Now there's an obtuse parallellogram with one convex side! Let's see: We might have gotten engaged in a war because of the resources of the country in which the war occured; but, since we didn't make use of those resources, that still makes a plausible excuse for waging war, because it could have made sense had we done that. Hmmmmmm.
Indirectly, we are making use of the resources. Consider the lucrative contracts to Halliburton, for example. We are not going to pay Halliburton millions to rebuild the infrastructure over there and not expect payment from the Iraqis eventually.
Whereas in Rwanda, the country really had nothing of value in exchange for our intervention, so we did nothing.
Let's see. That was nineteen ninety, what, FOUR when the Rwandan genocide took place. Now, which Bush was in office then, or was it Rumsfeld or Cheney making those right wing conspiritorial one world order decisions? Or was it someone else? And who was it that sponsored your senior trip to Da Nang? Let me get this straight.
mwild31, great post. Let me clarify something that you and the Hatchetman have erroneously picked up. In my original post, I never gave Bush credit for using genocide as an excuse for the Iraq war. I said he had other reasons, but the result of the war is that we took out a genocidal maniac. To ME, that made it worthwhile. Bush had other reasons. The only Bush reason I can connect with is the WMD reason. I say, without benefit of a specific definition of a WMD, that Saddam was a WMD, based on his history of genocide.
To your point that we should go down your list of violating nations and "correct" them also, the doctrine that the UN drew up and passed in the early 1950's says, "Yes, we should." We, in this case, being the UN member nations. It'll never happen, mwild31, until the UN can somehow transform itself out of the gutless, empty talk, amoebic state it finds itself in today.
Para'michaelmoore'Beagle does seem to have a rather loose grip on the truth about the oil situation. He might want to read up abit on the shenannigans of France and Coffe Anan in the pre-war exchange of food and cash for Iraq's oil. Seems the US has not benefitted at all from the oil conspiracy Parabeagle tries to lay out. but, hey, that's what being a Democrat is all about. You roll out theories and see no need to support them. It's the glitz of the theory that counts, not the truth of it. It's gotta be another right-wing conspiracy headed up by Bush and Haliburton and Kryptonite. And Skull & Bones is lurking there somewhere. (Use corn shucks - save a tree).
Well, let's see now, LeslieC. My mother came from a strict Republican upbringing where the word "Roosevelt" was not allowed to be spoken; my father was a social sympathetic who would argue, for the sake of arguing, any point my mother espoused (read Democrat); and us three siblings, having absorbed the extremes of both, mutated to the status of being fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. Were you that girl at the end of the table that we all wondered aloud at times, "Who's that girl at the end of the table?"
that was me. I sat quietly absorbing it all, and occasionally passing the mashed potatoes. Dont recognize that name ("Roosevelt" you say?) Any relation to Teddy? TR was the only Roosevelt we heard of in our home.
My Dad sat right behind Frankie D. at Speaker of the House Bankhead's funeral in Alabama. He was a relative. I heard that story a hundred times. Dad said he always remembered how Delano's hair went down the back of his neck, like he needed a haircut.
oh right, Yes in my family whenever we travelled on what is now the "FDR Drive" in NYC we still referred to it as the "East Side Drive". (ofcourse my dad still refers to JFK Airport as Idlewild, its original name).
Gee, Larry, your strange definition of what a WMD is would also apply to Bush.
To kill one man (Saddam) since you say Saddam himself was the WMD, has wiped out over 30,000 Iraqis (estimated) and several hundred Americans, and spent a couple of hunred billion American taxpayer monies. I wonder if you ever suggested to Bush to use an assassin rather tha 130,000 American troops?
And I'm waitng for Bush to claim that Saudi Arabia is a terrorist state now that they were willing to give amnesty and support to terrorists.
Hatchetman, without the luxury of being able to personally reread my post to you, I must prevail on you to do it yourself. This time, please note that I used the term WMD WITHOUT definition and in the context that it relates to genocide.
In answer to your question about, whether I have ever "suggested to Bush to use an assasin", I'll have to admit that, no, I haven't. I'm not that close to the man and I don't know if he would listen to me anyway.
Referring to your comment about Saudi Arabia giving amnesty and support to the terrorists, I assume you are talking about the ultimatum that they gave to the terrorists to come clean, or else. I'm not a real fan of Saudi Arabia, don't trust them much, and at this point I don't really know what they have in mind here. But I think it's too soon to call their ultimatum, "support". However, based on the logic you've revealed in arriving at other conclusions, I can see how you got there.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-29-04 AT 09:32PM (CST)[/font][br][br]The fact that you gave an example or a criterion, in this situation, makes it is a form of a definition -- you said that Saddam was himself a WMD I guess becaue he ordered genocide -- one that should be applicable to other indiviudals as your conditions are met. While it was specifically related to genocide, I take it that anybody who orders or commits mass murder in thousands by your "definition" would be an WMD. It is Weapons of MASS Destruction, after all.
