in the same way. ;)

My point is that it's all relative morality. All of a sudden, Bush supporters talk about the horrible things Saddam ordered, ignoring the horrible things Bush - and other wartime leaders - did. I understand the need to ignore the ugliness done to defend the US from it's enemies, but I don't understand the need to pretend like we have more enemies than we do (did).

As for why are people making a big deal? The same reason people have made a big deal for eons whenever an oppressor got his. Saddam murdered millions of people. He is responsible for all the problems that country had. Oh, yeah, mean old America and Britain made all these mean stupid sanctions. Oh wait, maybe Saddam could have been less of a jerk and then there would not have been the sanctions? No that's too hard to understand.

Anyway. Good riddance.

Three points:

1. The US put Saddam in power. His actions were ignored until he became a political liability to the US, and then we fought him.

This is established fact. We paid for Iraq to fight Iran. The Russians paid Iran. The only reason I point it out at this juncture is that we've pretty much selected the government and leaders in Iraq today. Hopefully none of them become the next Saddam, but I'm not overly optimistic.

2. Saddam didn't murder millions.

He murdered thousands. I don't know exactly how much difference that makes, but I can only find he directly ordered the chemical attack of Halabja, where 5,000 died and 10,000 were injured. You can conceivably bump that up to a million as a result of the Iran/Iraq War where 1.7 million died.

But the fault of wartime casualties is a difficult thing to lay at any leaders feet, whether it be a Middle East skirmish, or the nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities.

Interestingly, Saddam's death sentence only specifically mentions “Specific charges included the murder of 148 people, torture of women and children and the illegal arrest of 399 others.” … he was never tried for the thousands he gassed in Northern Iraq.

3. I'm glad he's dead.

All that I've said doesn't diminish the fact that while he was alive there was the chance he could have led a coup and really destroyed any chance for Iraq to heal. Personally, it would have been better to kill him in his spider hole instead of putting on a comical and ridiculous show trial where the verdict was written before the trial ever started.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Vindibudd at 9:43AM, Jan. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006

Ronson
1. The US put Saddam in power. His actions were ignored until he became a political liability to the US, and then we fought him.

Saddam actually came to power with other military leaders staging a coup. The US did not, in fact, “put” Saddam into power. There is a difference between offering military and financial support after the fact and doing so before the fact. Source

Ronson
This is established fact. We paid for Iraq to fight Iran. The Russians paid Iran. The only reason I point it out at this juncture is that we've pretty much selected the government and leaders in Iraq today. Hopefully none of them become the next Saddam, but I'm not overly optimistic.

The United States did not provide arms to Iraq until it became clear that Iran was winning the war. From 1982 to 1988, the US supplied arms. Furthermore, Iraq's military was primarily supplied with arms from the Soviet Union.Source

Ronson
2. Saddam didn't murder millions.

This is not really worth arguing about. He murdered lots and lots of people.

Ronson
3. I'm glad he's dead.

Glad to read it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
lothar at 10:59AM, Jan. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006

the fact that the trial was censored says a lot about this new “freedom” that is being installed in Iraq! the whole thing is bullshit,
Ronson and Mapag' made some good points back there and the only people that are gunna argue it are just nit picking , i'm not talking about bush or saddam , look at the bigger picture, this is about the gradual slide of civilization - back into mideval chaos !

but then again , maybe we were never realy civilized to begin with ?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
kingofsnake at 11:21AM, Jan. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
Ronson
I understand your disinterest, kingofsnake. The only problem is that if you ignore events going on around the world, you're not going to understand when something big happens that pulls the rug out from under you.

