BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...

Subject: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Bobert
Date: 30 May 04 - 08:41 PM

Well, I'm sure that the pro-Bush folks will scream "un-American" or "un-patriotic" but tonight's showing of "60 Minutes" showed pics of the 800+ US sericepeople who have died in Iraq. They moved at a steady clip but it still took a full 11 minutes to show them all...

In these times of tremendous pressure being placed on the media by the current adminisrtaion, and the media giving in almost all the time, I was both saddened but glad that CBS, and Andt Rooney, stepped up to the plate...

Now, if they had shown the faces of the 20,000 US service people who have been injured, the 10,000 to 20,000 Iraqis who have died, the 100,000 or so Iraqis injured, the millions of Iraqis who died during the 10+ years of santions then it would take days and days to show all the suffering from the US policy toward Iraq....

But this is a start...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Cruiser
Date: 30 May 04 - 09:57 PM

Thanks for the heads-up Bobert, I would have missed it otherwise.

A poignant 11 minutes.

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 May 04 - 10:07 PM

We get the US PBS current affairs show here delayed 1 day on SBS. Since the start of hostilities, they have daily shown incrementally the pictures of the US Military dead, as the names and pictures are offically released, at the end of each day's show.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 31 May 04 - 10:37 AM

I was profoundly effected by the event. It just seemed to go on and on. I couldn't back off or pull away from it. Tears. ttr

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 04 - 11:09 AM

19 of those killed in this mess were females.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: ddw
Date: 31 May 04 - 11:24 AM

Hey Bobert,

Would you be just as excited if 60 Minutes had shown the pictures of the thousands and thousands Saddam wiped out?

You might have seen that as an indictment of the Bush administration, but I'll bet many saw it as a tribute to soldiers killed in a conflict. Just in case you hadn't thought of that....

Guest. So?

cheers

david

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 May 04 - 12:05 PM

ddw: I don't know for sure, but I'll bet Bobert has been concerned for (and active in promoting) human rights since long before GWB's war. As far as I'm concerned the Bush chickenhawks and their talk radio and congressional supporters are johnny-come-f'in-latelies to the human rights movement. The human rights justification for this war was a sorry-ass, lame third choice when the WMD and Al-Quaeda excuses didn't pan out. This war was never conceived or sold as being about relieving the suffering of the Iraqi people. If it had been, and we'd been told that, I'll bet Bobert (and I) would have been willing to listen, Can't gaurantee that I'd have approved giving Bush a blank check for war even then. But nobody can pretend that this war is only about human rights. Before the war, why didn't Bush and company show us pictures of the thousands and thousands that Saddam wiped out? And if it's about human rights, when do we invade six or eight other countries I can think of?

Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: ddw
Date: 31 May 04 - 12:51 PM

GuestTIA —

I never said this was really about human rights; what I said was that maybe a lot of people would see the 60 Minutes segment as a tribute, not a damnation of Bush and his policy.

I might also note that during that same 60 Minutes broadcast they interviewed a Shiia leader (who has turned against the U.S. because they didn't do enough to help his people during and after Saddam) who talked of the mass killings. They also showed some of the recently-uncovered mass graves. Did the human rights advocates not see what Saddam did to the Kurds? Have you forgotten the stories from the late '80s and early '90s of Saddam's troops stacking Iranian soldiers' bodies in the swamps so they could drive their trucks and tanks in?

As for pictures, I'll bet that even if they'd asked, U.S. photographers and/or journalists wouldn't have had access to Saddam's killing fields to document it. But there is certainly evidence of it now that U.S. troops are on the ground there.

Or don't you read those reports?

As for the WMD debacle.... Maybe, just maybe, if Bush hadn't spent time asking for support from the rest of the world and had gone in quickly, they might have found some, instead of giving the Iraqis all kinds of time to hide or destroy them. That they were there at some point can't seriously be questioned, can it, since we know that the technology was sold to Saddam by Bush Sr. when the U.S. was at odds with Iran and Saddam was on "our side."

The Al-Quaeda thing "didn't pan out"? Are you saying the organization isn't a threat? Or just that they haven't found as many of them as Bush would have liked? That tends to happen with shadowy organizations.

Invade other countries for human rights violation? No. Frankly, I think everybody should pull out of the region and let them stew in their own juice of thousands of years of tribal hatreds and political slaughters. If anybody is going to be there to "help," it should be based purely on self-interest — i.e., get what you need and leave them to it. Would that satisfy your sense of moral indignation?

I agree "human rights" is a pretty lame excuse for all this, but whatever the reasons for being there, U.S. troops are there and are dying. I think they have the "human right" to be remembered as individuals who sacrificed all, rather than dismissed as the flails you and your kind use to flog your political opponents.

cheers,

david

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Peter T.
Date: 31 May 04 - 12:59 PM

Now there's a new argument -- they should have gone in faster to destroy the weapons of mass destruction before Saddam did it for them!!
yours,

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 04 - 01:09 PM

Peter, we do not know if they are destroyed, or waiting to be used somewhere. If we had gone in early enough to find them, we might know for sure they are not there. Now, we have to go out looking everywhere for them. I hope that makes you happy...

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: TIA
Date: 31 May 04 - 01:24 PM

"I think they have the "human right" to be remembered as individuals who sacrificed all, rather than dismissed as the flails you and your kind use to flog your political opponents"

How do you think I remember them?

Who "I and my Kind"

who are my political opponents?

You've made a lot of assumptions that you would probably be surprised to know the truth of.

Let's start with a quiz - what is my party affiliation on my voter registration card? (the answer relates to who my political opponents actually are).

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 04 - 01:47 PM

Peter, we do not know if they are destroyed, or waiting to be used somewhere. If we had gone in early enough to find them, we might know for sure they are not there. Now, we have to go out looking everywhere for them. I hope that makes you happy...


WHat kind of a cheap shot is that, BB? "Waiting to be used somewhere" by the reborn Baath regime? Seems an awful long stretch to me. Apparently you believe, then, that the mere suspicion of certain classes of weapons is sufficient grounds for invasion by the United States? Because all we ever had after 1991 was suspicion, IIRC.

Don't forget that invasion means premeditated and intentional assault with a blunt instrument resulting in death for hundreds or thousands of people. In smaller scale we call it murder. Since you feel that such murder can be justified by mere suspicion on the part of the murderer about what the murderee might have in his pocket, you should probably go work for those who use such tactics.

