+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The Sad Truth

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,457

    The Sad Truth

    The Iraq war seems to have shifted its objective from find Saddam's WMDs, to bring democracy to Iraq, and then the rest of the Middle East, and to punish Saddam for crimes against humanity committed during the 1980s.

    Dems, lets be blunt, bringing Saddam to justice and encouraging (not forcing) Democracy in the Middle East are two positive things that we all enjoy.

    But would these things have happened without 9/11? Would Saddam be on trial right now for crimes against humanity if it were not for 9/11?

    Something occured to me, and I really hate to say it. I won't even say it. I'll just imply it. What does Africa have to do to get that kind of attention with its warlords, with its lack democracy and free trade, with its AIDS epidemic, child starvation, and extreme poverty. We have Operation Iraqi Freedom, but what about Operation African Survival? Does Africa need to become a threat to our security in order for us to give it a quarter of the attention Iraq gets?

    And what does this say about justice for murderous dictators like Saddam? You're only brought to court when your country loses a war? Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds in, I believe, 1987. 18 years later, suddenly we care.

    This is not the justice the Iraqi people deserve. This is an attempt to justify an invasion, not to condemn Saddam's actions and send the message to rest of the world's warlords and dictators that America and its allies will not tolerate crimes against humanity. It's sad. This trial could have saved lives.


    - Ronald

  2. 12-06-2005, 01:23 PM


  3. #2
    Lenny Loosejocks Guest

    Re: The Sad Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald
    Does Africa need to become a threat to our security in order for us to give it a quarter of the attention Iraq gets?- Ronald
    No, it just needs to discover huge amounts of Oil.............Liquid Gold.............Texas Tea.

    You are quite right, Ronald. When the world focus is on some war or other (in this case, in an otherwise desolate and barren wasteland) humanity seems to take a back seat. It's a case of mind over matter......We don't mind and they don't matter...


    And yes, many thousands of lives could have been spared if Saddam had been held accountable for his early crimes in the 80's. The fact that he was actually supported by the U.S. during this time is what most of the US/Bush-bashers are upset about at the moment, I guess.

    But as as has been said.... The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on nor all your piety nor, wit shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, nor all your tears wash out a word of it.

    (in other words, learn from it and prevent it from happening again)



    Good post, Ronald!
    Last edited by Lenny Loosejocks; 12-06-2005 at 01:59 PM.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: The Sad Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald
    The Iraq war seems to have shifted its objective from find Saddam's WMDs, to bring democracy to Iraq, and then the rest of the Middle East, and to punish Saddam for crimes against humanity committed during the 1980s.
    Ronald are you simply trying to misunderstand things or are you seriously this anti anything America does? Read the Speeches (both Democratic and Republican) since the initial Gulf War as well as immediately leading up tothe current engagement. Regime Change in Iraq was the Policy of the United States officially once President Clinton signed it into law. The only "shift in objective" is in the eyes of the Liberals who want to believe the only reason we went into Iraq in the first places was because of the WMD nearly everyone of our firends and allies believed he had.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald
    Dems, lets be blunt, bringing Saddam to justice and encouraging (not forcing) Democracy in the Middle East are two positive things that we all enjoy.
    I am glad you can admit this openly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald
    But would these things have happened without 9/11? Would Saddam be on trial right now for crimes against humanity if it were not for 9/11?
    Just my opinion here, but yes I think he would have been. While I agree with the continuation of the Gulf War in light of Saddam not living up to the cease fire agreement, I do not believe President Bush chose the proper tactic in convincing the American people. And yes, I believe once Bush was elected to office, Saddam was a marked man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald
    Something occured to me, and I really hate to say it. I won't even say it. I'll just imply it. What does Africa have to do to get that kind of attention with its warlords, with its lack democracy and free trade, with its AIDS epidemic, child starvation, and extreme poverty.
    Not sure there Ronald, Just when is Canada going to step up and help those in need in Africa. When will your country solve that problem?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald
    We have Operation Iraqi Freedom, but what about Operation African Survival? Does Africa need to become a threat to our security in order for us to give it a quarter of the attention Iraq gets?
    We? Our? Are you now admitting that Iraq was a threat to the Canadian way of life, a threat to your society?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald
    And what does this say about justice for murderous dictators like Saddam? You're only brought to court when your country loses a war? Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds in, I believe, 1987. 18 years later, suddenly we care.
    The Iraqi People are putting Sadam on trial here. He is not being tried for International War Crimes in an international court. Maybe it is a Kangaroo Court, maybe it is legit. Could be said I guess that even 18 years later, the world doesn't care to prosecute Sadam for crimes against his people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald
    This is not the justice the Iraqi people deserve. This is an attempt to justify an invasion, not to condemn Saddam's actions and send the message to rest of the world's warlords and dictators that America and its allies will not tolerate crimes against humanity. It's sad. This trial could have saved lives.

