Can someone approve of the second Gulf War, and still be a true Democrat?

[prez_sux]

Judging by most of the opinions regarding the current war (or "invasion"), one would believe no Democrats agree with the war.

I believe attacking Iraq was inevitable, and I get the feeling some people seem to try and alienate people like me from the Democratic Party.

What are your opinions on this? Can someone agree with the second Gulf War (which I believe was really merely a prolonged war from Gulf War I), and still be accepted by other Democrats?

[Harrison82]

1. I am for the war

About the war...
No there were no WMDs as we were led to believe. I support the concept of the war if not the execution, because it IS the duty of the US to free people from murderous dictators. I am well aware that we have propped them up in the past but that is not an argument for not toppling Saddam. Yes North Korea is worse but lets be realistic, a war there would be far more difficult. The only problem with our occupation is that many of our military leaders have chosen to treat all Iraqis as suspects. While this may have reduced casulties in the short term, it is costing us what Iraqi support we had to begin with.
There have been notable exceptions of some intelligent and innovative Army commanders. In addition the USMC has released a plan for their takeover of the Sunni triangle that includes a great deal of implied criticism for the Army's techniques, many of which were taken from Israel of all places( I mean COME ON, the Israelis? Yeah there's a great success to copy). The Marines intend to go in with smaller more accurate arms as opposed to opening up with heavy or medium machine guns and taking out the shooter as well as civilians in the way. They will also not be destroying houses as some Army units have done (another wonderful failed tactic from the Israelis). This reduced use of firepower may well result in increased Marine casualities but then they are known for accepting larger casualties than the Army in order to accompolish the mission. Lets just hope it is not to late, and God bless the US Marines. I still hold out hope that this just might work. Can you imagine a democratic middle eastern nation? History is being made here, for better or worse.

[Mikimouse]

5. It is the DUTY of the US to free people from ...?

I would like to hear more about how this came about? The obvious implication is that the US is much more advanced than nations run by 'murderous dictators". Have you looked at the historical and political shenanigans that have been perpetrated by this country in the past century? I suggest that we are hardly in a position to dictate to anyone.

[Harrison82]

18. That's Right

I said DUTY. Who the hell else is going to do it. Did you read my post? I am well aware of past US abuses of human rights both here and abroad. I know that we continue to support dictators who harm their people today and that we now have the dubious honor of having the highest incarceration rate in the ENTIRE WORLD. Saddam still should have been toppled. Have you seen the estimated casualties under his regime? Can you imagine what Iraq will be like if this seemingly botched attempt at democracy does work? The fact that we have done evil in the past does not give us a free pass to be bystanders in the future. Furthermore, consider this...I have been to southern Iraq and the people there are rather friendly toward us. I HAVE PERSONALLY FED HUNGRY CHILDREN IN IRAQ, HAVE YOU? If you haven't then please know that you could do more by sending aid to a relief fund than trying to convince me that the US's past should control it's future.

Here's to a free Iraq, this Buds for you.

PS (I know the typical Iraqi doesn't drink but some of them did make a good living selling alcohol to US troops, believe me I know)

[bowens43]

25. That is quite possibly the MOST ridiculous thing

I have seen posted here.

[Karenina]

38. Set-up waste of bandwidth.

Ich habe Kerzen, wo ist mein ficken Feuerzeug?

[Mikimouse]

28. I do not agree with your point...

We had absolutely no legitimate reason to invade a sovereign nation. The US is not in any position to assert itself as 'sheriff of the world'. As far as what you say about the number of deaths in Iraq prior to the invasion, I must ask how many of the 'mass graves' are full of people that died as a result of American bombings, American enforced sanctions that deprived many of adequate necessities, and civilians killed by the Iranian forced during the Iraq/Iran war?
By your argument, I suspect that you believe that we should then take it upon ourselves to eliminate as many of the 'murderous dictators' as we possibly can? How about the ones we currently support wholeheartedly?
To answer your question, no, I haven't been to Iraq, and further, I have no intention of contributing to any organization that advertises itself as being an aid group, though I may make contributions to the UN groups involved. I still have the image in my mind from the 'care' packages that were sent to Macedonian refugees in the late 90s, clearly marked (each individual box, lest anyone forget where the boxes came from) 'Gift of the American People'. How they managed to get all of that on such small boxes is a source of constant amazement to me. There was nothing truly altruistic about that, nor, I suspect, is there anything truly altruistic about the aid going to the Iraqi civilians.
One more point, if I may. Prior to the decimation of the nation of Iraq (GWI, the sanctions, and GWII), Iraq was without question, the most progressive nation in the middle east (health care, education, standard of living), so anything that we are doing now is a result of what we did in the past.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

30. "Free" Iraq?