But don't write any more "love" poems, for the love of Christ. The cognitive dissonance is too much to take.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: ddw
Date: 31 May 04 - 03:31 PM

TIA — party affiliation has no significance in political opponents unless you're under the party discipline system. My reference to political opponents is gereric — i.e., we're dealing with a political question (no matter how much you would like to make it a moral one) and you disagree with the political decisions and positions of the Bush administration on that question. That makes them your political opponents.

But just for fun, let me guess. Are you a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan? They have to be really down on Americans getting killed for help foreigners...

cheers,

david

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 04 - 03:51 PM

Amos,

I have discussed the issue of the missing WMD extensively, and see no point in repeating arguements that you seem incapable of uinderstanding. The gassing of his own people was after 1991, therefore your comment

" Because all we ever had after 1991 was suspicion, IIRC. "

is an outright lie.



As for

"But don't write any more "love" poems, for the love of Christ. The cognitive dissonance is too much to take."

I am not the one who is willing to let those WMD be used.

By putting your head in the sand ( or wherever else you place it to avoid seeing what you do not like to see) YOU are the one who would have millions killed by terrorists rather than have enforced the 17 UN resolutions that the world thought might do to stop the production of whatever may be out there.

Can I prove that they are out there- NO- BUT if I am wrong, the loss is FAR less than if your assertion that what you do not see does not exist is wrong- THAT would mean MILLIONS killed.

Perhaps you mean well, but may God forgive you for the unintended consequences of your opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 May 04 - 04:26 PM

"This war was never conceived or sold as being about relieving the suffering of the Iraqi people. If it had been, and we'd been told that, I'll bet Bobert (and I) would have been willing to listen, "

And your support of intervention in Cambodia, Rwanda, Serbia...? Or did you think that was not immportant enough?

NEITHER political side has ever done what was right without seeing some benefit in it for themselves.

Does anyone think that the plight of any numbers of "them" would cause the liberals to want to go to war? I do not see that the Left has any moral highground upon which to stand.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 04 - 05:21 PM

Actually, Saddam Hussein gassed a lot of people while receiving foreign aid and assistance from the US government.

Or did you forget about that?

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 04 - 05:33 PM

And nobody gave a shit about the proliferation of nuclear weapons until the enemies of the US, Britain, France, Russian, Israel, and China got them.

I mean, c'mon. It doesn't matter WHO blows off a nuke. A nuke, is a nuke, is a nuke.

We developed them, we sold the technology to the highest first world bidders, and then looked the other way as the technology proliferated to places like Pakistan and India, because allowing the proliferation to happen also allows the military industrialists to make even MORE money building 'defensive' weapons (like Star Wars) they will claim will protect us from nukes, which won't do any such thing.

I mean, there IS a very good reason why one the first things Bush did after taking office, was announce the US' unilateral abrogation of every fucking nuclear treaty we ever signed.

Or did you forget about that Republican sponsored state terrorism as conveniently as you forgot about the fact that we didn't give a shit about Saddam gassing people when it was the Iranians, and he was "our bastard" in the region.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Peace
Date: 31 May 04 - 06:23 PM

And his gassing of the Kurdish people. Hussein was a shill for the US administration. He was necessary to keep the lid on Iran for those years. "My enemy's enemy is my friend" kinda thing. The mistake as I see it is that Iraq wasn't taken in 1991. However, geo-politics and the strategic uses of the various military should come as no surprise to anyone here. The question of right or wrong is usually filtered through the sieve of necessity--and the resultant determinations are made by people who don't give a shit about other people. Hey, what's new?

Millions died in Cambodia, millions starve in Africa--governments don't fu#kin' care. Get used to it. It sucks, but that is the world we have made. Remember when you were a kid and the occasional homeless person could be handled at the YMCA/YMHA? Today we'd need a friggin' State or Province to shelter homeless people. So what has led to our attitudes--attitudes that say human life means shit, and not only that, but we are proud of not caring?

Bruce Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 May 04 - 06:50 PM

That's the good old guiding principle of Capitalism, Bruce, worshipped by each and every red-blooded, brain-deaded, Republcan-voting, neo-conservative asshole: unbridled selfishness compounded with unlimited greed.

The "American Century" indeed.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 04 - 07:19 PM

"But just for fun, let me guess. Are you a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan? They have to be really down on Americans getting killed for help foreigners..."

proper that answer to only is huh?

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: kendall
Date: 31 May 04 - 07:46 PM

Bush the first told the Shiites after Desert Storm, to rise up and get rid of Saddam. They were promised help that was never delivered, the first Bush lie! (No wonder junior is so good at it)
And what happened? they were creamed, and Saddam got his pound of flesh for their attempt to kill him. And what did the first Bush gang do? Not a goddamn thing.
Ok, Bushites, spin that.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 31 May 04 - 08:57 PM

uh... in't tit perty much the same 'Bush gang' we dun got presently?

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 04 - 09:21 PM

Yeah, the gang was similarly composed, but the head was a little older and wiser.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 04 - 11:36 PM

Well, dww, yeah, I don't have any particular support for most of the Bush administration policies and looking at the faces of some 700 folks who have died to prop up that corrupt and thievious administration made it just that harder to look at those faces...

Where yopu blame Iraqia, I blame your guy.... He is a sham, a thief, a liar and a crook. He and his buddies have done nothing but PROFIT from the deaths to the kids from a working class who he has screwed to the wall...

Yeah, I looked at each face and knew that these were folks from *my* class, Yeah, thier parents and piers my be toatlly barinwashed into thinking that George Bush represents them but they are WRONG. He will only spend there lives like pennies... And all to kleep his neocon radicals in power... What a load of crap!!!! No make that an extra load of crap!!! Only an friggin moron, or "rich" person who loves Bush's big giveaway to the rich, would fall fir this crap...

So, dww, while meaning no disrespect, I see you in one of those two categories...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: LadyJean
Date: 01 Jun 04 - 01:08 AM

I am not sorry to see Saddam Hussein out of power. I just wish the Iraqis had sent him packing, as they might if Bush 41 hed been a man of honor. They would probably have hung Saddam upside down, like Mussolini. I would have tried to find that objectionable.