Ah, but just because I choose to ignore events doesn't mean I'm unaware of them, or don't understand them. It just means I've decided not to stress out about them, or spend more time thinking about them than absolutely nessecary. Especially if it's something I don't have direct control over. It's needless waste of concern. For example, the iraq war, I've heard a bunch of the positions on what we should do to wrap it up. The argument I've found most concincing is the “send more troops” argument. It's what the troops in iraq think we should do. In order to end this we need to police the country and train the iraqi troops to police the country themselves. They only have enough troops to do half that, which is why the war has dragged out so long. Pull troops now and we end up back there in another ten years or so. It's a pretty sound logical argument and I think it's probably the best idea. Will it be what happens? Probably not, the nation is war-weary, the whole thing is expensive, and approval ratings are such a big part of everything that no one dares to support it (except aparently McCain who's got balls like watermelons.)Am I going to think about it any further? Am I going to go on TV and argue the point? Am I going to concern myself with what actually happens? Not at all. I'd have a better chance trying to convince hollywood not to make an “Oceans 13.” Theres no sense getting worked up about these things. It's unnessecary. 10 years from now most people will have forgotten about this situation, they'll be concerinng themselves with some new temporary situation. Meanwhile, I'll still remember Wordsworth, and Blake, and Cervantes. I'll still remember Kant, and Kierkegaard, and Satre. And thats whats really important.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
lothar at 11:29AM, Jan. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
OMG ! kingsnake , i can just imagine some German guy saying something exactly similar as hitler was rising to power ,
people keep there heads in the sand like that long enuf and its gunna catch up, you won't have the luxury of talking about shity hollywood movies , you'll be haul'n ass up into the hills to avoid UN or chinese bombs !
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
Ronson at 11:33AM, Jan. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Vindibudd: Fair enough. I think that our sources say somewhat different things, but if Saddam was guilty of all the things listed in your first source, why did we back him later? Never mind, the fact is that finding a Middle Eastern leader without a lot of blood on his hands isn't easy. Which is kind of my point as well. What would a look at Saudi policy show us, and why aren't they the monsters Saddam was?

Lothar: Actually, things might be changing in the other direction. Before the internet, there was very little primary source information out there in regards to current events. It could be that with the access we have today, the light shone upon atrocities might make them become less likely. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, they say.

Kingofsnake: You're right in many ways. Though you may someday make a pivital difference on a global scale. Don't sell yourself short.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
kingofsnake at 11:55AM, Jan. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
lothar
OMG ! kingsnake , i can just imagine some German guy saying something exactly similar as hitler was rising to power

You COULD imagine it, but it would be just that: imaginary. Because hitler's tactics included inspiring fear of an external enemy, reinforcing the notion of germany as the dominante, ruling country in the minds of it's citizens, and avoiding ethical debates by focusing people's attention on goverment funded programs to drastically improve the quality of life of citizens and the demonization of said external enemy (in his case, jews, and every other country that stood against germany.)

His stance wasn't “Do what I say and don't bother trying to stand up against me because it won't make a difference” it was “Make the people think you're the enemy if you're standing up against me without letting them know thats what I'm doing.” The former stance would've blown up in his face because en masse people are very stubborn.

My stance is to be aware of the situation only as much as nessecary, and only to act if your actions will make a difference, (even a small one is worth it.) It's a little more buddhist and a little less Nietzchean than I think you're supposing it. The greatest german minds fled Germany to an opposing nation (america or UK) because they realized to fight there would be suicide and they could make greater and more lasting impressions on the world by fighting else where, and not nessecarily with their fists.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
Vindibudd at 1:26PM, Jan. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
Vindibudd: Fair enough. I think that our sources say somewhat different things, but if Saddam was guilty of all the things listed in your first source, why did we back him later? Never mind, the fact is that finding a Middle Eastern leader without a lot of blood on his hands isn't easy. Which is kind of my point as well. What would a look at Saudi policy show us, and why aren't they the monsters Saddam was?

Lothar: Actually, things might be changing in the other direction. Before the internet, there was very little primary source information out there in regards to current events. It could be that with the access we have today, the light shone upon atrocities might make them become less likely. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, they say.

Kingofsnake: You're right in many ways. Though you may someday make a pivital difference on a global scale. Don't sell yourself short.

Well, the United States is only interested in one thing and one thing only, national security and a vast difference in the levels of power between the rest of the world and the United States. Freedom? Democracy? Bull****. Look at it this way. National security is a car. The United States wants the car. Freedom and Democracy in other countries are like A/C and a CD/Radio player. Everyone wants a car with A/C and the Radio, but given the choice between walking and a car without the perks, everyone will take the car. Does that make the US evil? Only as evil as every other country in the world. The US works on certain values that people at the founding of the country could get behind. Not every country can be like the US. In fact, it is RARE for that to happen.