I don't think the criterion you gave by your example is valid because the term "weapon" does not normally refer to an individual (except perhaps as a trained fighting person). My point of saying that Bush could be also a WMD was to try to establish how off your definition (example or criterion) is.
I'm sure you weren't arguing, by your example, that only Saddam Hussein was an WMD. I'm sure that you weren't saying that if 20 or 30,000 Iraqis get killed uncessarily by American war machine that the person who ordered it is not an WMD using the same rationale.
Again, let me ask, do you know when the last genocide occurred under Saddam's rule? IF it occurred in the early 90's and invading Iraq wasn't necessary in 2003 to stop genocide, would you agree that if we killed 12 to 30,000 Iraqis as a result of attacking and invading Iraq that would make George W. Bush a weapon of mass destruction under your description?
Hatchetman: A weapon of mass destruction, given the context in which they were originally discussed, is typically a chemical or biological agent which, upon release, may or will injure, kill or maim several people, usually a large number of people. An individual is not a weapon of mass destruction. Stop already with the odd analysis. By extension, pornography meets your new definition of a weapon of mass destruction. So might a Big Mac. So might an SUV. A clearer example familiar to you and others on the far left would be the shiney, silver instruments found in an abortion clinic.
watch now, because Hatchetman is going to now assume you favor bombing abortion clinics (I am beginning to understand his 'logic' -- now that's scarey )..
The United Nations, of which we are a part, had given Saddam many chances to stop making weapons of mass destruction. Inspectors were sent in to Iraq and still Saddam would not let them conduct inspections when and where they needed. This was the beginning.
Saddam wanted to show the world that HE did not have to live by the rules of the UN, HE could do what he wanted, when he wanted and since HE was the boss, NO ONE, even the UN, could tell him different. This has gone on for YEARS with the UN giving Saddam many LAST chances!
Well the US finally backed up the LAST chance even though the UN were too cowardly to do it!
Is the UN this formidable force that countries respect? Don't think so!
Does every country KNOW that American will fight for freedom and justice? YES!
I'm proud of my country and of all of our soldiers who fight for the rights of others! I admire these courageous people who are willing to give their LIFE for the rights of others.
Larry C maintains that Saddam himself was a WMD because he committed genocide. My position is that Larry C's argument doesn't make sense since, unless the person is a trained fighter, a person is not considered a weapon (save perhaps for the terorist bomber). Larry C',s osition was the one you are questioning as well.
Hatchetman, Hatchetman. You seem bent on straining the context of the points being made regarding genocide and forming your own brand of abstract analysis (logic is not the right word here) to criminalize Bush in your own mind. Fine. Be my guest. Even start your own thread, if you want. If you go back and read my various posts, you'll see that I neither defend nor attack Gearge Bush. My intent was to bring to light the result of the Iraq war as it fits into the history of genocide. Then again maybe you won't see. It's hard to see the forest through the Bush in your sights.
Laryr, you are the one who created the odd situaiton by saying the Saddam himslef IS a Weapons of Mass Destruction.
All you had to say is that because Saddam committed genocide that he needed to be captured, tried and if found guilty, punished and that JUSTIFIED the war against Iraq. There is no reason to have illoogically gone through a circuitous route to try to justify the war on a claim of WMD (when none could be found) because you consider Saddam himself to be a WMD.
The fact that you tried to bring in the WMD issue as an explanation was ridiculous.
So, Hatchetman, is it your position that having acted on what was reasonably thought to be reliable intelligence information, the administration should have been able to gaze in some crystal ball and know with certainty that by an exact date in the future, the weapons would not yet have been found to the satisfaction of the Democratic 'leadership' of our country? Or do you hold that having had such intelligence information, and believing it to be reasonably accurate, we should have delayed until some point in time when we had photographs and samples, knowing that while we fiddled, Rome would likely burn? Or, is it your position that no matter what information we have, we should not ever act? Or, is it possible that you actually HAVE NO position other than to stand in opposition to whichever and whatever decision the administration makes? And, upon searching, should you find that you DO actually have a position, would you please state what it is. Note: Hating Bush does not count as a viable position and is not an acceptable answer.
