Printable View
With a bit of flashback to what this post was about, contrary to what Moore and company wanted you to believe, not only was the draft bill completely squashed (402-2), but its was a Democrat that sponsored the bill.
http://politics.slashdot.org/article...id=225&tid=224
This was the big selling point for Moore to get his movie rating to where kids could see it, because there was supposedly a high chance they were going to be drafted.
:) I don't see anyone supporting a draft bill in an election year :p
Mind you, Moore annoys me as much as Fox news does. Distorting facts in order to manipulate people. They should be be filed firmly under fiction. (*Rant over - thanks for listening :) )
Ok. Now back to your regulary scheduled 'its for oil' arguments.
:afrog:
Actually before the war, I often stated that I didn't think it was for the oil, but having been involved with some of the work out there, I've changed my mind. Let's just say that it is the No. 1 priority of the US government, and the army has been pretty much instructed to help the contractors get the oil flowing whatever the costs. And we'll leave it at that.Quote:
Originally posted by Cander
Ok. Now back to your regulary scheduled 'its for oil' arguments.
:afrog:
I think that actually, Oil is a much better reason than all the other one's put forward so far. At least it is in America's interests to get the oil, all of the other excuses for the war don't seem strong enough motivation to commit that many troops. I might not agree with it morally, but it is a smart move. All the other motives are counter-productive and unbelievable.
Once again, I go away for a few days, and now I'm behind the curve.
David, you said that Bush was a nice guy. That's not true in the sense that Reagan was a nice guy. Bush can act nice, but so can most people. He's actually a person you probably wouldn't want to be associated with, but that's not what he projects. Keep in mind that when his father decided to fire his chief of staff (John Sunnunu), W was chosen to be the hatchet man. That's more indicative of his true personality. The nice is a veneer because nice gets votes.
When you look at the history of the Bush presidency, you see a trend. The leadership their (Bush or his close staff, take your pick) expect absolute loyalty and complete cooperation. Whenever anybody does not follow their line, they are punished. Two interesting examples would be the way he handled the moderate Republicans in the senate (Jim Jeffords and Olympia Snow), and North Korea.
In the case of the senators, they didn't always follow his lead, so he punished them both in bizarre and petty ways (not inviting them to functions involving their own states, etc.). Jeffords left the party, and Bush lost the senate. He sort of realized at that point that he couldn't just beat people into line, he had to use the carrot as well as the stick. That would have been obvious to most people, but he doesn't see things that way.
In North Korea, he felt they were not living up to their side of the bargain, so he cut them off....and they went nuclear. Now we have the six party talks, but that is just because North Korea didn't come back with its tail between its legs.
Bush is your friend if you are doing what he tells you to do. Otherwise, he will throw you out of the house if he can, and never look back.
You are either with us or against us.
But he didn't add that if you are with us, that means you do as we tell you. That's how he leads, and most people don't like being treated that way.
Sure.Quote:
Okay, could I see some facts on this 1 million (other than Fox news). But say it is tru, Saddam was evil yes. But do you really think he killed 1,000,000 people personally? Those people were killed by soldiers etc. The soldiers who you are now employing as your police force. Removing Sadam isn't going to make things better. Those people are still there. It is a huge stretch of the imagination to think that people are going to be happy when you bomb their houses and kill their children..... no matter what happened before.
“Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.”Source
I am sure you can also find the statistics you want from both Human Rights Watch and the Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq as well. I guess I was off its actually 1.1 million dead because of Saddam so I will be sure in future posts to make sure I post the more accurate number.
X
That's a good source, thanks. Bu tI'm not sure you can call 500,000 casualties of a war the same as killing your own people. In that case, shouldn't Bush be on trial for 1,000 murders.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Sure.
“Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.”Source
I am sure you can also find the statistics you want from both Human Rights Watch and the Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq as well. I guess I was off its actually 1.1 million dead because of Saddam so I will be sure in future posts to make sure I post the more accurate number.
