Subject:
|
Re: From Reason: "It's all bad news - Chaos in occupied Iraq"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 Apr 2004 19:11:30 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
609 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello wrote:
| |
| |
...and, like SH, Marcos was supported by Washington.
|
I’ve always thought that this was a silly criticism, true twenty years ago,
during the Iran/Iraq war we supported Hussein as the lesser of two evils, you
act as if we furnished his palace and rolled out the red carpet. We often
have dealings with foreign leaders with whom we disagree, I really don’t see
the point.
|
Well, the point is that to justify his choice to invade Iraq, Dubya condemned
Hussein for using chemical and biological weapons against his enemies and his
own people. Dubya did not mention that these were the very same weapons and
delivery systems that the US had supplied to Saddam. If Dubya had any
integrity, he would have said “We gave Hussein these weapons to use against our
common enemy. It was a mistake, and we are reponsible for that mistake.”
The point is that Dubya painted Hussein as a perennially dangerous madman, but
Dubya never bothered to acknowledge that he was dangerous mostly due to the
assistance that the US had given him.
| |
First off the action in Iraq was no more illegal than any military action we
have taken since WWII, including Kennedy’s Vietnam or Truman’s Korea.
|
Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant; three wrongs don’t make a right,
regardless of which president commits them.
| |
I personally believe that this is the most moral war we have been involved
in. In a post 9/11 world...
|
That is exactly the false connection that Dubya wants people to make. There
is no connection between the events of 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq. It is
reprehensible and the height of intellectual dishonesty (but hardly surprising)
for Dubya to justify a war of aggression by appealing to xenophobia and racism.
| |
the US president needs to adequately deal with all
threats. He cannot simply bury his head in the sand and hope that no further
innocent American lives will be lost to terrorists.
|
Give me the number of American lives lost to Iraqi terrorists in the last 10
years.
| |
Wow, now that is spin, encouraging Iraqi’s to rise up against their oppressor
is called divide and conquer.
|
But encouraging Iraqis to rise up against a culturally naive occupying force is
terrorism?
| |
| |
Some of these things are a matter of culture. I’m sure they find the US porn
industry just as offensive.
|
Agreed, although if they find US porn offensive, they would flip their lids
at some of that European stuff, our porn is relatively mild.
|
No way! American porn is second to none! Now that’s patriotism!
| |
Look I am not a blind Bush kool aid drinking follower, and I do not share his
optimism about the success of democracy in the middle east. It is really hard
to force a group of people accept freedom, actually a dichotomy in terms.
supported this war because I agree with Bush, Blair, and all of the UN
security council that Iraq posed a threat, and after 9/11 the United States
can no longer afford to take any threat lightly.
|
Your continued conflation of 9/11 with the unwarranted invasion of Iraq earns
you another swig of Kool-Aid.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
163 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