My position on the war was tha tI did not see the immeidacy to attack invade and occupy Iraq on a pre-emptive basis that overturned about 50 years of bipartisan foreign policy.
Remember, the UN was investigating at the time -- Blix and his team were on the ground and checking into WMDs. The were reporting at that point none were being found but of course they had more to do. And Blix wsas no reporting that Saddam was preventing them from investigating at that point.
Remember, we had air control Northern and Suthern Iraq where Iraq planes if they flew into those areas were being shot down.
Given that President Bush kept changing the rationale for going to war against Iraq in 2003 and early 2003, it seemed ot me that that was an indication Bush didn't have the definitive evidence showing Iraq was an immediate threat to the US in 2002 and 2003.
So, I ouwld have allowed the UN team to complete its investigation make it's report and then decid what to do.
If you recall Bush didn't want to go to the UN at first but wanted to attack Iraq in mid 2002. But the American peopel and foreign policy people finally convince Bus to make a case before the Un which Powell tried to do with "KNOWN" evidence of WMD's annd that the US knew where they were -- remember the photos?
So, the answer in short is no, at that point in early 2003 I ddi not see the attack, invasion and subjugation of Iraq as needed to protect the US. It certainly wasn't part of the war against terrorism.
Hatchet: I appreciate your response and respect your position. Thanks for stating it. I guess what really 'gets' me is those who insist that GWB 'LIED' to the American people. That has an inflamatory basis and isn't particularly useful or helpful. I do not believe that the man lied. To have done so naturally requires that he knew certain pieces of information were false and acted fraudulently and perpetrated some great conservative right-wing hoax. In that regard, I believe that Bush and his handlers, if anything, may (MAY) have acted on information that was not entirely the best intelligence. But, time will tell. I'm still holding out for the WMDs to be 'surfaced'. Blix had an agenda just as Ken Starr had an agenda. (I'll buy you a beer. BUT, only a cheap one!)
Hatchetman, I totally agree with you! I just wish we could fix your typing...(smile) me thinks your brain moves a whole lot quicker than your typing finger(s). I think I need to move back to CA for political reasons...
Hatchetman, your words,"All you had to say is that because Saddam committed genocide that he needed to be captured, tried and if found guilty, punished and that JUSTIFIED the war against Iraq", indicate that maybe you're starting to see my true point. I'm sure you noticed that this process is currently underway.
An interesting sideline here is that Saddam stood up in Iraqi court and said, "Bush is the real criminal here." That's quite an ally you have there. Is that you I hear screaming, "GET OFF MY SIDE, YOU GENOCIDAL MANIAC!!"
Larry, I don't think the war against Iraqa was justified.
Let me ask again, do you know if Saddam was "committing" (ordering) genocide at the time we attacked or was the genocide or did it occur in the arly 1990's? If the latter then what geocide was stopped by the war.
If the genocide was being committed just prior to the war against Iraq, I sitll say it wsasn't necessary for us to go in without world support nd involvemtn. There are too many countries that can be said, I guess to be committing genocide, yet Bush isn't threatening them. The fact is that Bush didn't offer up regime change because of genocide until after the 9/11-connection argument and the WMD's argument were offered. It wasn't Bush's primary reason for attacking Iraq.
I am not an ally of Saddam. The man committed genocide and is a criminal. But again, our war against Iraq in 2003 wasn't necessary.
Comments
Whereas in Rwanda, the country really had nothing of value in exchange for our intervention, so we did nothing.
and it wasn't Da Nang. It was Beijing. x;-)
To your point that we should go down your list of violating nations and "correct" them also, the doctrine that the UN drew up and passed in the early 1950's says, "Yes, we should." We, in this case, being the UN member nations. It'll never happen, mwild31, until the UN can somehow transform itself out of the gutless, empty talk, amoebic state it finds itself in today.
Did we grow up at the same dinner table? Your analysis is frightening similar to mine and my loved ones.
To kill one man (Saddam) since you say Saddam himself was the WMD, has wiped out over 30,000 Iraqis (estimated) and several hundred Americans, and spent a couple of hunred billion American taxpayer monies. I wonder if you ever suggested to Bush to use an assassin rather tha 130,000 American troops?
And I'm waitng for Bush to claim that Saudi Arabia is a terrorist state now that they were willing to give amnesty and support to terrorists.
In answer to your question about, whether I have ever "suggested to Bush to use an assasin", I'll have to admit that, no, I haven't. I'm not that close to the man and I don't know if he would listen to me anyway.
