A man-made tsunami

[Est]

Quote[/b] ]Ok lets say that you are completly right on this one that Iraq was no threat to us at all, that then didnt have any WMD or we should say no more WMD because we no that he used them on his own people and the Kurds. ...

When were the Kurds nuked  Or his own people for that matter??  Am I misinformed here or what, maybe something before my time?  I realize that gas had been used and lots of Geneva convention banned-type of stuff was used, but when a weapon of mass destruction?

Quote[/b] ]... thwarted the UN weapons inspectors attempts to do there job

Um, once again, is it just me or is this false??  If I remember correctly, things were rocky at first, but then the inspectors were allowed to do their job- that is until Bush declared war.  Well, I realize politics isn't my strong point, but to my knowledge that's right.

 

[BobZ]

Quote[/b] (endparenthesis @ Jan. 11 2005,2:46)]If being evil and cruel and corrupt is reason enough, why aren't we spending billions of dollars (each) to attack and unseat every leader out there who fits the description?

The US has been trying very hard to do just that for decades. However, the administration in power at any given time only takes action against those regimes that do not support US interests. Those evil and cruel and corrupt regimes that support US interests are either left alone, or are provided economic and military aid -- remember OBL was once our great buddy.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]So we should have let the holocaust continue and let more Jewish people and other "ethnic inferior" people get murdered?

correct me if I'm wrong but we only knew about that AFTER the allies won the war.

 

[wolf9striker]

Quote
Ok lets say that you are completly right on this one that Iraq was no threat to us at all, that then didnt have any WMD or we should say no more WMD because we no that he used them on his own people and the Kurds. ...


When were the Kurds nuked Or his own people for that matter?? Am I misinformed here or what, maybe something before my time? I realize that gas had been used and lots of Geneva convention banned-type of stuff was used, but when a weapon of mass destruction?

Quote
... thwarted the UN weapons inspectors attempts to do there job

Um, once again, is it just me or is this false?? If I remember correctly, things were rocky at first, but then the inspectors were allowed to do their job- that is until Bush declared war. Well, I realize politics isn't my strong point, but to my knowledge that's right.


WMD does not have to be nuculear, the gasing that was conducted againts the Kurds and his own people was and is considered a WMD by the UN. And I guess it must be just you are you dont know the full story but Saddam never let the weapons inspectors do their job fully. He would allow them in when he said it was ok.

Nep G - I stated that someone elses statement would have meant we shouldnt have attack Germany not my own opinion.

 

[nepenthes gracilis]

Alphawolf, we knew something was going on, but not exactly. I mean WHY would Germany all of the sudden just build up a huge army that was mass murdering people which we DID know about, not the PLANNED killings of the Jews and non aryans in the gas chambers and death camps (Auschwitz,Brekenau,etc)

Wolfstriker, I see what you mean now. Must have misunderstood you.

 

[herenorthere]

The US and its allies knew what was happening to the Jews during WWII.  But doing something about it wasn't a priority.  Some people see it as antisemitism, others see it as a lesser priority than winning the war, and there are lots of other opinions.

As for Saddam gassing the Kurds, here's something I copied from a 9/03 transcript from the radio program Democracy Now:

"After the Halabja gassing President Bush I and Sen. Bob Dole fought sanctions against Iraq even though the gassing killed thousands and was reportedly carried out in part by U.S.-made helicopters. From 1989 to 1990 the gassing was mentioned about once a month in major press outlets, yet in the three weeks leading up to the 2003 invasion, the press mentioned it 150 times."

Going further back in time, remember Iraq also used gas on Iran ~1983, during the Reagan-Bush administration.  That was with the full support of the US and there are some well known photos of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands in that era.

 

[kahnli]

Bush goes to war because he "thinks" Iraq had WMD but meanwhile, North Korea is creaming to the world "Hey, we got them we're willing to use them." And Bush does nothing. What's that about?

 

[herenorthere]

When there was a real fight in Viet Nam, Bush flew missions in Texas.  When there's a powerful threat in North Korea and Iran, Bush attacks Iraq.  Well, he sent others to fight, of course.

Bush's pretext for invading Iraq follows in the sorry tradition of Hitler invading one harmless country after another to protect Germany.  Unfortunately, Bush will do for the future of the US what Hitler did for Germany.  But I don't see who'd want to help reconstruct the US society & economy afterwards.  There's no Marshall Plan in our future.

 

[wolf9striker]

Well I belive Bush's 'thinking' Iraq has WMD might have something to do with the fact that the US CIA told him that they believed 100% that Iraq did. The countries of Great Britian, France, Russia, Israel, Canada & many others also beleived that Iraq had WMD. Yes it has been shown that so far we have not found any 'new' WMD's. So I think it has more to do then Bush just guessing that Iraq may have them. This leads to another point that was mentioned on this thread. Someone mentioned that Bush lied to the country. Well to 'lie' means to purposely give forth information as fact that you know or have reason to believe is false. Bush had many reasons to believe that Iraq did have WMD as listed earlier so far we have found none so he has been wrong, but I dont know if you can say he lied.

 

[herenorthere]

Bush and his henchmen picked out the bits of information suggesting WMDs were present, while ignoring doubts about that information and the more substantial information contradicting it.  Bush lied.

 

[wolf9striker]

Ouch the CIA are henchmen?  Does that mean Clinton lied, for he believed Iraq to have WMD?  Clinton stated the reason he sent bombs into Baghdad on the day of his impeachment was because he believed they had WMD.  Both the Senate and the House voted to go to war with Iraq beliving they had WMD.  Great Britain believed they had WMD, as did France (although they have changed there opinion, a surprise there the fearsome fighting force of France).  And I dont know if you have been to Iraq but we are still fighting, how much time do you think we have to find WMD while you are being shot at.  Bush acted on credible information that Iraq had WMD.  Being wrong so far does not mean he lied.  You should thank Bush's "henchmen" for they have done an incredible job in preventing any further terriost attack on US soil.  You can be certain that they tried to attack us before the election in hopes of getting the same result they got in Spain.  Just stating Bush lied is a pretty easy way out.  If you dislike Bush fine, but your dislike for him does not make him a lier.

 

[Odysseus]

Replying to the original post and the article from the link:

The author of the article is complaining about financial aid not going to the Iraqis when the world is generously helping the survivors from the Tsunami.  Well, correct me if I am wrong but here are two good reasons there are differences:

1) More countries than one were affected by the Tsunami, so aid needs to come from SEVERAL Countries to provide a portion of what is needed.  In Iraq's case only one country needs aid and is currently receiving MUCH of it now and has been for quite some time.  Plus, most of the deaths in Iraq were caused by FIGHTING with the Coalition forces not from natural disaster.  

2) The Tsunami financial aid is coming to help rebuild cities that have completely been destroyed, and help a group of people who have lost over 150,000 friends and family in ONE DAY compared to a whole years drawn out battle!

Financial charity is not about death tolls.  Without doing any research I can estimate that the costs to help the Tsunami victims get back to 40% of what their old lives were like, compared to getting the Iraqis 40% back to their old lives, DWARFS the cost of what Iraq needs.

However, in defense of the moral of the article, I wish this kind of generosity was richly abundant in ALL instances and throughout the WHOLE year and not just during the "charity" holidays of December.  But, without a perfect world, I am pretty proud of what we have been able to do for the tsunami victims!  

 

[scottychaos]

Quote[/b] (herenorthere @ Jan. 11 2005,5:21)]Bush's pretext for invading Iraq follows in the sorry tradition of Hitler invading one harmless country after another to protect Germany.  

Nice REWRITING of History there..
impressive, yet pathetic..
typical of liberal distortions..

Hitler did not invade other countries to PROTECT Germany..
was Poland a THREAT to Germany? hardly..
he did it to take them over! to increase the power and recources of his thousand year reich..
He did it to conquer and brutally rule..

comparing Bush with Hitler is the height of ignorance.

We overthrew Saddam to get rid of a brutal dictator that was killing his own people and the people of bordering nations.
we have NOT taken over Iraq..
we are working hard to return the rule of Iraq to its own citizens..
something Hitler definately was not interested in doing!

Hitler's motives were evil. He invaded to kill, rule, increase his own power and plunder..
The policy of the USA in relation Iraq is humanatarian, and benefits the people or Iraq greatly..
if you cant see that they are as different as night and day, then you are twisted indeed..

Nice try in re-writing history to suit your own agenda..
but it wont work.
people know the truth, and your extremist lies only make look sad and pathetic..
we know you arent interested in the truth, only making up ANYTHING that will make Bush look bad..including outright lies..
sad, very sad..
Scot

 

[schloaty]

Scotty, settle down! Holy moly, while your thoughts and oppinions are valid, so are everyone else's. Let's please not be so harsh.

"I disagree with your statement on the following grounds" would have been sufficient. Beleive it or not, adding extra emotion to your argument sometimes makes people ignore the merrits of that argument. A lot of what you say is true, but people will ignore it if you are so aggressive in your presentation.

Honestly, I don't think there is any ONE reason we invaded.

Was Saddam a threat? Maybe.... not enough of a reason on its own.

Did they have resources we'd like to be able to trade with them freely for? Yes, but again, not enough of a reason on its own.

Was Saddam a terrible dictator? Yes, but that alone does not justify an invasion in the eyes of the world.

I'm sure there's more, but you get the point.

So while no one reason was enough, you put them all together, well, maybe that does justify an invasion.

I think the situation could/should have been handled better....however I know that a) I don't know all the details, and NONE of us ever will and b) hind sight is 20/20, if you'll forgive the cliche.

 

[scottychaos]

sorry schloaty,
but I dont believe in Political Correctness when it conmes to responding to outright lies..
and no, you cant say "everyones opinions are valid"..
sometimes they arent..
saying "Bush is like Hitler" would be fine IF it was stated AS an opinion!
but it wasnt..
it was stated as a fact..
we have been through all this before..
opinions are fine..lies stated as facts deserved to be challenged, and challenged forcefully..
if no one challenges lies, eventually everyone will believe these lies are the truth!
We MUST fight them!

But ok...since political correctness is the law of the land these days, I would like to make a statement:

"ahem!! the person who stated "bush is just like Hitler" is spewing conservative and right-wing HATE SPEECH!!
as an outraged liberal, who believes in tolerance for all points of view, and who believes in inclusion for all thoughts and opinions, I DEMAND than such thoughts NOT BE ALLOWED!!
that post should be deleted!
(MY rantings however should never be questioned..that would be censorship)
That Hitler/Bush statement is in the same league as the ideas of the KKK and modern NAzi/skinheads..
in this modern world of tolerance, such views of hatred should never be allowed to be spoken! why should we tolerate such hatred? it must be stopped in the name of tolerance and political correctness!!
as an outraged liberal, I demand such hate-filled opinions be deleted from this forum..thank you"

but seriously..it is NOT a fact that the motives of Hitler and Bush are the same..if herenorthere wants to retract his statement, or change it read "in my opinion bush might be like hitler..but thats just my opinion and I could be wrong"
then I will change my stance as well..
but until then..lies are lies..

We cant be soft under such attacks..in my opinion that statement (Bush is the same is Hitler) is an attack on the USA from within..
americans are trying to destroy America!
it should NOT be tolerated, or "toned down" in the name of political correctness..

now, lets see how long it takes for my posts to be heavily edited or deleted outright..and if herenorthere's post remains untouched..
if that happens, as it likely will, then thats a loss..
be aware of what is happening to our country..
it happens  everywhere, even on "innocent" discussion forums like this..
only ones side's opinion is allowed to go unchallenged..
watch carefully..
Scot

 

[herenorthere]

I didn't say Bush is like Hitler. Or that his motives are the same. I said that Bush used the same excuse - claim to be threatened by a far weaker country as an excuse to invade it.

 

[rattler]

interesting thread. i have a couple points i would like to make

#1 there was confution as to what WMD's are. someone(and im not paging through the thread to find the quote) was confused as to the fact that Saddam used WMD on his ppl but they evidently think that WMD only include nukes. that is wrong, nerve gas, biologics such as ricin, botulism toxin, small pox virus are all WMD. Saddam did use nerve gas and such on his own ppl, there for he did have them at one point for sure. but i think it has been 10 years or better since he used them "large scale" on his own ppl. im not sure of that time frame but its been awhile, small scale who knows for sure how recently its been used.

#2 on reason we went to war. look at a map, no i mean really look. where does Iraq sit? how many countries border it? strategically it was a perfect target to make an example out of. Saddam was evil, the whole world knew it. Bush and his buddies in power thought they might get away with it with minimal yelling from neighsayers. what happened is after 9-11 the US had to do something to show it was not going to take terrorists lieing down anymore like we had been for the last 30 years(read a history book 9-11 is far from the first major terrorist act commited against the USA, there have been over 2 dozen "major" ones in the last 30 years, 9-11 just had the highest number of fatalities). the attack in Iraq brought more than one country to a screachin hault on their weapons development projects, Libya for example. problem is Iran and Korea are betting on us bluffing and not haulting their projects.

#3 a quick decisive action beats out a long drawn out political one. perfect example Pakistan and India. these two countries have been at each others throats FOREVER, no amount of peace talks have EVER done much good and alot of outsiders have done there best to get the both of them to work out their problems including a couple US presidents. soooooooo both of them under everyones noses developeand tested nukes(a quick decisive act) they were showing each other they were bad mofo's and that their next door nieghbors were next if they dont knock it off. both counties sat down at the table and hashed out a peace agreement extreamly fast. no more major problems.

so in summery. yes i believe Bush lied to us but i cant fault his desition to go to Iraq and back it fully. it was the right thing to do, we had to do something big and major RIGHT NOW other wise the terrorist attacks were going to get ALOT worse in a hurry. and if North Korea doesnt knock it off i hope there on the chopping block next. oh BTW i also think its idiotic how we are giving China so much good credit when they are one of the worst offenders of individual rights. they arent far behind other countries like Iraq.

just my 2 cents and i tried to keep as much political stuff out as possible since my beliefs are in the minority here

 

[schloaty]

Quote[/b] ]sorry schloaty,
but I dont believe in Political Correctness when it conmes to responding to outright lies..
and no, you cant say "everyones opinions are valid"..
sometimes they arent..
saying "Bush is like Hitler" would be fine IF it was stated AS an opinion!
but it wasnt..
it was stated as a fact..
we have been through all this before..
opinions are fine..lies stated as facts deserved to be challenged, and challenged forcefully..
if no one challenges lies, eventually everyone will believe these lies are the truth!
We MUST fight them!

My only point, Scotty, is that you will get a better response from some one by saying "You're information is wrong, and here's my proof," rather than "LIES LIES LIES!" Calling someone a lier is insulting. You are certainly intelligent enough to come up with a way to strongly challenge a viewpoint without being insulting.

Oh, and I detect some irony in your post? hee hee... delete everyone's posts but yours... NICE!

 

[scottychaos]

I didnt call anyone a liar.
lets see, im not sure how this is done..I need some guidance..

Quote[/b] ]I didn't say Bush is like Hitler.  Or that his motives are the same.  I said that Bush used the same excuse - claim to be threatened by a far weaker country as an excuse to invade it.

ah! ok, I think I have the hang of it..let me try!

I didnt call anyone a liar directly. what I said was the IDEAS are lies.
so thats not the same thing as calling someone here a liar..
yeah, thats it, thats the ticket.

Scot

 

[herenorthere]

So Scot, whether or not Bush lied, do you think he encouraged an informed and open debate before the invasion?  Or does now?  As far as I'm concerned, that's what America's all about.

If Bush believes there's a mandate for rolling back environmental protection, for instance, he shouldn't give proposals names like Clear Skies Initiative.  Call it More Pollution For More Money in Someone's Pocket.  If the voters support it, well, that's democracy.  But he knows there's no such mandate, so he relies on deception.

But, to pull this thread back to the original point, are the victims of war in Iraq less deserving of charity than the tsunami's victims?  It's obviously more difficult when charitable organizations pull up stakes because they're targeted for attack, but are the victims charities would serve in Iraq less deserving?

Going a step further, why did the victims of 9/11 get so much more charity than the victims of Oklahoma City?  Do victims of foreign-born terrorists deserve more than victims of native-born terrorists?  Is there some kind of value scale that victims of terrorism receive more than victims of natural disasters, but all of them get more than victims of war?

Maybe the difference between the response to Iraq and the tsunami is because the tsunami isn't drenched in other issues.  Or maybe it's in the marketing.  I think there's something disturbing when I hear about someone somewhere renting billboards or using other mass marketing to seek an organ donor or money for surgery or whatever.

Anyway, I think this a better direction to go. And, as a disclaimer, or maybe a confession, I've made a donation to the victims of the tsunami, but not to victims of the war in Iraq.