But don't sit there and lecture me about starting unjust wars et al. This country, INCLUDING the LEFT WING in congress, decided that national security was at risk. 3000 soldiers dead is NOTHING when you are contemplating hundreds of millions dead.

Right or wrong, that's how they rolled. If you or I were in the office, it might have been different. But we can't know because we don't know what they know or knew and it is unlikely that we will ever know what was really going down. Saddam threatened national security in the minds of enough people to get himself a necktie. Oh well. I'm not crying for anyone that gasses innocent people for the hell of it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
ozoneocean at 1:46PM, Jan. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,008
joined: 1-2-2004
Vindibudd
But don't sit there and lecture me about starting unjust wars et al. This country, INCLUDING the LEFT WING in congress, decided that national security was at risk. 3000 soldiers dead is NOTHING when you are contemplating hundreds of millions dead.
Ok, a lot of interesting things have been said in this thread, and a lot of stupid things too. That is the stupidest of them all, bar none. Sorry, but there it is.
You did make some good points previously about the Soviets supporting Iraq as well for example, but here you just lose it so badly it gets embarrassing.

I'm sorry, I've said all I need to on this particular debate in my two main posts, this is just a comment on what I see as silliness. But even so, I don't want to offend. Perhaps we could stay off of the reasons for the current invasion and stick to stuff about Saddam? There are more than enough threads devoted to that hopeless war anyway.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Vindibudd at 3:00PM, Jan. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
ozoneocean
Vindibudd
But don't sit there and lecture me about starting unjust wars et al. This country, INCLUDING the LEFT WING in congress, decided that national security was at risk. 3000 soldiers dead is NOTHING when you are contemplating hundreds of millions dead.
Ok, a lot of interesting things have been said in this thread, and a lot of stupid things too. That is the stupidest of them all, bar none. Sorry, but there it is.
You did make some good points previously about the Soviets supporting Iraq as well for example, but here you just lose it so badly it gets embarrassing.

I'm sorry, I've said all I need to on this particular debate in my two main posts, this is just a comment on what I see as silliness. But even so, I don't want to offend. Perhaps we could stay off of the reasons for the current invasion and stick to stuff about Saddam? There are more than enough threads devoted to that hopeless war anyway.

Well why is it stupid? Is it incorrect? Do you not like it simply because you don't agree with it? Do you think if there is a choice to be made between a hundred million civilians or 3000 soldiers, which do you think they are going to go with? Do you not accept that premise? Do you know everything that these politicians saw before the invasion? Do you have a Hall Pass From God? Neither do I.

All of this and I was not in favor of them rolling into Iraq. Can you believe that? Oceanzone? I bet your head just exploded.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
ccs1989 at 3:23PM, Jan. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
Vindibudd
National security is a car. The United States wants the car. Freedom and Democracy in other countries are like A/C and a CD/Radio player. Everyone wants a car with A/C and the Radio, but given the choice between walking and a car without the perks, everyone will take the car. Does that make the US evil?

Considering that the US is the country you live in, shouldn't you want that country to be better than the rest, with Security, Democracy, AND Freedom? If we don't have freedom and democracy, we're just another country. I'm sure as a dictatorship we could be secure, but I sure wouldn't want to live in a country like that.

“A man who trades his freedom for security will find at the end of the day that he inherits neither.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin

Also when you're talking about the fact that the Democrats in Congress voted for the war, they did so because the Administration gave them false information and hopes. Bush lied about the WMDs. If you want to look for historical connections to this war, look at the Mexican-American War. Abraham Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war – an alleged Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right to attack another country “whenever he shall deem it necessary,” Lincoln observed, would make it impossible to “fix any limit” to his power to make war.

Over a hundred years later we run into a situation where the president has attacked another country after he deemed in necessary and tricked Congress with false fears. Anyone remember Colin Powell getting in front of the UN, telling them that a vial of chemicals that the Administration gave him could kill thousands of people in it was released, and that this kind of thing was in the hands of Saddam? Turns out THAT was a lie. Powell later apologized, but said that the Administration had told him that was the case.