I am old enough to remember when "Life" magazine printed pictures of a week's casualties in Vietnam. It was terribly moving, all those faces not that much older than I was. Good for "60 Minutes".

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: ddw
Date: 01 Jun 04 - 11:05 PM

Bobert, coming from someone who obviously had his last thought sometime in the mid-1960s, I consider that high praise indeed.

I do apologize for one thing, though. I thought you were a knee-jerk liberal. It's obvious now that the jerk part of you is muchg higher than the knees.

cheers,

david

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 12:24 AM

Keep believin' yer little parties lies, d-zer, if that make you happy.... How many kids of the big Bush campaign donors are in that 700? Not many.... if any.

Yeah, you just keep spoutin' that Bush PR pablum if it makes you feel better. You and I know its a bunch of lies...

Face it, your guy has pre-empted democracy. He wasn't even elected but appointed mby his daddy's appointee and now he's gonna take that corrupt model to Iraq... Just today, he appointed a CIA friendly Iraqi as Iraqs new president! Oh, real good move. A real step forward for "democracy"...

Oh, but don't fret yer head over facts 'cause they don't matter anymore. Bush's gang of thugs have rigged the 2004 election to insure that yer guy will be around to finish off job of driving the stake thru the heart of Tom Jefferson, et als, little expierement...

The blueprint isn't hard to find... Check out Germany in the 30's, my friende, and you will find some very disturbing paralells between what yer guy is doing and what the brownshirts were doing then...

Ahhhh, but like who cares? Right? Yer guy is in power so like should you care? Well, unless you have a complete brownshirt mentality.... ahhh, yeah, you should...

Why?

Well, if for no other reason that when a samll minority takes power and makes big decisions, historically speaking, things turn out bad... One of the things that the Founding Fathers treid to get into our thinking was a system of checks and balances to prevent such screw ups... Well, yer guy is as busy as he can be shredding those checks an balences, using patriotism as his amin tool... Hmmmmm? Isn't hat what Hitler did?

Like I said, you might wanta run this one thru yer thinkerator before spouting the "company line"...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: van lingle
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 03:35 AM

BeardedBruce,
The fact that no WMD's were found seems to indicate that the UN inspections were working and that the inspections teams reports were accurate which shoots holes in the main Bush/Cheney argument for engaging in their murderous folly. vl

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 05:58 AM

Van Lingle:

Hardly.

1. WMDs were found, people just don't want to admit it- Chem warheads, so far.

The inspectors were finding violations ( long range rockets, prohibited technology) right up to the end.


If you threaten someone, and they yell "Stop, or I will shoot", and you continue in the threatening manner, I do not see any reason that you can be surprised that they blow you away.



And yes, we SHOULD have gone in after him in 1991. Bush 1 made a bad decision, probably due to the horror expressed by all of you at the pictures of the destruction of the Iraqi Army.

It really seems odd that NONE of you have commented on how a country which under an cease fire agreement was prohibited from building weapons, and under sanctions to prevent the purchase of weapons ( BUT which allowed for the sale of oil for the purchase of food) had as much military when the US attacked as they did. And had starved its citizens.

So, I have to presume that if some undeniable WMD can be traced to Saddam, such as a nuke going off in London or Athens, all of you will admit you were wrong, and apologize? Thanks a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 09:00 AM

Heck, they might even find the Locke Ness monster as well since the Iraqi border has been pourish since the invasion and all kinds of folks with all kinds of motives and nasty waepons have found their way into Iraq to accomodate Bush's "Bring it on!" challenge...

Eevn the NY Times last week admitted, on page 10 ofcourse, that they probably should have done a better job on investigating Bush's claims during the run up to war.... But, hey, the lies are easy to find and parrot since they are printed in bold letters on the front page but you'll need a magnifying glass to find the retractions...

Judith Miller, a supposed Times reporter, was nothing more than a Bush propagandizer... Did you know that any mention of Scott Ritter or what he had to say was repeatedly dismissed by the Times, as well as most other major newspapers? Hmmmmmm? But keep them lies running front and center...

Worked in the 30's and it's working now...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 09:29 AM

"But, hey, the lies are easy to find and parrot since they are printed in bold letters on the front page but you'll need a magnifying glass to find the retractions..."

I agree with this, entirely. But please remember the headlines "NO WMD Found" ....

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 10:12 AM

Interesting question posed by John Keegan yesterday:

" those who show themselves so eager to denounce the American President and the British Prime Minister feel strongly enough on the issue, please will they explain their reasons for wishing that Saddam Hussein should still be in power in Baghdad."

Because surely as eggs are eggs, if the US and UK had not acted when they did he would most certainly still be in power in Baghdad today.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 01:14 PM

I think that question might be better directed to the 20,000 families in Iraq who have lost relatives to the invading and occupyung army, Teribus...

As fir me, I'm sticken with the premise that if yer final answer for invading Iraq was because Saddam was a bad man, why didn't you just go kill him and leave the rest of the folks alone. 20,000 dead Iraqis, upwards of 100,000 seriously injured Iraqis, over 700 American troops dead, upwards of 20,000 wounded and guess what. Saddam, the reason for the invasion and occupation, is still alive.

Hmmmmmmmmm, Part 17,946...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 01:29 PM

Teribus,

I think you know that that rhetorical piece of flimflammery is specious and inaccurate. The notion that one despises premeditated murder of civilians by heavy weapons means that one likes a dictator is pathetically illogical.

In order to buy into that kind of gaseous verbal flatulence you would have to assume that violence is the only solution to unwanted conditions.

In addition, it is disingenuous of you and the author to pretend, now, that the casus belli of the war in Iraq was liberating the citizenry from dictatorship. This guy is just flaunting bogeymen. Shame on you for forwarding the impulse.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: ddw
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 07:06 PM

GOOD ONE, BOBERT!!!!

I haven't seen such a good, foot-stomping tantrum since my son was three.

And here I was thinking your just hadn't had any thoughts at all since you were fed all the social-conscious claptrap and drivel back in your college days. You've obviously regressed a lot further than that.

A couple of points of clarification....

Bush isn't "my man." Nor do I necessarily support his position in Iraq. Except the part of him wanting to get out and leave them to it as quickly as he can. My preference for Bush is over Gore, who is such a dithering idiot that I can't imagine what would have happened if he'd been in the Whitehouse on 9/11. Maybe he would have apologized for building those tall buildings in front of the planes the terrorists were flying. Bet that would have made you happy!