Don't make me laugh! Tell that to the women of Iraq who are at this very moment being threatened with being put partially under Sharia law by their glorious new leadership. These are women who have had 50 years of the most progressive women's rights in the Middle East -- even under that murderous dictator Hussein -- and they are in danger of being pushed back CENTURIES.

From the frying pan to the fire....

[DrWeird]

7. Yes, liberating the iraqi people.

Of their lives and natural resources.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bowens43]

26. And shooting them down

when they dare speak out against the invaders.

[rustydog]

13. We didn't go in there to free the world of murderous dictators

Bush and his whole Administration never gave that arguement until AFTER the invasion was "Accompllished".
It was sold to America and the world as WMD and imminent threat to Americans.
If you can be for a lie, then do so, but you must be consistent in that belief system or you are just as hypocritical as any
one else who says one thing then changes arguements when things don't go as you hoped.

Our "ally"in Uzbeckistan is a murderous dictator who watches his enemies be boiled alive. he has no army to threaten America and Bush has not asserted your claim that it is the U.'S.'s DUTY to free those people from this murderous dictator.

get real and stop being hypocritical.

[bowens43]

24. NO, it is NOT

the duty of US to free people from murderous dictators. That is bullshit. There is absolutely NO justification for the war against the people of Iraq. It is criminal. They are not free now nor will they ever be while under the thumb of uncle sam. They have been told that they will never be able to chose their own government. They will forced to live as the US says that should live. They have been gunned down, murdered , by US troops for voicing opposition to the US occupation. There homes have bulldozed because they dare speak out against their new masters. Your post has so much in it that is blatantly wrong that I don't even no where to start. Attitudes like yours are the reason that the US is the most hated country on the planet.

[RapidCreek]

39. Wow what a load of shit....

Since when is it the duty of the US to free people from murderous dictators? If this is indeed true why did we give China most favored nation status after they smashed with tanks demonstrators for Democracy in Tienanmen Square? Why have we not waged war with China? Why do we trade with China? Is the value of peoples freedom from murderous dictators arrived at via cost benefit analysis? If the cost of their freedom is a nuc landing in LA or lower profit margins for those whom outsource their jobs to the murderous dictator that cost outweighs the benefits? Clearly you feel this is the case.

Is it only our duty to free people from murderous dictators of defenseless third world nations who's resultant destroyed infrastructures US business will make billions rebuilding, billions extracted from the US tax base, billions it's claimed are not available to support education, medical care and infrastructure maintenance in our own country?

Can I imagine a democratic middle eastern nation? Can you imagine some arrogant prick rolling into your town with a tank..blowing up your house, wife and kids and telling you that you should be grateful that he is there to free you from the dictatorial regime of George Bush? Well, I'll tell you something pal...you being a lover of marines and all....I got a feeling it wouldn't make much of a difference whether you liked or hated king George...you'd make it your life's mission to kill the arrogant fucker who tells you there is a price for freedom it's his to determine and yours to pay....namely with the ruination of your life. Or wouldn't you? Would you lick his boots? The ones standing on the back of your head, driving your face into the dirt? Maybe you would.....I wouldn't. Then again I'm a patriot.

You can try to make yourself feel good with self aggrandizing rationalization all you want it does not preclude the fact what was done was WRONG and two wrongs don't make a right....particularily to the Friends and relatives of the 10,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians that our soldiers killed.



An Iraqi civilian holding in his arms the broken, cold lifeless body of his child...A man who know doubt cherishes the day he'll be able to shake the hand of his brave liberators....

[jab105]

71. Incredible post...

n/t

[bigwillq]

2. You could still be a DEM and still support the war

Look at Kerry, Edwards, Gep and Lieberman just to name a few

[Kathy in Cambridge]

42. They supported it based on false evidence

We all know that Bush lied and there are no WMDs, Saddam has no link to Osama, and the various other bullshit excuses he gave for the invasion. Anyone that is STUPID enought to support sending our military over there should get off their ass and enlist. Going after Saddam to avenge the 9-11 attacks is like putting sunscreen on a 3rd-degree burn.