    - Ronald
    So I am not sure here what your position is. Is it better never then late? Sadam should not be on trial at all? I realize you are young, from posts a while ago where you and I discussed how you form your views.

    The Iran-Iraq war was a mess, the world was much different then as well. There was a Super Power then called the USSR and they where very much on the side of Iraq. Engaging Iraq at the time would have likely meant engaging the Soviet Union. Not something the world would have likely appreciated much as both the US and the USSR seemed to be looking for reasons to launch nuclear attacks on each other.

    About Africa

    Emergency Food Aid to Africa increased 159% from the FY 2000 (Clinton) through FY 2004 (Bush).

    Actual development assistance, excluding food aid and security assistance, will have increased an estimated 74% from FY 2000 (Clinton) to FY 2005 (Bush) in real dollar terms, or 89% in nominal dollars.

    Global Health and HIV/AIDS Initiative, which did not exist as a separate program in FY 2000 (Clinton), received $263.8 million for Africa in FY 2004 (Bush).

    The U.S. recently agreed with G-8 partners to cancel the multilateral debt owed by 18 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries.

    Ronald,

    What should our country be doing? Instead of saying "more" or something similar, explain what we should do for Africa and how it should be accomplished.

    What should your country being doing? (same rules as above)

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: The Sad Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Loosejocks
    The fact that he was actually supported by the U.S. during this time is what most of the US/Bush-bashers are upset about at the moment, I guess.
    Lenny,

    What exactly did George W Bush have to do with US support of Iraq through 1988? How is it his fault that the US supported Iraq during this time? (and I do not agree with the support of either Iraq or Iran during that time period BTW)

  6. #5
    Lenny Loosejocks Guest

    Re: The Sad Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE
    Lenny,

    What exactly did George W Bush have to do with US support of Iraq through 1988? How is it his fault that the US supported Iraq during this time? (and I do not agree with the support of either Iraq or Iran during that time period BTW)
    Ask dchristie!

    ;)

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: The Sad Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE
    Ronald are you simply trying to misunderstand things or are you seriously this anti anything America does? Read the Speeches (both Democratic and Republican) since the initial Gulf War as well as immediately leading up tothe current engagement. Regime Change in Iraq was the Policy of the United States officially once President Clinton signed it into law. The only "shift in objective" is in the eyes of the Liberals who want to believe the only reason we went into Iraq in the first places was because of the WMD nearly everyone of our firends and allies believed he had.

    I don't think Ronald is misunderstanding anything. We were sold a bill of goods by this administration that Saddam had wmd's and was either going to use them against us or provide them to terrorist. That was the stated reason for a preemptive strike against a country that did not attack us. If you've read anything by Bill Clinton, then you know that he was for regime change without a armed assault to accomplish it. I wonder if a case could be made that Bush no longer has authority to use forces in Iraq since the reasons given to authorize the use of force no longer exist and Iraq is no longer in violation of anything.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: The Sad Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by bairdi
    I don't think Ronald is misunderstanding anything. We were sold a bill of goods by this administration that Saddam had wmd's and was either going to use them against us or provide them to terrorist.
    Correction, this administration was the voice, the mouth piece explaining what the world thought it knew. This administration did not come up with any NEW evidence that WMD exisited. President Bush did connect the dots that it was believed he had the weapons and he was in support of terrorists and was a rouge leader and was very capable of delivering what he had to terrorists to attack the US soil with. This administration shared intelligence with the American people and the world that had been collected not simply by American intelligence agencies, but from agencies from Britian to the UN. AS I have stated over and over again, I think this was a bad plan. It did not however change anything about the valid reasons for going in.

    Quote Originally Posted by bairdi
    That was the stated reason for a preemptive strike against a country that did not attack us.
    They are the same reasons given by the Clinton Administration less then 5 years previously as well. Do you not understand that we never disengaged the enemy (Iraq) since the first Gulf War started. A continuation of an engagement is a far cry from preemptive.