X
Why is it okay for Bush to kill people, yet it's not okay for Saddam too .... (I actually think both are guilty - but that's another debate :) ).
It's very convenient that suddenly you are outraged about these murders when your own government supplied the chemicals and backing for both the attack on the Kurds and the Iraq-Iran war.... It suited your purpose at the time didn't it.
Maybe next you can be justifiably outraged at the 30,000 murdered civilians under Galtieri (Argentina) and countless tortures.... fully supported by the US govrnment.
Oh, and what abpout Baby Doc, but no, hang on when he was killing all those people it was all in the name of fighting communism, so you were happy again weren't you?
Sorry, please don't take my sarcasm as a personal insult, what I'm really getting at is that we are suitably outraged twenty years after the event when it suits us, but we don't lift a finger to actually do anything about stopping it.
As for the statistcal part of those figures: To average the effects of a war out as a daily average after the war has finished is just pointless. It's like me taking the average number of people killed in World War II and averaging it out over the last 60 years and saying, that averages out to half a million people per year killed..... well statistically it's true, but it's not like he was killing 125 people per day when we turned up. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not at all sorry he's in prison and is going to pay for his crimes, I am sorry about the cost of us getting him there. To be quite honest, (and brutal) those few lives that have been saved from Saddam are not worth the ongoing cost which our future generations will have to pay in terrorist attacks.
Looked at a different way, perhaps we should blame Iran for the 500,000 casualties. After all, had they rolled over the way the Iraq army did in Gulf War I and II, there wouldn't have been anywhere near that many. Blame Iran, it's just as unreasonable.
check this out
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...iraq_weapons_7
I thought they will neve accept it, but I guess that the TRUTH comes out every now and then.
Yeah...I noticed that he said that a few times. Bad intel...tsk tsk -_- :pQuote:
Originally posted by Xcoder
check this out
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...iraq_weapons_7
I thought they will neve accept it, but I guess that the TRUTH comes out every now and then.
Bad intel? Perhaps . . . .
I think it's more like 'made-up and entirely invented' intel.
Of which I have no empirical, or physical evidence - but that doesn't seem to stop people these days, does it?
I wouldn't say made up. That intel was there since Bill Clintons terms. Bush just acted on it. Whether you think its foolish or not.
I don't think it's a matter of foolishness or stupidity. Intel without evidence is not intel. It appears that the coalition did not have evidence but still treated the information as intel. Naughty naughty little boys, if you ask me . . . .
BOOYAKASHA
They had lots of satellites in the sky and saw a bunch of junk that looked like bad stuff. Can't blame em. You are saying coalition as it was all Bush's intel. You do realize that most of this intel was gathered in Clintons terms dont you?Quote:
It appears that the coalition did not have evidence but still treated the information as intel
Funny, now the IAEA is saying material and machines that could be used to make nuclear weapons have dissappeared from Iraq following the invasion. How can that be if they didn't exist in the first place? :confused:
Odd how something "made up" can dissappear and cause such concern.
Yeah I had a good laugh about that as well :DQuote:
Originally posted by demotivater
Funny, now the IAEA is saying material and machines that could be used to make nuclear weapons have dissappeared from Iraq following the invasion. How can that be if they didn't exist in the first place? :confused:
Odd how something "made up" can dissappear and cause such concern.
X
About as funny as all the non-existent wmd's that were supposed to be there in vast stockpiles, don't you think?
BBBBOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM
The End of the F**** World!
I think it was the so-called dual use equipment, i.e. stuff which has civilian applications as well. I suspect this is just the IAEA being paranoid. I suspect it's probably some locals nicking the stuff to make new roofs out of etc. But that's just a hunch (having seen the Russians do the same :) )Quote:
Originally posted by demotivater
Funny, now the IAEA is saying material and machines that could be used to make nuclear weapons have dissappeared from Iraq following the invasion. How can that be if they didn't exist in the first place? :confused:
Odd how something "made up" can dissappear and cause such concern.