IF you support the war, you are not a Democrat.

[bigwillq]

48. I was being

sarcastic about naming those DEMS who supported the war in congress. Whether the Shrub lied or not, I haven't heard those said candidates take anything back about why they voted to go to war. I'm totally against the war but to say "if you support the war, then you're not a democract" is a little harsh.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

50. We now know the war was based on lies.

Thousands of Iraqis dead. Over 400 US soldiers dead, Thousands more soldiers injured.

Now THAT's harsh.

[bigwillq]

56. I hear you on that

I don't support the war and I nevre have but the intial question of this thread was "could you be a true DEM and support the war", I think you can be, even though I don't support it. I totally respect your opinion and the numbers you just gave me is why I don't support the war.

[Upfront]

3. Sure

Democrats beleive in things all over the map. It is a big tent you see. I don't care what you think about the war if it is your openion, so be it. It dosn't make us opposed on everthing because we don't agree on one or two issues. Vote for the Democrats and you seldom will go wrong.

[bigwillq]

4. Your last line

says it all

[demothinker]

6. Sure

I don't agree with it, but I don't think it's a "deal-killer" issue. I think there are very few of those in the Democratic party, if any. And there are good arguments for the war. It mostly depends on whether on balance you think those arguments are worth it, and there are many dems who thing the war was right on balance but the execution was wrong.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leesa]

11. There are no good arguments for illegally invading a disarmed nation

who was in compliance with the UN resolution we said we were invading them for breaking. You cannot rationalize this. It was dead wrong and completely immoral. You cannot pretend it was OK now because we caught an old defanged dictator. The Iraqis never asked us to take out Saddam and we have no right to do such things.
If your logic held, then you would agree that the rest of the world has a right to invade us to depose Bush.
Can you be a Democrat? Of course. But you are dead wrong about this immoral war.

[demothinker]

15. Sure there are

We deposed an evil and brutal dictator who was brutalizing and oppressing his people. You may think that all the points you named far outweigh that (as do I), but you cannot say that us doing that is not a positive argument.

Don't confuse conclusions with arguments. There are valid arguments on both sides (and invalid ones, btw)-it's whether you believe one side is more valid than the other. You obviously think that the anti-war side is far more valid, prez-sux obviously thinks the pro side is. That's just a difference of opinion.

[spotbird]

20. Wait a minute, do you actually think the evil dictator will be replaced

by a democratically elected government if the people of Iraq want a fundamentalist Islamic leader?

People are eating people for want of food in North Korea but the US policy is to hope China takes care of it. If the issue were human rights abuses there were far worse examples of horrific situations in countries which pose real threats to the US.

Human rights had nothing to do with the invasion.

[sistersofmercy]

23. I would like to suggest that you visit the amnesty international web

page and read on what's been going on in Iraq for the past 4 or 5 years, I think you may be very surprised at what you read. Incidently, did you know that thousands missing since GW I were deserters from the Iraqi army who have been and currently still are held in internment camps in Saudi. Sorry no link but read an article in the St Louis Post Dispatch about one such defector who was held until 96 then allowed to immigrate to St Louis.

[bowens43]

29. There are no valid arguments on the pro-war side.

None. Zip . Nada. It was immoral and it was illegal and it has made the world, including Iraq a much more dangerous place.

[RapidCreek]

40. So what you are saying is the ends justify the means?

My how interesting.....should us freedom loving Americans apply that same logic to our Judicial System? If it's good enough for them...it must be good enough for us, right? If know you are a murderer and I responded by blowing up you, your wife, your kids and your house there is a positive argument for what I have done....correct?

RC

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spotbird]

58. The invasion had nothing to do with the UN resolutions.

You can pretend there was a relationship, but anyone who has followed it on either side of the isle knows that the claim betrays the ignorance of the person making it.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

82. Fire up the planes for Israel!

If ignoring UN resolutions and having WMDs is reason enough to go into a country...

If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. has also ignored a few UN resolutions in it's day.

George Bush promised Americans he would go back to the U.N. to get the approval the existing U.N. resolution did NOT give him regarding Iraq, the chicken shit didn't do it.

[spotbird]

93. The issues of the UN and the US invasion are UNRELATED,

except in terms of hyperbole. If the US was interested in enforcing UN resolutions then we would occupy Israel by now.

