Job Discussion Forums

[psychedelic]

Apologist,
"I............patriots." WRONG. It's NOT that the U.S. government doesn't like Iraq. It's Saddam's murderous regime!! "slaughtering"? You want to talk about slaughtering? What about all the innocent Iraqi's that Saddam's regime are responsible for killing? "They.....terrorists." Too funny!!!! You're a real piece of work!! "Then....walk." LOL.

[arioch36]

When the clinton administration agreed to drop bombs, there was no "on-going" genocide. Milosevic was wanted (supposedly) because of previous years atrocities. At the time of the renewal of the Gulf War this year, there were quite active atrocities going on. Check out what was happening in Basra, of the seminars for torture.

True, Saadam was no longer dropping chemical weapons on the kurds. Why? Because of the active US presence, and the no fly zone. This year was the escalation of present hostilities.

Yes, the reason that Sadaam/Iraq was no longer dropping chemical weapons on Iraq, is because 1) Iran was able to fight back, and 2) American presence

The reason that Iraq was no longer invading countries such as Kuwait was because of the massive military presence of mostly american forces.

The homelands of the people of the Marshlands to the south (I can't say offhand the name of the people) were totally destroyed, the people killed, or forced to flee. What do you call this?

have you bothered looking at the news of the mass graves in villages that were not of his Baath party "Sunni triangle" region? The people of this area are rightly afraid of what will happen to them if America leaves.

As children supposedly died for lack of medicen and food, Sadaam was spending billions on "palaces", more billions erdicating the marshlands to the south, and the people, and putting more billions in private bank accounts.

Now please compare this to what Milosevic was actively doing at the time he was " arrested"

[arioch36]

Sadaam tried, and couldn't manipulate the price of oil. There is something called OPEC which dominates. So please give some please give one example of how America has manipulated the price of oil since the escalation of the war? Americans will be quite surprised, as gas was at an alltime high this summer.

Much of the oil exports were illegal vis Syria, Russia, and french businessmen. The money never seemed to go to buy medicine for the children, because TV always showed the poor Iraqi children in the hospital dying from lack of medicine.

[arioch36]

If "Yugoslavia" had no intention of attacking the US, or US interests/people, doesn't that make it more of a violation of human rights to become involved?

[dduck]

[arioch36]

i was responding to the often mentioned idea that america is there to control oil, or the price of oil. First, i don't think america could do this. But I certainly am waiting to see any evidence of this. but the "protestors" seem to feel that they do not need to present rationale, argument, or evidence, but rather that catchy slogans are more important. So dialogue with them to improve things is near impossible.

I do question whether it was legitamite for us to be involved in iraqII or Yugoslavia. neither action had UN sanction (not that I have a high opinion of the UN). Both involve atrocities committed previously. You highlighted the "ongoing" atrocities". So tried to point out that quite possibly / probably Saddaam's previous atrocities were much worse, and that there were current atrocities going on.


I am really not sure how I feel about either action. i just think that there is a lot of hypocrisy on the side of the "anti-bush" war for oil type protesters.

they have never demonstrated, or given any evidence how this war is about oil, and most/all of the such protesters I know or have heard were not protesting when Clinton, with french urging, dropped bombs on clearly civilian targets in Yugoslavia. but then clinton rarely cared if his bombs dropped on the right target.

personally I believe that Bush should have stayed the course with the UN, having decided to start with that route. Bush 1 never made that mistake (ie, starting with the UN) france exacerbated the problem with its political games (that's what they were, games) and refusal to set any timetable. But Hans Blix was setting timetable and acting responsibly, and Bush should have allowed to him finish. My thoughts

But on the other hand, there are windows of opportunity for war, Sadaam only started cooperating because of the American (mostly) miltary buildup, which cannot be sustained for ever. france had to be aware of this, and I think deliberately looked for this chance to weaken America.

But I see no logic, no comsistency coming from the side of the "protestors; no guidelines on when they think it is or isn't right to intervene. Clever on their part, because if they did so, if they presented any rationale, their arguments were probably demonstrate their own inconsistency, their own disregard for true human rights (ie Africa) inpursuit rather of ideology and political gain

[guest of Japan]

The protesters weren't the only ones using catchy slogans to get what they wanted. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or "Evil Alliance." I'm not sure if I got the second one right. I haven't heard it in a while. There are a host more. Darnit, I've said too much. I was trying to keep out of this debate.

[arioch36]

I couldn't agree more, Japan. Personally, I don't care for Bush's slogans, which, as I said, tend to come back to haunt him.

Well, we have already heard all the bad things about Bush. I think it's time for the protester to look at themselves and see that the do the same thing. About some consistency of logic from them.

Like, if such ridicolous, unsubstantiated comments are wrong from Bush, aren't they wrong for the other side?