As far as I can tell, your definition of a "fascist" is anybody who doesn't agree with your pie-in-the-sky view of the world and how things ought to be, so I won't even try to dissuade you from calling me one. That's sorta like trying to describe "blue" to a colorblind man.

The New York Times a conservative paper? Since when? They've always been considered a little left of center, but more balanced than most and certainly more likely to cover issues in the backwaters of the world than most media outlets.

What?!! They printed something you disagreed with?!!

Well, there you go. They're fascists! Thanks for letting me know.

Oh, as as for your railing against war-mongering Republicans, maybe you should read a little history. Woodrow Wiilson, a Democrat, led the U.S. into WWI; FDR, a Democrat, led the U.S. into WWII; Harry S Truman, a Democrat, led the U.S. into the Korean War; Eisenhower, a Republican, got the U.S. out of Korea and strongly warned against becoming involved in Viet Nam. JFK, a Democrat, opened that can of worms with a few "advisors" and LBJ, a Democrat, jumped into that swamp with both feet. (Talk about a LIAR!!!!) Richard Nixon, a Republican, finally got the U.S. out (and, incidentally, reopened relations with China), but he had other problems.

In fact, Bush Sr. was the first Republican president since Lincoln to lead the U.S. into a war and he did it for pretty sound economic reasons, not some pie-in-the-sky idealism. We can all wish he had followed through at the time (especially in relation to the Kurds' uprising and his lack of support), but the fact that he didn't and the fact that Bush Jr. took the unfortunate tack of trying to sell the Iraq invasions as a humanitarian effort is more due to the fact that they were trying to satisfy idiots like you than that they're lying for the fun of it, the way Johnson did.

One last point. You decry the 22,000 Iraqis killed since the invasion started and the continued mounting casualty list. Just answer one question (truthfully would be better, but I'm not sure you're up that) — how many of them were killed or maimed by OTHER IRAQIS?

cheers,

david

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 04 - 08:57 PM

First of all, David, I think that if Gore had been elected then 9/1q1 would have been just another normal day... the Bush name is not real popular in the Arab world... Might of fact, most Arabs have a deep distrust for the Bushs. The highjacking of the US governemnt by the Bush family in 2000, couple with the subseguent Middle east policy of the imposter in chief, which in essence wasn't a policy in that Bush purdy much told Sharon to whop some butt.... So the atmosphere was perfect for the bin Laden gang. Another hated Bush in the White House and disrespect for the Palestinians... Gore, though I wasn't too wild about him either (I'm Green, BTW...) wouldn't have created such an atmosphere. He would have continued tirelessly in the footsteps of Slick Willie to at least make it look like the US cared about the Palestinians....

And even if bin Laden still figgured he's hit, Gore was way too much a stickler fir detail and wouldn't have ignored the August 8th PDB...

Now as for yer other man ("not my man" either), Pappa Bush. He and son have this strange little DNA thing going in that, if you'll recall, his numbers weren't all that great either so he figgured that he would neeed him a good boogie man if he were to get re-elected so he set Saddam up to invade Kuwait... No, you won't read it like that in the right wing media. Ya' just have to connect a few dots... Like here is Rumsey-field presenting a sword to Saddam and giving him some purdy danged dangeruos weapons and intellegence and then, Saddam is a bad man! Historians will cut thru the crap and one day tell the story like it really happened. Bush gave Saddam a wink when Saddam said he was gonna "take back" Kuwait (which was once part of Ieaq...) and when Saddam made his move, Bush the Elder, looking a low poll numbers, made his.... But the revisionists have neatly rewritten all that sticky stuff to make it digestable for the masses who can't tell the name of their Congressperson but can darned well tell you who is leading the NASCAR points standings.

Fast forward and it de javu all over again.

Now lets see, what else did I get accused of? Hmmmm? Oh yeah, the New York Times. Well, maybe someone would like to enlighten me as to why the New York Times is considered to be, ahhhh, liberal? I'll pose the question again. The New York Times, as the Wsahington Post, etal, printed all that prewat propaganda on their front pages, day after day, after day... Yet, now they have become aware that they weren't actually reporting much of anything other than what was given to them by, ahhhhh, the Bush folks. Well, do they print that on page one? Heck no they don't. They either keep their mounths shut or bury the story....

Real liberal there, folks...

As fir the fascism... Hey, this ain't got nuthing to do with anything except studying who the brownshirt movement came about... If anyone things that when I use this term I am using it to be dismissive of folks opions that do no coincide with my own, they are wrong.... Facsim has a number of elements that the Bush administartion has been using to try to centralize power. Cenraliztion od power being the cornerstone of the facist movement. Superpatriotism, Demonization of those in desent, etc...

And the beat goes on...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: ddw
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 12:10 AM

I'm really glad I know you, Bobert. I always feel safer when I'm around people who have answers for everything. Your facts may be in conflict with the perceptions of just about everybody, but by gum, you just know they're wrong. And you're right because that's the way it should be!

Ah, true believers.... They never figure out that anything you believe in is something you can never learn anything about....

cheers,

david

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 12:47 AM

beardedbruce - "WMDs were found, people just don't want to admit it."

Oh, please!

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 05:12 AM

dianavan,

What in the world do you think chemical warheads are?

Try looking at US policy for the last 50 years- Chemical or biological weapons are considered WMD, and the US will respond to their use against us with nuclear devices.

You can lie all you want, but a WMD is a WMD is a WMD.


ALl the lies you want to say cannot change the fact that they were found. No matter what you want to believe.

"Oh, please!" yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Stu
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 06:03 AM

Bearedbruce:

"What in the world do you think chemical warheads are? "

They were old munitions left over from the Iran-Iraq war. So they are chemical weapons, but they are NOT the ones monkey-boy and poodle said they were after.


"You can lie all you want, but a WMD is a WMD is a WMD."

And the Americans should know - they have more than anyone else (chemical, biological and nuclear). Depleted uranium warheads anyone? Nasty if a toddler picks one of those up.

Teribus:

"Because surely as eggs are eggs, if the US and UK had not acted when they did he would most certainly still be in power in Baghdad today."