Referring to your comment about Saudi Arabia giving amnesty and support to the terrorists, I assume you are talking about the ultimatum that they gave to the terrorists to come clean, or else. I'm not a real fan of Saudi Arabia, don't trust them much, and at this point I don't really know what they have in mind here. But I think it's too soon to call their ultimatum, "support". However, based on the logic you've revealed in arriving at other conclusions, I can see how you got there.
It is Weapons of MASS Destruction, after all.
I don't think the criterion you gave by your example is valid because the term "weapon" does not normally refer to an individual (except perhaps as a trained fighting person). My point of saying that Bush could be also a WMD was to try to establish how off your definition (example or criterion) is.
I'm sure you weren't arguing, by your example, that only Saddam Hussein was an WMD. I'm sure that you weren't saying that if 20 or 30,000 Iraqis get killed uncessarily by American war machine that the person who ordered it is not an WMD using the same rationale.
Again, let me ask, do you know when the last genocide occurred under Saddam's rule? IF it occurred in the early 90's and invading Iraq wasn't necessary in 2003 to stop genocide, would you agree that if we killed 12 to 30,000 Iraqis as a result of attacking and invading Iraq that would make George W. Bush a weapon of mass destruction under your description?
watch now, because Hatchetman is going to now assume you favor bombing abortion clinics (I am beginning to understand his 'logic' -- now that's scarey )..
Saddam wanted to show the world that HE did not have to live by the rules of the UN, HE could do what he wanted, when he wanted and since HE was the boss, NO ONE, even the UN, could tell him different. This has gone on for YEARS with the UN giving Saddam many LAST chances!
Well the US finally backed up the LAST chance even though the UN were too cowardly to do it!
Is the UN this formidable force that countries respect? Don't think so!
Does every country KNOW that American will fight for freedom and justice? YES!
I'm proud of my country and of all of our soldiers who fight for the rights of others! I admire these courageous people who are willing to give their LIFE for the rights of others.
Larry C maintains that Saddam himself was a WMD because he committed genocide. My position is that Larry C's argument doesn't make sense since, unless the person is a trained fighter, a person is not considered a weapon (save perhaps for the terorist bomber). Larry C',s osition was the one you are questioning as well.
All you had to say is that because Saddam committed genocide that he needed to be captured, tried and if found guilty, punished and that JUSTIFIED the war against Iraq.
There is no reason to have illoogically gone through a circuitous route to try to justify the war on a claim of WMD (when none could be found) because you consider Saddam himself to be a WMD.
The fact that you tried to bring in the WMD issue as an explanation was ridiculous.
Remember, the UN was investigating at the time -- Blix and his team were on the ground and checking into WMDs. The were reporting at that point none were being found but of course they had more to do. And Blix wsas no reporting that Saddam was preventing them from investigating at that point.
Remember, we had air control Northern and Suthern Iraq where Iraq planes if they flew into those areas were being shot down.
Given that President Bush kept changing the rationale for going to war against Iraq in 2003 and early 2003, it seemed ot me that that was an indication Bush didn't have the definitive evidence showing Iraq was an immediate threat to the US in 2002 and 2003.
So, I ouwld have allowed the UN team to complete its investigation make it's report and then decid what to do.
If you recall Bush didn't want to go to the UN at first but wanted to attack Iraq in mid 2002. But the American peopel and foreign policy people finally convince Bus to make a case before the Un which Powell tried to do with "KNOWN" evidence of WMD's annd that the US knew where they were -- remember the photos?
So, the answer in short is no, at that point in early 2003 I ddi not see the attack, invasion and subjugation of Iraq as needed to protect the US. It certainly wasn't part of the war against terrorism.
indicate that maybe you're starting to see my true point. I'm sure you noticed that this process is currently underway.
An interesting sideline here is that Saddam stood up in Iraqi court and said, "Bush is the real criminal here." That's quite an ally you have there. Is that you I hear screaming, "GET OFF MY SIDE, YOU GENOCIDAL MANIAC!!"
Let me ask again, do you know if Saddam was "committing" (ordering) genocide at the time we attacked or was the genocide or did it occur in the arly 1990's? If the latter then what geocide was stopped by the war.
If the genocide was being committed just prior to the war against Iraq, I sitll say it wsasn't necessary for us to go in without world support nd involvemtn. There are too many countries that can be said, I guess to be committing genocide, yet Bush isn't threatening them. The fact is that Bush didn't offer up regime change because of genocide until after the 9/11-connection argument and the WMD's argument were offered. It wasn't Bush's primary reason for attacking Iraq.
I am not an ally of Saddam. The man committed genocide and is a criminal. But again, our war against Iraq in 2003 wasn't necessary.