You are silly if you think the invasion had anything to do with UN enforcement. The right of the US, as well you know, despises the UN and has no interest in adding credibility to the UN resolutions.

Do better than the UN to justify the war because the plain assertion is laughable.

[DrBB]

10. "Attacking Iraq was inevitable"

Quite possibly. The question is one of priorities, not absolutes.

It was profoundly STUPID to do it when we did it and how we did it--not just because it inflamed anti-American feelings and divided us from our allies when we desperately need them, but also because it drew attention, focus and all important assets away from the ACTUAL struggle against ACTUAL terrorists.

So "for the war" in what sense? "Inevitable," sure, but WHEN and HOW?

But yeah, you can still be a Democrat and favor this boondoggle if you want. I'd question your judgment. But I wouldn't presume to exclude anyone on the basis of one issue.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

19. How about when Saddam didn't let inspectors in.

Of course he WAS letting inspectors in, but litlte things like the truth won't stop the Bush Lie/ War machine.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

22. Wrong...

WE pulled them out during Clinton's last term when we were about to do one of our bombing runs, and then they were let back in by Hussein.

Bush Co. liked the sound of "Saddam kicked out the inspectors" better than the truth. Much like most of their argument for going into Iraq.

If folks are going to say they support the war, they better have done their reserch on the REAL situation.

[bowens43]

33. Memory DOESN'T serve you correctly.

Do a little research.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

96. That was back...

during Clinton.

When things started heating up during Bush, inspectors were back in the country and Iraq was COOPERATING. That was in the months before the invasion. And that is why many of us, including the UN, were begging the administration to hold off and let the inspectors do their work.

But Bush wouldn't have that -- after all, if they had kept working they would have soon found out Hussein had DICK, and Bush's excuse for going in would have been shot to hell.

[DrBB]

27. Um, I dunno how about AFTER

...establishing a stable situation in Afghanistan? Which is now neglected and sliding back into the hands of the Taliban and once again an al Quaeda playground. Mainly cuz we forgot about it in our rush to take out Saddam.

How about WITH the support of our major allies? Not actually impossible to get that, you know. They actually did support us at one point. After 9/11. Before we arbitrarily decided on this non sequitur of an attack on Iraq.

How about AFTER justifying to the US and the rest of the world as a humanitarian intervention, instead of making up a huge amount of bullshit about WMDs (now "weapons of mass destruction related program activities) and connections to 9/11 and al Qaeda? How about after NOT lying us into it?

[bowens43]

32. That's easy.

Iraq should have been attacked only after they launched an attack on the United States.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pacifictiger]

14. I think

in today's world that it is not so much the issue of war vs peace in and of itself, but, as most candidates have said in one way or another, the reason for war was totally misrepresented and only time will tell if the pre-emptive action will justify the final outcome. It's a parallel to "I did not have sex with that woman." Its the misrepresentation that is considered the bigger crime. And war has bigger consequences for humanity than a blow job. Most thinking people were aware that the bigger problem was really dictator saddam, and wanted to give the UN team more time and muscle. And we knew of the cosy relationship that the warmongers had with saddam when he was doing their bidding in the 80s. They have a history of taking down anyone that they enthrone that ceases to do their bidding - just ask noriega for starters.
Bush and company were ready to storm the gates before doing adequate homework on post war issues - not to mention the ethics of circumventing and bullying what few countries helped by saying you're either with us or with the terrorists.
Global war and conflict is good business for the corporate defense contractors and it has little to do with true morality. If we get to an age where true peace is actually possible, they'd be out of business because the world security could be handled with a police force and law enforcement.

[spotbird]

16. Sure, if they are totally uninformed.

There are lots and lots of them that haven't a clue that they were bamboozled.

[sistersofmercy]

17. Yes, you still fit under the big democratic tent!

Although, I believe this is a criminal war and by no means constitutes a humanitarian cause, I also believe in your right to have a different opinion. I disagree with many other Dems on other issues. It's simple really, Dems love to debate.

[jpak]

31. Can you be a good Republican and love Saddam?

yup

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert122.shtml

[earthman dave]

34. We did those people a favour, you hear me? Ungrateful wretches

Rid the world of eevil tyrant, blah blah, er - mass graves! Oppression! Eevil! We know what's best for all the little brown people, and now that our puppet has been removed for failing to follow orders, the little brown people should thank us. Who else is gonna rule the world, huh? It's our RESPONSIBILITY! etc

[Mikimouse]

35. LOL! I think you just summed up the prevailing arguments

in a single shot. Good work!