Pure speculation. If the UN Weapons inspectors had been given the time to do their job and the UN had the chance to act, things may have worked out differently. The UN may however, have spent a lot longer trying to sort out what to do, but sure as eggs are eggs, nobody could speculate accurately what would have happened if the UN had been allowed to continue mthe process under internatioanl law.

Certainly, if Saddam had been left in place, there would be thousands of dead innocent Iraqis, torture and rape of innocents in the prisons he built by his soldiers, imprisonment without trial by the military, brutal suppression of resistance with overwhelming firepower in built-up areas, troops and commanders allowed immunity from prosecution for war crimes etc etc.

At least Al-Quaeda have a foothold in Iraq now to boot too. Good call George!

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 06:29 AM

Amos - 02 Jun 04 - 01:29 PM

OK, Amos, what is specious and inaccurate - your contention that the coalition went into Iraq to murder civilians - that is for a start.

"The notion that one despises premeditated murder of civilians by heavy weapons means that one likes a dictator is pathetically illogical."

That was not the "notion" being put forward for the slightest second, and you damn well know it. If the US led coalition had not acted as they did, I would venture it pretty safe to say that Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq. Therefore it is perfectly logical to state that if you opposed action being taken to remove Saddam from power you tacitally have no problem with leaving the man, and his regime, in place. Please come back and tell me that the UN would have done something about the situation - I could do with a good laugh. By March 2003, Saddam had been running circles round the UN, politically and economically for the best part of 12 years, and thought he would continue to do so for many more to come.

Oh, and Bobert, on that man's batting average over 120,000 Iraqi's would now be dead. He would be pressuring the UN to lift sanctions, aided and abetted by France and Russia, and once lifted it would be back to business as usual, same aims and ambitions as pre-1990. My opinion - yes certainly, but it is considered, and history would tend to support it. Your opinion, that if we had left things alone all would have been well is at best laughable.

Your contention Bobert that under Gore 9/11 would just have been another day - the mission was dreamt up during Clinton's Presidency, planned during Clinton's Presidency and executed just nine months into the Bush Presidency. Are you seriously trying to say that it would have been called off if Gore had been elected - you are talking rubbish.

On the DPB, what more would Gore have done given the same briefing - and it would have been the same briefing, the same people would have prepared it.

Iraq, Bobert, was created in the early part of the 1920's, Kuwait has NEVER been part of Iraq (or Ieaq, come to think of it)

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 06:29 AM

stigweard:

"They were old munitions left over from the Iran-Iraq war."

"Pure speculation. If the UN Weapons inspectors had been given the time to do their job and the UN had the chance to act, things may have worked out differently"

You contradict yourself- HOW could they be old munitions, if the inspectors were doiung the job?

"And the Americans should know - they have more than anyone else (chemical, biological and nuclear)."

And all of the US WMD are (probably) at least 12 years old, so I guess you can't count them...

You seem to be tripping over your own "Pure speculation"

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 06:33 AM

stigweard - 03 Jun 04 - 06:03 AM

Thanks for the laugh - Amos doesn't have to bother now.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Stu
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 11:16 AM

Glad to be of service Teribus! I bet you have a good chuckle at the evening news every night.


beardedbruce:

"You contradict yourself- HOW could they be old munitions, if the inspectors were doiung the job?"

eh? Explain that statement for poor thick old me. What contradiction is that? Here's a link to the story I think you are referring to: here


"And all of the US WMD are (probably) at least 12 years old, so I guess you can't count them... "

Excellent! And did your contacts in the US military tell you they've made no WMDs for twelve years (probably).

"You seem to be tripping over your own "Pure speculation""

Obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 11:30 AM

"eh? Explain that statement for poor thick old me. What contradiction is that? Here's a link to the story I think you are referring to: here"

Nope, I was refering to the STOCKPILE of chemical warheads found during thew initial invasion.


"And all of the US WMD are (probably) at least 12 years old, so I guess you can't count them... "

Excellent! And did your contacts in the US military tell you they've made no WMDs for twelve years (probably).

CHeck the budget- there has only been funding to rework existing devices, as the tritium decays. We are not producing any new weapons these days.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 11:43 AM

You may well be right, Teribus, about what would have happened with Hussein had Bush not invaded. But you may not be, and I don't know any way to reduce such hypotheticals to practical vlaue.

I do know this. No military strategist who knows anything fails to recognize that civilians get killed in ground wars. They get killed in urban wars, especially. And above all, they get killed in wars where high-density population areas (cities) are bombed, as was the case with Baghdad) using either dumb munitions or missiles. No matter how smart we claim our weapons are, and no matter how much we use clever words like "precision" and "surgical" (!!!) the fact is that innocents get killed.

Knowing this, as anyone aware of military history must, the decision to send in troops, missiles, heavy artillery, howitzers, "shock and awe" bomb campaigns, and more must include the fact that non-combatant blood will be spilled. It is not a surprise side-effect. It is a predictable consequence of unleashing that much force in highly populated areas.

His anxiety to attack Saddam Hussein personally was so high that Bush was willing to commit murder in order to do it.

I find this unforgiveable in a human being, symptomatic of the most degraded and craven personal condition.

He could have taken out the entire Hussein family by hiring renegade Iraqis, for a fraction of the cost. He could have done a dozen things that would have been effective.

But he made his choice to spill blood. And he did not much care whether the blood he spilled was friend or enemy -- he just went ahead and pulled the lever and let loose the bloodthirsty, gut-tearing dogs of ravenous war. Out of spurious "necessity".

I spit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Stu
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 01:01 PM

beardedbruce:

'CHeck the budget- there has only been funding to rework existing devices, as the tritium decays. We are not producing any new weapons these days."

Two points: 1) How can you be 100% sure - tritium is only used in H-Bombs, not all types of nuclear weapon. What about chemical and biological weapons? 2). Do you think the US Government puts everything in their budgets for the world to see? Let's have a look at the budget for Guantanamo Bay please!

"Nope, I was refering to the STOCKPILE of chemical warheads found during thew initial invasion"

I can't find a reference for this - can you post one?

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 01:10 PM

I suspect BB meant to say "a stockpile of empty shells that could have been used to hold chemical agents".

Many sources have reported this - I'll post if you need one.

Now, does empty shells=WMD?

The war supporters will,of course, say that empty shells="WMD programme"

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 01:44 PM

A little perspective (for those who ignore history)

Civil war          400,000 USA killed
1st world war       120,000 USA killed
2nd world war       450,000 USA killed
Korean war          56,000 USA killed
Viet Nam             58,000 USA killed
Iraq War Predictions 100,000-200,000 USA killed
Iraq people killed by Sadaam 1,000,000 or so? Who really knows?
Cambodians killed after USA left vietnam   2,000,000 or more
Rowandans killed when left to UN to protect 800,000

Iraq war killed to date   750
(a few less that the hundreds of thousands predicted)   In addition, predictions were that the oil wells would be set on fire, Israel would be attacked, the arab street would riot, and there would be an increase in terrorism in the USA.

NONE OF THIS HAPPENED!   I guess the left LIED to us.   The only thing the left didn't predict was that we wouldn't find WMD's.   Why ruin a perfect record.

As far as 60 minutes is concerned, they absolutely have an agenda. Andy Rooney has said it.   Mike Wallace last week called this an "unjust" war in a speech and repeated it on national TV.   Lengthy interviews with anti bush book writers just support their political agenda.    The pictures of soldiers was one more example.

It is time for Mike Wallace and Andy Rooney to go fishing with Fredo.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 02:09 PM

Guest Tia, I have stated sevral times that the warheads found were designed for chemical weapons, and would not have been usable for HE or DP . In addition, the statement was made that the sarin used did not count because the chemicals were so easy to make- so what will you admit is the WMD- the casing desigen to hold, deliver and distribute the chemical, or the chemicals themselve. PICK ONE

Hey, you are the ones who say that if we don't see it it does not exist- YOU get to show me we have chem & bio weapons, or shut the hell up.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 02:44 PM

Larry K -

Those numbers do provide good perspective, thanks (no sarcasm). There is one further issue though, and that is the degree of necessity of each death, or the amount that each death contributes to the furtherance of "good" in the world (however one defines good). Please don't misunderstand, all deaths in war are equally tragic, but I think it is legitimate (even necessary) to question how many deaths any given cause is worth. Many would argue that 750 in a foolish cause is worse than 450,000 in a noble cause.

"The Left" also got more than one thing right:

predicted that there would be protracted urban warfare - correct

predicted that winning the peace would be a heck of a lot harder than winning the war - correct

predicted that there would be factional fighting if not outright civil war after "The Liberation" - correct for now, but really too soon to tell

predicted that we would be resented as occupiers not welcomed as liberators - without polling all Iraqis, hard to declare 100% correct, but certainly not flat-out wrong.

predicted that the war would be terribly expensive (not easily funded by Iraqi oil receipts) - correct


And BB - I believe you've just shouted (CAPS) and sworn at me. I suspect you wouldn't try to bully me face-to-face, so please don't try to cyberbully me. We do have at least chem weapons. I regularly see a heavily-secured stockpile awaiting destruction, but absolutely still extant. You know the drill, can't tell you where or I'd have to kill you :). Sorry, not shutting up.

TIA

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: GUEST,Tia
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 03:13 PM

I don't recall much being said by the left about the aftermath of the war or the urban warfare.   I think that is 20/20 hindsight.   The vast majority of comments were in "Quaqmire" or vietnam comparisons and how hard it would be to win Bagdad with hundreds of thousands killed in door to door fighting"   Please site some references on those who predicted the aftermath.

I agree with you that every death is tragic and better to lose 40,000 in a worthy cause, than 700 in a foolish cause.   I don't believe we can say this is a foolish cause yet.   In fact I would argue the opposide.

1. A terrible dictator was removed giving a chance of democracy for Iraq.   I don't know if they will take advanage of this, but there is more hope than before.
2. The biggest threat to Israel and the rest of the middle east is removed.
3. Rape rooms and murder of Iraqi's are vastly removed.   (Don't try to compare the prison with what was going on before- it just weakens your argument)
4. Libia has denounced terrorism, removed WMD's, and gave us great intelligence which led to the knowledge of the pakistani scientist selling WMD's.    All of this is very good.
5. China has said they are rethinking their Taiwan policy based on Iraq.   They are now afraid that the US would protect Twaiwan when before they didn't think we would suffer casulties to do so.   That is also a good thing.
6. We have gotten a lot of information from Iraq sites about WMD programs, the oil for food scandal with FRANCE and RUSSIA, and other information to help us in the war on terror.   
7. This squeezes Iran who is sandwhiched between Iraq and Afganastan.   If democracy works in both those places, the days of the clerics ruling Iran are numbered.
8. More oil production fron Iraq. (thank you Haliburton)   Currently over 2 million barrels a day.   This money goes to Iraq people and US costs rather than sadaam palaces.    More oil production is good for everybody.
9. Good news for Kurds who represent 1/3 of Iraq population.   They are very pro American and will finally get a say in the government.   Did you know that only 300 soldiers in Northern Iraq for 7 million Kurds.   Far less than number of policeman in any US city.    The murder rate in LA in 2002 was about 700.   About the same as Iraq.   Should we send the military into LA?

Finally, your comment about no link to Al Queda.   The number 3 man in Al Queda who cut off the head of Nick Berg was injured in Afganastan and sent to Sadaams private hospital in Iraq in be healed.   I believe they amputated his arm or his leg there.   How could that have happened if there was no relationship?

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 03:24 PM

Bobert:

You stated that "the Bush name is not real popular in the arab world" Last month I read that Bush had made secret deals with Saudi Arabia to lower oil prices just before the election.    So, do they hate him or love him in Saudi Arabia, or is that not part of the arab world? One month Bush is too friendly with Saudi Arabia. The next month he is not friendly enough.   Pleae make up your mide.    In Quatar they named streets after Bush 41.   The Saudi amabassado to the UN is the only person allowed to smoke at the Bush ranch.   I think the problem is that Bush is far too friendly with Saudi Arabia.

You also said that Gore was a stickler for details and would not have ignored the August 8 POB.   Have you forgotten, that Gore was in charge of airport security for the Clinton administration and submitted a detailed plan on airport security.   None of which made one spec of difference in 9/11.   No where in his plan was anything about increasing the strength of cabin doors, or arming the pilots, or putting marshalls ont the plane which were the only things that might have made a difference. I guess he missed those details or maybe he was out having iced tea when they talked about that.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 03:34 PM

Tia,


"We do have at least chem weapons. I regularly see a heavily-secured stockpile awaiting destruction, but absolutely still extant."

Have you verified they have chemicals in them, and they are not just empty casings???

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Stu
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 03:44 PM

"YOU get to show me we have chem & bio weapons, or shut the hell up."

Great argument Bruce, you certainly won me over with that well-argued and lucidly-debated point.

Please look here to see just how many chemical weapons the US does have. I bet Saddam would have liked that sort of tonnage. George would have though twice about wading in if faced with that lot.

Also, for the way the good ole US of A deals with people who think they have too many WMDs themselves, check this article out (and pay special attention to the development of weaponised anthrax by the USA further down the page).

I'll shut the hell up now.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 04 - 09:06 PM

Larry K:

The Saudi royal family isn't exactly popular in the Arab world either so when they make deals with their old oil buddy, Bush, don't think fir one moment that represents approval of Bush... You need to put that one back thru yer calculator...

And judging Gore on a plan that he was part of for increased airport security in the 90's does *not equal* ignoring a warning that people were going to attack US perhaps using aircraft...

And while we're at it, where have you come accross the whopping 100,000 to 200,000 predicted war deaths by the left? That is a perposterious! Sure you might fing one nut who threw out those figures but that statement on the whole is nothing but put crap.

And whoever stated above that we on the left didn't warn of the urban warfare situation might want to go back and reread some of the pre-invasion threads. It was brought up over and over... I must have brought it up a dozen times myself....

And I'm stickin' with my premise that 9/11 wouldn't have occured under a Gore administartion... The fact that planning had gone back into the 90's sounds good but when we look at just how incredibly easy it was to pull off, it could have just as easily been pulled off during the Clinton administartion.... but it didn't.

One last thing, given the current situation in Iraq and the quagmire it is becomming, I'd rather have Saddam in power. Sure hes a bad man. So is George Bush and he's in power... Lots of bad men are in power.

The US could have realed him back in, just like they have done before and actually gotten him to eat out of their hands but that wouldn't be as entertaining for Joe Sixpack and plus, wouldn'y have created major profits for Bush's campaign contributors...

And, like Walter Cronkite used to say...

...that's the way it is...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 01:43 AM

What's this writing under TIA's byline? Kind of sleazy, would you agree?

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 04:49 AM

stigweard

"Great argument Bruce, you certainly won me over with that well-argued and lucidly-debated point."

What , you mean that the samer logic that TIA was using about the Iraqi WMD does not apply? Gee. MAYBE that was my point.


"Please look here to see just how many chemical weapons the US does have. I bet Saddam would have liked that sort of tonnage. George would have though twice about wading in if faced with that lot."

ANd the UN sanctions and ceasefire prohibiting them? and the age- you have told me that if they are more than 12 years old they don't count anymore-



      "What in the world do you think chemical warheads are? "

"They were old munitions left over from the Iran-Iraq war. So they are chemical weapons, but they are NOT the ones monkey-boy and poodle said they were after."

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: TIA
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 08:18 AM

Hmmm. Finally a really good reason to fix my cookie problems. That was Tia, not TIA. Yes, beardedbruce the nasties are most definitely in 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: TIA
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 01:29 PM

Guest, Tia -

Hindsight? Hardly.

From a post by Amos, October 2002, (sorry no clicky):

"... I can tell you that the urban warfare scenario is considered likely by ligh level analysts ..."

Don't mean to label Amos as "The Left" - he can speak for himself. Just showing you that some people had quite accurate foresight.

Do I need to find you one on the chaotic aftermath prediction as well?

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 05:53 AM

stigweard - 03 Jun 04 - 03:44 PM

"Please look here to see just how many chemical weapons the US does have."

There are quite a few members on this forum who have served in the US military - Can any of them tell us about the arsenal of US chemical, or biological, weapons and weapons systems that the US military has, or has had, say over the last forty years? I ask because in my time in the UK armed forces, I never once came across any form of chemical/biological munitions. Never once came across any facility, ashore, or afloat, for the arming of such weapons. Within NATO, we worked very closely with the US military, and I never, once, came across any similar munitions, or facilities, with regard to the US forces we were working with.

A couple of things that stigweard did not say about the sites shown in the link he provided.

- The sites exist for the disposal of those stocks of agents.

- The US has also agreed to dispose of agents from other countries who have renounced the use of such weapons but who do not have suitable facilities to destroy them themselves.

- The US military have undertaken to ensure that all such stocks and weapons will be completely destroyed by 2007 - that is a matter of record in US Senate.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: kendall
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 07:31 AM

Bobert, there is no point in arguing with blind people.
David, let's take a look at the real record:
The Civil war was led by Lincoln..republican
Spanish American war, McKinley, republican
WW 1 after the sinking of the Lusitania, the country was outraged and Wilson reluctantly declared war on Germany.
WW 2 you may be too young to remember, but Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
The very first advisors went to Viet Nam under Eisenhower republican.
In Korea, the North invaded the south; Truman responded as he was obligated to do as a member of the United Nations.
The Reagan gang supplied Saddam with WMD, created the Taliban, and Bush 1 sent our troops to Kuwait and eventually into Iraq. Bush 1 reniged on his promise of support so he set up Desert Storm to happen.
Then comes Bush 2 with his "preemptive first strike" and thousands more die.
Twist this.

So, where do you get this crap about democrats leading us into wars?

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 08:21 AM

kendall,

If you are going to say
"WW 1 after the sinking of the Lusitania, the country was outraged and Wilson reluctantly declared war on Germany.
WW 2 you may be too young to remember, but Japan bombed Pearl Harbor"

then
The Civil war was started by the shelling of Ft. Sumpter
Spanish American warwas started by the explosion of the Maine

Let's be fair, here.

"In Korea, the North invaded the south; Truman responded as he was obligated to do as a member of the United Nations."

"Bush 1 sent our troops to Kuwait and eventually into Iraq." in response to our treaty obligations and the UN resolutions, as obligated to do as a memeber of the United Nations.

And "created the Taliban"??? Yes, the US supported them, during the Russian occupation. But created????

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 08:48 AM

kendall - 08 Jun 04 - 07:31 AM

Point 1:
The Reagan gang supplied Saddam with WMD - Simply not true.

Point 2:
created the Taliban - Again simply not true.

