Conservatives seem to be the only ones applying pressure to get the documents released. Hopefully it will pay off.*d* said:
A short history of Saddam Hussein
- Thread starter TOVisitor
- Start date
No lang, the contradiction is yours:langeweile said:
You claim US vigilante-ism is justified by Saddam's crimes. But the US did sit back and do nothing, saving not a single one of those "thousands of his own people". Then it trumped up WMD as a 'danger to the world" to cloak its invasion in righteousness. The wrong of inaction can't be made right by the further wrongs of the invasion.langeweile said:
You need a policeman when the murder's being committed. The bully who shows up long afterwards, on some trumped up excuse that he's saving the world and then won't go away while he passes out the victim's possessions can be called many things, but calling him "justified"? Then blaming others for not piling on with him? Contradicts morality, common sense and the facts.
You offered "two wrongs don't make a right" on your first pass as a first excuse, will it be "better late than never" this time round? I'd suggest "go forth and sin no more" as a more desireable aphorism, but just as it took many deaths and years for the US to accept what was obvious early on to the rest of the world about Viet Nam, so to in this instance. It's too soon.
oldjones said:
So what is Canada gonna do about Darfur..since we are the bullies. How long are we going to sit back and watch people die?
You complain about the USA doing nothing for year, and yes you are right we (and the world) has let it go on for too long...but you can't change the past.
AGAIN...tell me what is Canada doing about Darfur?
http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-2-2/26209.htmloldjones said:
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/108117321274.htm
There is nothing a few armoured vehicles can't fix...rigggghhhtt!!! especially after the fact.
At least everybody can sleep better now..
And the US—the nation that you say had to act because 'Saddam slaughtered thousands of his own people'—has done pecisely what about this mass slaughter of civilians under the auspices of their own government?
It always was a hollow casus belli, and the longer you go on raising it lang, the more it's obvious the real reason was a one-off, whether because, "he tried to kill mah daddy", or for the oil, or for more US presence in the Middle East, or …. Whatever you like, but no one's buying the "we're humanitarian" hypocrisy.
It always was a hollow casus belli, and the longer you go on raising it lang, the more it's obvious the real reason was a one-off, whether because, "he tried to kill mah daddy", or for the oil, or for more US presence in the Middle East, or …. Whatever you like, but no one's buying the "we're humanitarian" hypocrisy.
Whatever get's you through the day? Like they say "put up, or shut up".oldjones said:
It is always very easy to sit on the backbench and complain and don't be accountable.
It is much harder to stand up and be counted.
Hamas is getting a taste of that medicine, and maybe Canada too one day.
Uh, lang, you're in the wrong thread, this is the one w/ the cute video about Saddam the CIA plant. Hamas threads are a dime a dozen on the forum, but not here.
Now, in this thread, you were saying how upright it was for the US to betray its stooge after ignoring his crimes for years …? Or were you going to give a current instance of American benevolence in Darfur, first?
Now, in this thread, you were saying how upright it was for the US to betray its stooge after ignoring his crimes for years …? Or were you going to give a current instance of American benevolence in Darfur, first?
And if the policeman isn’t there when the murder is committed? How about preventing him from committing more murders by hunting him down and locking him up?oldjones said:
Is this post an example of your “force of intellect” you sarcastically attributed to Cinema Face? We are all very impressed.
So we're back full circle to, "Who appointed the US policeman of the world, and what kind of a policeman are you if you ignore the crimes—maybe even abet them—when they're being committed?". Please start your review at post #3 and do try to keep up this time.arclighter said:
When I do, I don't see any post fromCinema Face. Are you carrying grudges over from somewhere else? Perhaps you could quote his "force of intellect" here, to keep things straight.
Still wondering why the world's policeman is silent/inactive about Darfur.
We don't have unlimited resources. We do what we can.oldjones said:
Here is the quote:
"The sheer force of intellect in your post. Breathtaking!
Although you did leave the words "left" and "dems" unmodified by insulting ajectives, there may still be time to edit, if you hurry."
You posted that yesterday, and you don't remember? You might want to see a doctor about that.
Sorry arc, what I clearly asked you to quote was his (that'd be Cinema Face's) words from our exchange in whatever other thread they were posted in, since you've dragged the matter into this unrelated one.
I hope your trouble reading doesn't lie deeper than new glasses. Should I suggest a doctor for you?
I assume the "We don't have unlimited resources. We do what we can." part of your post was the excuse for invading Iraq out of self-proclaimed humanitarian motives, while ignoring Darfur. Has the US done anything at all concrete there, does anyone know?
Of course, if the option was the same "world policeman's" attention they've seen in Iraq, the locals in Darfur might just prefer to pass.
I hope your trouble reading doesn't lie deeper than new glasses. Should I suggest a doctor for you?