[LWolf]

36. An earthman

after my own heart.

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[earthman dave]

37. Thanks! And thanks to you, Mikimouse nt

[Kathy in Cambridge]

45. LOL-Excellent Assessment of the weak arguments above

To be perfectly fair, their ignorance is probably because here in the US, our educational system doesn't teach critical thinking. Logic is a rarity.

[ulysses]

41. why the fuck not?

Plenty of true Democrats supported it, whether it bothered them later to have been lied to about it or not.

[many a good man]

44. A lot of people think this way

I don't; I think its hopelessly naive.

However, I've spoken to a lot of people who, from the very beginning, supported this war for the purpose of deposing the tyrant. All these people were first or second generation immigrants from Vietnam, Korea, and the former Soviet republics in eastern Europe.

I think it would be great to depose all the murderous tyrants in the world, too. However, that is not our current foreign policy and its not our history. But such a foreign policy IS possible, through the UN. Read the book One World by Peter Singer to see how such a thing is possible...

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

47. Saddam dead??? LOL

gotta link?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulysses]

51. "you're defending Saddam" again.

I love my party.

:eyes:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

52. Because we're all Saddam Lovers!!!

:crazy:

Yes, Saddam was evil. But he pales in comparison to the ruler of North Korea and about a dozen other dictatorships around the world. So why did we focus on Saddam's human rights violations vs. all the other atrocities committed by other dictators?

OIL.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

63. Huh?

Why did we attack Iraq when Kim Jong-Il can lob missiles at California?

Your explanations are weak when you start arguing the 'humanitarian' reasons for going into Iraq, especially when millions of North Koreans have died as a direct result of Kim Jong-Il's policies. And the guy actually HAS WMDs!

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

68. I never said we should fight North Korea; again, lack of critical thinking

on your part.

My point was WHY did we attack a dictator WHO POSED NO THREAT TO THE U.S., when there are others-namely N.K.-that possess nuclear weapons and CAN ACTUALLY HIT THE MAINLAND U.S.????

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

79. Now you're just talking out your ass...

You're jumping to another subject because with all the thoughtful and intelligent posts on this thread you just can't argue your support of the Iraq war.

Tiresome. Transparent. :eyes:

[spotbird]

80. Sure, that's why we don't protect the Koreans.

It has nothing to do with the reality that there isn't much in it for us economically.

You don't fool anyone.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spotbird]

98. Good God, it is in NORTH Korea where there are human rights abuses

Your friends are not good reporters of the horrors in the north.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spotbird]

106. Do you know anything?

We don't work to change Nk because they are brown people who don't sit on oil.

If human rights mattered to the US NORTH Korea would matter.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

113. No, he doesn't.

Isn't that obvious?

[jpak]

53. Democrats never defended Saddam

After revelations of Saddam's gas attacks against the Kurds (ignored by the Reagan administration), Senate Democrats introduced the Prevention of Genocide Act which included punishing sanctions against I-raq.

http://members.aol.com/apollo711/war/genocide-act.html

Reagan threatened to veto it.

When Congressional Democrats introduced a similar bill the following year, Poppy Bush also theatened a veto.

Poppy opposed sanctions against Saddam right up to the day he invaded Kuwait.

More Republican 80's Saddam love...

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert122.shtml

<snip>

The US- Saddam connection continued throughout Ronald Reagan's presidency. When Iran appeared to be winning the war, the Administration began secretly supplying technology that helped Saddam to build biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction -- which he used, both against Iran and Iraq's own Kurdish minority.

<snip>

Current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is also implicated in Saddam's secret history. As Reagan's special envoy in 1983, Rumsfeld hand-delivered a letter from the president to Saddam, telling the Iraqi "that the United States and Iraq shared interests in preventing Iranian expansion."

Rumsfeld never mentioned Saddam's chemical weapons. Diplomatic relations between the two countries were restored the next year.

The US coddled Saddam throughout his eight-year war with Iran -- and beyond. In 1989, President Bush signed a top-secret directive allowing even closer diplomatic ties and continuing economic assistance to Iraq, which had been devastated by the war.

Keeping Iraqi markets open to American producers was one major concern, as demonstrated in April, 1990, when a delegation of farm-belt senators, led by Robert Dole, met with Saddam. One delegate, Republican senator Alan Simpson, actually appeased Saddam by explaining that Iraq's problem was not with the US government, but with the "haughty and pampered" Western media.