Point 3:
Bush 1 sent our troops to Kuwait and eventually into Iraq. - Decision taken by the UN not by President George Bush senior - so again not true.

Point 4:
Bush 1 reniged on his promise of support so he set up Desert Storm to happen. What promise of support did Bush 1 renege on to set up Desert Storm - if you are referring to the so called "green light" supposedly given to Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait you relly must be joking.

Point 5:
The "pre-emptive first strike" you are referring to, I believe were legitimate actions taken on the part of the United States and had a great deal to do with the 1991 ceasefire terms that Saddam had completely ignored even after being given every opportunity to abide by them. Thousands were already dying, Saddam Hussein could have prevented the war but chose not to, he had had ample warning of how his actions were being perceived - entirely his choice, no-one else's.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:44 AM

ddw, you ask if those of us who are concerned with human rights protested Saddam's gassing of Kurds and Iranians way back when, and someone else asked if we supported intervention in Rwanda and the Balkans.

I can only speak for myself, but yes... I did protest what Saddam did to the Kurds and Iranians, and especially the fact that the US was partially responsible for it. I protested the support the US gave to Iraq while Saddam was gassing Iranians, and I protested the fact that the US abandoned the Kurds when they needed our help the most.

I didn't know about Rwanda until it was too late, because I didn't have access to any news sources during that time, but I did support Clinton's decision to intervene in the Balkans. (At the time. These days, with what I know about the situation now, I'm not so sure his motives were humanitarian.)

Those of us who support human rights don't just do it as an excuss to push an agenda (that usually has no relationship whatever to human rights) down the throats of an unsuspecting public the way the US government does. We actually really care about human rights, and about human suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:53 AM

CarolC:

"especially the fact that the US was partially responsible for it. I protested the support the US gave to Iraq while Saddam was gassing Iranians, and I protested the fact that the US abandoned the Kurds when they needed our help the most.

... but I did support Clinton's decision to intervene in the Balkans. (At the time. These days, with what I know about the situation now, I'm not so sure his motives were humanitarian.)

Those of us who support human rights don't just do it as an excuss to push an agenda (that usually has no relationship whatever to human rights) down the throats of an unsuspecting public the way the US government does. We actually really care about human rights, and about human suffering"



Reading this, I wonder why you do not care about any human rights problems that the US cannot be blamed for.... Sudan, Cambodia, Indonesia, etc....

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 10:06 AM

Reading this, I wonder why you do not care about any human rights problems that the US cannot be blamed for.... Sudan, Cambodia, Indonesia, etc....

Why do you assume that I do not care about those things?

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 10:11 AM

lost a post there... I just wonder why, if you do not have an agenda you choose only to mention ones that you can blame the US for.

I agree that the US should answer for our inaction in Rwanda, and lack of support for the Kurds. But the silence here is deafening on Sudan these days...

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 10:45 AM

I just wonder why, if you do not have an agenda you choose only to mention ones that you can blame the US for.

You have a habit of making some mighty big assumptions about me without ever making any effort to find out if they are in any way accurate. Have you read my entire posting history here in the Mudcat? Have you read every letter to the editor that I have ever written? Have you listened to every discussion I've ever had about world affairs? Why do you presume, just because I don't mention those things in this thread, that I have never addressed them at all?

You have made similar assumptions about me on other subjects on other threads. In those cases, I made links to relevant discussions that showed you to be wrong. You need to learn how to ask people what they think instead of telling people what they think, based on your prejudices about them.

In the case of Sudan (a subject which I have addressed here in the Mudcat), I am suspicious of anything that the media puts out about what's going on there because whenever I do see a report in the US media on that subject, they conveniently leave out the role that oil is playing in that conflict. I am also suspicious about pretty much anything that the media in the US and the US government are beating their collective chests about, because they have earned my distrust by using humanitarian concerns as an exuse to promote agendas that have nothing whatever to do with human rights, and that are, in most cases, antithetical to the promotion of human rights.

It's true that you will see more protest from me about the bad things that the government of my country is responsible for than the bad things that the governments of other countries are responsible for, because that is my responsibility as a US citiizen.

Here's a little 'for instance' for you... I am horrified by the practice of female genital mutilation. I protest its practice by anyone who does it. However, sometimes I see people using criticism of this practice as a way of promoting hatred of Muslims. Now this is wrong for several reasons. One reason this is wrong is that, although some Muslims do practice female genital mutilation, it is not a part of the Muslim religion, not all Muslims practice it, and there are non-Muslims who do practice it.

Secondly, the promotion of hatred against the people who practice this horrible thing hurts the ones who are already suffering from it as well as those who have inflicted it on them. So from a humanitarian perspective, collective chest beating about this subject is counter-productive.

And thirdly, when one advocates for military violence, it is always the weakest and the most vulnerable who will suffer the most. So it is very important that we weigh our reasons for advocating for military violence, and even for economic sanctions, very, very carefully. Most especially because in order to make it easier for our troops to be able to kill people, it is necessary for us to dehumanize the "enemy". We can see this happening right now in Iraq, and it is the reason that so many innocent people are having their human rights violated there right now.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: TIA
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 11:48 AM

BeardedBruce:

I don't know you. I would not presume to put words in your mouth, nor motives in your heart. I cannot judge whether what I say below applies to you or not.

But, It makes me ill to hear war supporters crowing about human rights and accusing war opponents of selectively caring about human rights. I have been writing letters, picketing, fund raising, and going to ugly places and working for human rights for 30+ years. Interestingly, many of the people who now try to flog me with the human rights banner were never present at any of the meetings or events I attended, in fact some of them were rather derisive of my activities. It's hard not to consider them politically-motivated Johnny-come-latelies to the human rights campaign. However, I welcome them, and hope they will stick around even when it's no longer politically fashionable, doesn't involve oil, and maybe even runs counter to the financial interests of big corporations and campaign donors.

Subject: RE: BS: 60 Minutes Shows US Casualty Pics...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 12:26 AM

TIA,

My concern is for the hypocracy of those people, the ones who use "human rights" to critisize the US actions, but keeping silent on other, greater wrongs. If one chooses to feel that we should not be in Iraq, that is one's opinion. But I see reasons to have gone in: Perhaps others do not. But, aside from CarolC, it seems that most here would rather complain about Reagan than comment on Sudan.