Anyway Vindibudd, it's good that you didn't support the war, but I still don't see why you are so against what we're saying.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
Vindibudd at 5:05PM, Jan. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
ccs1989
Considering that the US is the country you live in, shouldn't you want that country to be better than the rest, with Security, Democracy, AND Freedom? If we don't have freedom and democracy, we're just another country. I'm sure as a dictatorship we could be secure, but I sure wouldn't want to live in a country like that.


You misread what I wrote. The United States is not primarily interested in freedom for other countries. I said nothing about freedom in this country.

ccs1989
Also when you're talking about the fact that the Democrats in Congress voted for the war, they did so because the Administration gave them false information and hopes. Bush lied about the WMDs.

Bush did not lie about WMDs. You can not sit there and tell me that YOU KNOW that BUSH KNEW there were NO WMDs in Iraq, and that FURTHERMORE, HE INTENTIONALLY started a war under DEMONSTRABLY FALSE pretenses.

The only difference between Bush and the Left is that Bush did something about it. The Left was all about Hussein having WMDs, they just didn't have the balls to fix the problem. You don't believe me? Believe President Clinton then:

President Clinton on February 17, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.” Source

That's just one quote. I can find you several others.
ccs1989
If you want to look for historical connections to this war, look at the Mexican-American War. Abraham Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war – an alleged Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right to attack another country “whenever he shall deem it necessary,” Lincoln observed, would make it impossible to “fix any limit” to his power to make war.

This has nothing to do with anything about the Persian Gulf War or it's sequel.

ccs1989
Over a hundred years later we run into a situation where the president has attacked another country after he deemed in necessary and tricked Congress with false fears.

This is a blatantly false statement and you cannot prove it.

ccs1989
Anyone remember Colin Powell getting in front of the UN, telling them that a vial of chemicals that the Administration gave him could kill thousands of people in it was released, and that this kind of thing was in the hands of Saddam? Turns out THAT was a lie. Powell later apologized, but said that the Administration had told him that was the case.

A lie is when you say something is true when you know it to be false. You cannot prove that the administration knew this to be false at the time it was said.

ccs1989
Anyway Vindibudd, it's good that you didn't support the war, but I still don't see why you are so against what we're saying.

I am against you spreading false opinions as if they were fact and not even bothering to research them. Look, you can hate Bush as much as possible, knock yourself out if that's what gets you off, but you cannot beyond a shadow of a doubt back up any claims that you are making. And I am talking about legitimate news sources, not like MyUncleCommiePinkoBlog.com or something lunatic like that or Freerepublic.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
ozoneocean at 7:03PM, Jan. 3, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,008
joined: 1-2-2004
Vindibudd
Well why is it stupid? Is it incorrect? Do you not like it simply because you don't agree with it? Do you think if there is a choice to be made between a hundred million civilians or 3000 soldiers, which do you think they are going to go with? Do you not accept that premise? Do you know everything that these politicians saw before the invasion? Do you have a Hall Pass From God? Neither do I.

All of this and I was not in favor of them rolling into Iraq. Can you believe that? Oceanzone? I bet your head just exploded.
It's stupid because anyone who believed that rationale then or now would have to be rather simple, as you know ;). We can leave it at that. As I say, there are ENOUGH Gulf war threads. We've been over this a hundred times and I'm afraid that expert belief as well as popular opinion (from all sides of the political spectrum), is coming around to viewing the whole thing as a mistake and farce from beginning to end- the same view people like me and maybe even you had before the war even began- there's almost 100% consensus that it was a mistake…

So, whatever. Talk about poor old Saddam or start a new thread where you can discuss the war and occupation (again), and try and spread the blame for it onto the politicians you don't like so much, or whatever makes you feel a bit better about it. :)

And no, my brain's doing ok thanks. Although if you can somehow make these posts narcotic or even just alcoholic, that'd make brain expolsion more likely and I'd be eternally grateful!
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved