War Criminal Demonstration

[Fishbone Jones]

Infanteer,

I'm trying to handle him in a couple of other threads. I'll let you deal with him here. Have fun. :

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

Steal? A person of gentle breeding NEVER steals!. They may acquire, however.

Before you acquire this quote, may I ask in what context it will be used?

Absolutely. My paper touches on the dismissal of evidence, fact or information that counters the norm by means of personalizing one's stance. I.e., those who oppose White House policies in regards to the war have been often labelled "unpatriotic", "anti-American", and in extreme cases "traitors." The story unfolds both ways...

Your post touches on this aspect, and I would like to use it...

If that is okay with you, of course. Let me know, army boy.

Lindsay

 

[a_majoor]

You may use it, but I will offer a caveat, which I hope you will also include. In an Internet thread, things are condensed a great deal. I take the time to look at lots of evidence, but it takes a ling time to record and digest, and of course replying with the 10 year fiancial reports from Haliburton (for example) is very time consuming and difficult to do with limited bandwidth. This means that you may dismiss my views as being "contrary to the norm", while if peole took the time to do the origional reserch, they might be coming to rather different conclusions then "George Bush is a War Criminal", or "BMD is weaponizing space" to use two rather notorious examples.

Your proposed paper could also include the rather interesting observation about how information can be made to dissapear on the left:  During the 1990's all the world's intelligence agencies were convinced about the reality of the WMD program in Iraq, and past evidence of Iraqi use in the Iran Iraq war, and against Kurdish civillians in Iraq were a good predictor of how Saddam Hussein would behave with new stocks of WMD. IF you peruse the records of the US Senate, you will even see speeches by Senator John Edwards warning of the immanent danger to the United States that Saddam's weapns programs posed. Somehow this has all gone down the memory hole and all we hear now is "George Bush lied".

 

[Dogboy]

well in a sense GW did not lie

Iraqi had WMD years ago heck the west sold them to Iraqi (thats why we know whet they had we have records )

But they had them all dismantled and destroyed and cleared by the UN
OK not all 100% but 98% and the 2% not found where reasonably assumed to be destroyed (couldn't find the cereal numbers but found the scrap)

 

[RCA]

All wars will have their protesters. The turn the other cheek crowd. So be it. Calling them "leftists". I don't know. The extreme left ain't exactly peacable. And the Anarchists, well I would think they belong to the extreme right.

Should Saddam been removed unilaterally by the US. His been gone is a good thing, but it has open a can of worms, and started a new US forgien policy doctrine of being pre-emotive in the name of National Security. Good or Bad. Depends on where you sit.

The problem is I do not believe that the US has an exit strategy that will end the killing of both US soldiers and innocent civilians. These "insurgents" are not fighting to return Saddam to power, but oust the "occupiers:. To what end. Take over and to become a radical Muslim state. I don't know if this would be in the US's best interest. The minute the US leaves Iraq, this will happen anyway. So they stay to stabilize the region and causalities rise. Can anyone else see the Catch-22 here.

So a question you have to ask yourselves is. If Saddam hadn't been removed, although the subjugation of Iraqis would have continued, the potential of another Iran wouldn't be there and Al Queda would no stronger or weaker then it is now. As for the argument for WMD, they could have been ferreted out and neutralized before their potential was meet.

The acual war was well planned out, but the end game was not even considered. I think that this is Bush's error. You have to think of the long-term effects before considering any option. The long term effects of the Iraq invasion will affect the world (not just the US) for a decade or more. to come.

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

You may use it, but I will offer a caveat, which I hope you will also include. In an Internet thread, things are condensed a great deal. I take the time to look at lots of evidence, but it takes a ling time to record and digest, and of course replying with the 10 year fiancial reports from Haliburton (for example) is very time consuming and difficult to do with limited bandwidth. This means that you may dismiss my views as being "contrary to the norm", while if peole took the time to do the origional reserch, they might be coming to rather different conclusions then "George Bush is a War Criminal", or "BMD is weaponizing space" to use two rather notorious examples.

Your proposed paper could also include the rather interesting observation about how information can be made to dissapear on the left:   During the 1990's all the world's intelligence agencies were convinced about the reality of the WMD program in Iraq, and past evidence of Iraqi use in the Iran Iraq war, and against Kurdish civillians in Iraq were a good predictor of how Saddam Hussein would behave with new stocks of WMD. IF you peruse the records of the US Senate, you will even see speeches by Senator John Edwards warning of the immanent danger to the United States that Saddam's weapns programs posed. Somehow this has all gone down the memory hole and all we hear now is "George Bush lied".

So far, I haven't exlcuded any of what you have just finished mentioning. My intentions are not to cut and paste your words to create a strongpoint in my paper, instead they are to present your words as they were expressed, and work them into an already developed argument. Do we still have a deal Mr. Majoor? Feel free to add anything more.

Lindsay

 

[a_majoor]

Words as a strong point? The pen really is mightier than the sword! Deal

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

Words as a strong point? The pen really is mightier than the sword! Deal

What I meant was...your words aren't creating a point, they are reinforcing one.

Thanks. Your helpful nature won't go overlooked.

 

[Pugnacious]

Here is my take on it...oh I'm sure you are all waiting for this.

Something to consider...The bus loads of people that shipped themselves over to act as human shields soon found themselves transported by Saddams millitary away from the Hospitals, and schools to military targets, like Sam sites, and millitary control centers..when they protested this "shuffle" they were told while facing a bearrel of an AK that they should then leave.

Safe to say that nobody in Iraq is going to miss this wingnut.dictator and the only people that will miss Mr.Saddam are those that benifited by his "administration", at the cost of MUCH pain and suffering of the rest of the people in the country.

But this illegal war was not about about humanitarian reasons as there are much larger hotspots in this world for human rights issues. Nor was it about terrorism, potential or otherwise.  Only Bu$h and his buddies really know what the deal is.  Maybe in 20 - 30 years we will get the full picture...maybe.

Protest away it will do no good anyway, esp' if one has no idea what the situation really is.

Cheers!
P.