    1991 - cease fire is called
    1992 - established a Southern No Fly Zone, launched a Cruise Missle attack
    1998 - Operation Desert Fox bombed 100 military and communication centers

    Beginning in January, weekly, sometimes daily, bombings of Iraqi targets within the northern no-fly zone begin, carried out by U.S. and British bombers. More than 100 air strikes take place during 1999, and continue regularly over the next years. The U.S. and Britain hope the constant barrage of air strikes will weaken Saddam Hussein's grip on Iraq (Jan. 1999–present).

    Quote Originally Posted by bairdi
    If you've read anything by Bill Clinton, then you know that he was for regime change without a armed assault to accomplish it. I wonder if a case could be made that Bush no longer has authority to use forces in Iraq since the reasons given to authorize the use of force no longer exist and Iraq is no longer in violation of anything.
    I listened to this Speech by Clinton posted below.

    December 16, 1998
    Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

    The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

    "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

    Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

    "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

    "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

    Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

    'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

    The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

    "Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

    The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

    Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

    "Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

    "In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

    Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

    Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

    Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

    "If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

    Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

    "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

    Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

    Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.

    "Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.

    "But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: The Sad Truth

    Clinton was so much more the statesman than that moron who is in office.

    I read this speech by Bill Clinton. I've posted a part of it below.

    A few words about Iraq. I support the efforts of the prime minister and President Bush to get tougher with Saddam Hussein. I strongly support the prime minister's determination if at all possible to act through the UN. We need a strong new resolution calling for unrestricted inspections. The restrictions imposed in 1998 are not acceptable and will not do the job. There should be a deadline and no lack of clarity about what Iraq must do.

    There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime poses a threat to his people, his neighbours and the world at large because of his biological and chemical weapons and his nuclear programme. They admitted to vast stores of biological and chemical stocks in 1995. In 1998, as the prime minister's speech a few days ago made clear,. even more were documented. But I think it is also important to remember that Britain and the United States made real progress with our international allies through the UN with the inspection programme in the 1990s. The inspectors discovered and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction and constituent parts with the inspection programme than were destroyed in the Gulf War, far more, including 40,000 chemical weapons, 100,000 gallons of chemicals used to make weapons, 48 missiles, 30 armed warheads and a massive biological weapons facility equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons. In other words the inspections were working even when he was trying to thwart them.

    In December of 1998 after the inspectors were kicked out along with the support of Prime Minister Blair and the British military we launched Operation Desert Fox for four days. An air assault on those weapons of mass destruction, the air defence and regime protection forces. This campaign had scores of targets and successfully degraded both the conventional and non-conventional arsenal. It diminished Iraq's threat to the region and it demonstrated the price to be paid for violating the security council's resolutions. It was the right thing to do, and it is one reason why I still believe we had to stay at this business until we get all those biological and chemical weapons out of there.

    What has happened in the last four years? No inspectors, a fresh opportunity to rebuild the biological and chemical weapons programme and to try and develop some sort of nuclear capacity. Because of the sanctions Saddam Hussein is much weaker militarily than he was in 1990, while we are stronger, but that probably has given him even more incentive to try and amass weapons of mass destruction. I agree with many Republicans and Democrats in America and many here in Britain who want to go through the United Nations to bring the weight of world opinion together, to bring us all together, too offer one more chance to the inspections.

    President Bush and Secretary Powell say they want a UN resolution too and are willing to give the inspectors another chance. Saddam Hussein, as usual, is bobbing and weaving. We should call his bluff. The United Nations should scrap the 1998 restrictions and call for a complete and unrestricted set of inspections with a new resolution. If the inspections go forward, and I hope they will, perhaps we can avoid a conflict. In any case the world ought to show up and say we meant it in 1991 when we said this man should not have a biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programme. And we can do that through the UN. The prospect of a resolution actually offers us the chance to integrate the world, to make the United Nations a more meaningful, more powerful, more effective institution. And that's why I appreciate what the prime minister is trying to do, in trying to bring America and the rest of the world to a common position. If he was not there to do this I doubt if anyone else could, so I am very very grateful.

    If the inspections go forward I believe we should still work for a regime change in Iraq in non-military ways, through support of the Iraqi opposition and in trying to strengthen it. Iraq has not always been a tyrannical dictatorship. Saddam Hussein was once a part of a government which came to power through more legitimate means.