...and on and on and on....

Also

Please explain to us why Dick Cheney did millions of dollars worth of business with Saddam in 1998.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

59. Well, then, take a step back and put on your critical thinking cap

Read some of the links people posted and think about all the young men and women in the military who will come home in a bodybag or injured. Not to mention the thousands of Iraqi men, women and children who've been killed by American bombs.

We've just spawned a new generation of anti-American terrorists, and created a power vacuum in the Middle East. Now that's what I call geo-political suicide.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

86. But we unilaterally attacked a sovereign country

Do you understand what this means? Have you ever read a history or political science book?

Do you realize that we are directly responsible for this war? there is blood on our hands.

Anyway, now I'm worried you have no reading comprehension skills in addition to a lack of critical thinking.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

62. Well then - which Democrats defend Saddam?????

please defend your statement.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terwilliger]

69. The US was the reason Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq

That's like the police intentionally leaving the jail doors open so the criminals can go back out and do bad things.

Maybe the US should be held accountable for its war crimes.

[many a good man]

70. Indirectly defending Saddam

Your post #65 sounds like ignorant freeper-think. So Bush* is indirectly supporting Kim Jong-Il? And a few dozen other murderous tyrants?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

72. You are arguing moral judgements

"everyone who says we should not have gone to war with iraq indirectly defends him."

What kind of BS is that? who the FUCK are you to make such a judgement? Did someone christen you Secretary of state?

Your motives are obvious. Democrat my ass!

:eyes:

Tiresome. Transparent.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

90. Oh, come now

that's the best you can do?

:eyes:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

75. The Stalin regime, the Castro regime...

the Kim regime, the aparteid regime, the Rwandan regime...I could go on an on.

Please point out the regime of one of the above murderous dictators we removed from power by invading their country.

Hmmm?


We didn't even take out Miloslevich (sp?) through invasion. Most of those we were content to either control through sanctions, threat, or ignore entirely.

What makes Hussein so "special"?

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

83. Sanctions WERE effective. Where are the WMDs?

Did Saddam attack any of his neighbors under the sanctions.

Again, you're talking out your ass, pal. :eyes:

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

95. Links?

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

101. But those aren't WMDs; please attempt to continue a rational line

of thought.

You're seriously pulling things out of your ass. And not doing a good job of defending your assertions.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terwilliger]

84. its no secret that saddam had no weapons

yet we keep hearing how everybody thought he did...very strange

[Hell Hath No Fury]

87. "Stuff"? What "stuff"?

They sure as heck weren't getting materials to build WMDs, which was the reason told to us by our leaders was THE reason we were invading a country.

Maybe you like being lied to.

I don't.

[spotbird]

77. Tell me with graphic detail why we invaded Iraq?

Understanding that since we "freed" Kuwait women still can't vote.

Understanding that governmental abuses are so severe in North Korea that people eat people to survive.

Understanding that the US will not tolerate a "democratic" outcome in Iraq which allows an elected government in if it is not supportive of our government.

Understanding that the Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan outside the cities.

Just why did we do this?

Why don't the defenders believe what the powerful said in the position paper at the PNAC?

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spotbird]

104. Again, you can't even give a reason.

The reason the public supports the invasion is because people like you have no idea at all what happened.

My reference to Kuwait was simply to point out the lunacy of the premise that we invade for "democracy."

FYI we already waged war in South Korea, people eat people in North Korea to survive. You may wish to familiarize yourself with some basic facts before you make your absurd assertions.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spotbird]

110. I edited to correct my mistake.

Sorry to have confused you.

[jab105]

89. Bull...is saying that we shouldnt go to war with Kim JOng Il...

defending him?

Is saying that we shouldn't going to war with China?

No, they are two completely separate statements...saying that we shouldnt have attacked Iraq is in no way saying the Hussein was good, in no way defending him...if that was the case, then we would be at war with about half of Africa at this time!!

It isnt just black and white, us versus them...

There are so many other things to consider here...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

94. Manichean thought processes

belong on that 'other' message board that I'm pretty sure our visitor is familiar with...

:eyes:

[jpak]

91. The war was fought to disarm I-raq of its WMD

that did not exist..

at what cost?

500+ US military dead.

~10,000 Iraqi civilians dead and thousands more grieviously wounded.

15-25,000 Iraqi military dead.

George W. Bush killed more Iraqis this year than Saddam killed in the last decade.

Furthermore...

13,000 Iraqis remain in detention for opposing the US occupation.

US forces use home invasion, hostage taking and home demolition as tools of pacification in "liberated" Iraq.

Millions of Iraqis were thrown into poverty and privation as a result of this war - while the best recontruction jobs go to US civilians and other foreigners (thank you Dick Cheney).

The US and UK - not the Iraqi people - have control over Iraq's oil revenue.

The US has created a state-run oil industry, controlled by a hand-picked US puppet governing council, protected by a US hand-picked Secret Police (at a cost $3 billion dollars) and army, promoted by US-controlled state TV and radio, and will soon be selecting a hand-picked US government in a scheme hatched not to promote "democracy" in Iraq - but as an election-year Karl Rove stunt.

Defend that.

[Terwilliger]

60. I have no doubt that you're wholly acceptable to Democrats

I think I'm not, because I think war is the most horrendous, barbaric, uncivilized thing that moral, intelligent human beings can do.

But HEY...don't let that stop you!

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/special_reports/dispatches_killing_zone.html

OnEdit: spelling

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terwilliger]

109. I don't

read "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn...I think wars are almost unilaterally avoidable

If the world, with momentum on its side, could unify together and fight Saddam in 1990-91....why the *@!*(@ didn't the war end then? Why was the failure to eradicate Saddam and his Republican Guard allowed to happen, MUCH LESS a strict imposition of world sanctions later that did NOTHING but affect those Iraqis whose lives were already hell? Why do so many civilians have to pay a price for what is ultimately a problem decided among world elites?

Fuck war. It's bullshit.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

111. Oh why oh why

do you mention Zinn to our visitor? He admits above that he doesn't read history or political science books. Do you believe it? :eyes:

actually, judging by his lack of knowledge and arguing abilities, I do believe it...

[EdGy]

74. yes, plenty of "true Dems" support US imperialism

it's unfortunate but very true.

Dems tend to try to dress it up as "humanitarian assistance" or, like Bush is claiming, "bringing freedom to oppressed people." But bottom line, it's spreading US influence, power and control, sometimes more sugar coated, sometimes less.

So you are in good company in the Democratic Party.

[RapidCreek]

100. Could you still be a Dem but vote for AWOL George? Sure Could

Could you still be a Dem and rationalize invading sovereign nations based upon lies? Sure could.

Could you still be a Dem and support tax cuts for the wealthiest residents of you country...tax cuts which ride on the backs of the blue coler workers of your country. Sure could.

Could you still be a Dem and support the destruction of Social Security? Sure Could.

Could you still be a Dem and support the fascist overthrow of our Democratic Republic? Sure Could.

The question is...why would you be a Dem if you supported these things? Because you've decided to disingenuously help destroy the Democratic party by diluting the things it has historically stood for.

Would you be worth a shit to the Democratic party if this were you goal? Sure wouldn't.

Would I be happy to point this out at every possible occasion? Sure would.

RC

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spotbird]

114. Good night.

There really isn't anyone here who hasn't debated the Republican talking points to the bone so you may wish to spend your energies where people are less well-informed.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

115. It's pointless, really.

Like shooting an unarmed man.

[many a good man]

112. Naive, ignorant idiots are welcome in the Democratic party

Why should the Republicans have a monopoly on this vast demographic?

If you want to depose the leader of a sovereign nation you should at least make this clear to Congress and the public as the cause for war. You shouldn't need to misrepresent intelligence and imply a non-existent connection to Al Qaeda. After all, it is possible you may get a majority of the American public to explicitly sign on for such a reason.

OTOH, there's the little matter of international law and global public opinion. The international system is far from perfect, but its the best thing we have to maintain peace. Its clear Bush* had no intention of following through on the UN process because he wanted to follow the PNAC script to assert American military dominance. (Ever hear of PNAC???)

You don't have to be an "America-hater" to acknowledge that our country has done many awful things in the name of "national security" and global power politics over the past 50 years. Things like supporting and arming SH. Things like subverting democratically elected leaders in places like Iran and Chile.

If America truly wants to be a force for good and a beacon for all mankind then we better start living up to our responsibilities. We have the ability to join with the UN to make it a truly effective institution. The first step is to stop pretending all our military interventions are altruistic...

[Moderator]

116. Locked