I assume the "We don't have unlimited resources. We do what we can." part of your post was the excuse for invading Iraq out of self-proclaimed humanitarian motives, while ignoring Darfur. Has the US done anything at all concrete there, does anyone know?
Of course, if the option was the same "world policeman's" attention they've seen in Iraq, the locals in Darfur might just prefer to pass.
I have stated many times that the US didn't need "an excuse" to invade Iraq. Iraq broke the terms of their unconditional surrender by shooting at our planes protecting the Kurds (on an almost daily basis) and not allowing unfettered access to weapons inspectors. Technically this put them in a state of war with the US from almost day one. Apparently GWB isn’t a strong believer in the policy of appeasement.oldjones said:
Please accept my sincerest apology for the quote faux paux.
My reasons aren't "consistent with the reasons given by the Administration". But they are factually correct.DonQuixote said:
If Bush had used my justification, it would be much easier for him to defend his actions in Iraq. Oh well, live and learn.
And for the record, we shouldn't take chances with rogue regimes that are giving the appearance of hiding WMD activity. Especially when they conceded these WMD programs in their capitulation agreement.
Rocket science.. NOT!
MW
Any government that offers an ex post facto justification for war is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. When it comes to reasons for war, ya gotta dance with the one what brung ya. If you're wrong, you can't change partners to exculpate yourself. War & peace is not a multiple-choice test; guesswork doesn't count, let alone win extra points. Bush belongs on the same gallows as Tojo, Yamashita, Ribbentropp, and Goering.DonQuixote said:
MW
Sorry DQ, but you are wrong. Congress authorized President Bush to use force if he deemed it necessary. Their (Congress) continued support of the funding of the Iraq war implies further consent. Without the Iraq War Resolution, your point would be valid.DonQuixote said:
If it's not returning to old ground, arc, I think your rationale is as hollow as the "world's policeman"—if it's not that very argument in new guise—because that unconditional surrender was to the United Nations task force, not to the US.
The USA could hardly claim to be acting to maintain the UN's surrender terms in defiance of explicit UN resolutions denying the use of force and continuing the inspections. Thus the 'necessity' of trumping up the WMDs—"Look out, he's gotta gun, he's gonna shoot"—to justify shooting first, when the real policeman's saying, "Stay cool, we'll handle this and no one will get hurt."
lang, who raised the "world policeman" argument has apparently retired, but I'll ask this hypothetical question anyway. Hitler: By 1939 known badguy, bully and thug, well-known to have killed many of his own people, including Jews, and having intentions for more of the same. The League of Nations impotent. Suppose Joe Stalin had obtained the agreement of one of Germany's neighbours to stage from there—Poland would be as handy as Saudi Arabia was to Iraq—and invaded "because [Hitler had] killed (and was in process of, no two decade delays here) thousands of his own people"? Suppose the Soviets had pledged to stay until the German people had rebuilt and a true People's Democracy was secured?
Sounds to me awfully like the argument put forth at the top of this thread. Doesn't one self-appointed WP beget another? Care to comment? Or do we leave that for …?
In case you care, I find the scenario as objectionable as what did occur (sameresult, but after many more millions died). But I'm intrigued by those who would defend what I see as a very similarly objectionable action, just "because it's us". But then I shouldn't put words in other people's mouths. Maybe they'll say, "Get'im Joe!"
The USA could hardly claim to be acting to maintain the UN's surrender terms in defiance of explicit UN resolutions denying the use of force and continuing the inspections. Thus the 'necessity' of trumping up the WMDs—"Look out, he's gotta gun, he's gonna shoot"—to justify shooting first, when the real policeman's saying, "Stay cool, we'll handle this and no one will get hurt."
lang, who raised the "world policeman" argument has apparently retired, but I'll ask this hypothetical question anyway. Hitler: By 1939 known badguy, bully and thug, well-known to have killed many of his own people, including Jews, and having intentions for more of the same. The League of Nations impotent. Suppose Joe Stalin had obtained the agreement of one of Germany's neighbours to stage from there—Poland would be as handy as Saudi Arabia was to Iraq—and invaded "because [Hitler had] killed (and was in process of, no two decade delays here) thousands of his own people"? Suppose the Soviets had pledged to stay until the German people had rebuilt and a true People's Democracy was secured?
Sounds to me awfully like the argument put forth at the top of this thread. Doesn't one self-appointed WP beget another? Care to comment? Or do we leave that for …?
In case you care, I find the scenario as objectionable as what did occur (sameresult, but after many more millions died). But I'm intrigued by those who would defend what I see as a very similarly objectionable action, just "because it's us". But then I shouldn't put words in other people's mouths. Maybe they'll say, "Get'im Joe!"