    The west has a lot to answer for in Iraq. Before the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and the Iranians there was hardly a peep in the west because he was in Iran. Evidence has now come to light that in the early 1980s the United States may have even supplied him with the materials necessary to start the bio-weapons programme. And in the Gulf War the Shi'ites in the south-east of Iraq were urged to rise up and then were cruelly abandoned to their fate as he came in and killed large numbers of them, drained the marshes and largely destroyed their culture and way of life. We cannot walk away from them or the proved evidence that they are capable of self-government and entitled to a decent life. We do not necessarily have to go to war to give it to them, but we cannot forget that we are not blameless in the misery under which they suffer and we must continue to support them.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: The Sad Truth

    bairdi,

    This was after Clinton left office. It is very easy to play arm chair President and talk about how you intended things to be. I hated Clinton as our President, although I respected the Office of the President. Something that seems to get lost these days.

    After he left office and before it was pretty appearant that Hillary is likely to make a run for the office, Clinton actually spoke about a lot of things he thought should happen, could have been done better during his administration and the current one.

    He did not participate in Bush Bashing. This is not something that can be said now that it appears Hillary will possibly make a run for the White House, but now he must do campaigning and not simply say what is on his mind.

    His actions while in office are the true reflection of his ideas while in office.

    And mind you I am not attmpting to Clinton Bash here.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: The Sad Truth

    It was after he left office but before this country launched a preemptive attack against a country that did not attack us. I find it rather strange that he knew all those weapons were destroyed and that Iraq was weaker militarily but the current administration didn't. Clinton stood head and shoulders above the moron that is currently acting as president. If he could have run a third term, he would have been elected again.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-12-2012, 10:58 PM
  2. At Last--The Truth
    By Old Timer in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-23-2008, 02:35 PM
  3. The Truth About MLM
    By Rubytube55 in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-25-2008, 12:42 PM
  4. The Need to Know the Truth
    By galaxy in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-10-2007, 04:09 AM
  5. 911 the truth and the lie
    By satan in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-01-2007, 04:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, abandoned, accomplished, act, actions, administration, admit, admitted, advisors, africa, african, age, agree, agreed, agreement, ain, allowed, american, another, answer, anti, appears, appreciated, arm, arms, arse, assault, assistance, ation, attacks, attempt, attention, authority, avoid, away, back, backs, bad, baghdad, bashers, bet, better, blu, bluff, bombed, bring, bringing, british, bush, called, calling, campaign, canadian, cancel, cannot, care, case, cease, center, chance, chemicals, cli, clinto, collected, commit, common, communication, community, complete, con, constant, continuation, continue, countries, country, credibility, crimes, crisis, cruise, cry, culture, current, days, debt, december, decision, democrats, demons, des, desert, deserve, destroyed, destroying, destruction, development, dictators, didn, different, ding, discover, distract, documented, doesn, dollar, don, dow, earlier, early, east, effective, elected, ended, enemy, engagement, entire, evening, explained, extreme, eyes, face, failed, fault, final, finding, fly, focus, forces, forget, forward, fox, free, fresh, fully, furniture, gas, gassed, gave, genocide, george, give, glad, gold, great, guess, had, handed, happened, happening, hated, head, held, help, hey, him, his, hose, house, html, huge, huma, hussein, ial, ian, ime, impeachment, important, institution, intelligence, inter, international, ion, iran, iraq, joined, joy, justify, kicked, killed, kind, knew, large, last, launch, launched, leading, learn, legit, legitimate, lets, liberals, license, light, line, lives, living, longer, los, loses, lot, make, many, mass, massive, matter, mea, million, mind, minister, missle, moment, more, moron, nation, nations, need, no-fly zone, november, now, nuclear, numbers, office, officially, officials, oil, ongoing, only, operation, opportunity, order, ordered, part, partners, peace, piece, place, play, poison, poison gas, policy, poor, pos, position, positive, post, posted, posts, poverty, powell, power, powerful, preemptive strike, prepared, presiden, pretty, prevent, price, prime, progress, promised, prospect, protection, prove, proved, proven, punish, putting, quarter, quote, rated, read, ready, real, reason, reasons, received, red, regime, remember, rest, richard, rise, rouge, run, sad, secretary, security, set, shared, signed, simply, sold, solve, sometimes, special, speeches, star, start, stated, states, stay, step, stood, strike, stunt, such, super, support, supported, survival, system, table, tactic, take, talk, targets, tea, terrorist, texas, they, thing, third term, thought, threat, threaten, time, today, told, tony, trade, truth, tuesday, u.s., uni, union, united, united states, upset, urged, url, ussr, usual, vinci, viola, vital, war, wash, ways, weaker, wednesday, weeks, west, won, word, words, working, world, writes, years, young, your

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •