Well, peace failed, so we resort to war. On the eve of war, any leader of any country should feel good because he is not Saddam. In Bush's case, he has many, better reasons to feel good. One of them is being able to liberate Iraq and restoring freedom to an entire people. And in the business of recriminating photos, here's your hero who stood against America.
Something even better: Chirac's other Iraq policy From the Boston Globe (affiliate of the New York Times). If visiting Saddam consitituted such a crime, what does it mean to sell him nuclear reactors?
I always hear people use this rationale. There's a world of difference between accidental deaths of civilians while trying to take out a nutcase, and purposely strapping a bomb to your body and running into a restaurant while a family is having lunch and murdering them, or taking a plane and purposely slamming it into a building killing 3000 people. But I'll put it this way: The U.S. is doing everything they can not to kill innocent people The people they are dealing with Saddam, his regime, terrorist, are doing everything they CAN to kill innocent people.
Can someone please point me to a post where Swopa referred to Chirac as his "hero"? Oh, wait, it's just another way to make someone who disagrees with you seem unlikeable.
Chirac meets with Saddam in 1975, France helps build a nuclear reactor in 1981, the US government funds both Iran and Iraq with weapons while Rumsfeld meets with Saddam as he's gassing people with WMD. Those are about the same thing. LOL
Where have you been? It's just who Sino is. There's a reason I called him Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld has pissed off people in the Pentegon with the way he acts. I almost feel like asking him to remove my quote from his sig because I don't want to see my name everytime he does a post like the one you mentioned. Sino, dude, it's like you're Trader Jorge jr. If you've reached that level this early on, man, I don't want to know what your posts are gonna be like a year from now.
Oski: Just for the record, we love Rumsfeld. The troops, that is. He pissed a few people off in the Pentagon early on for a number of reasons. Initially (pre-9/11) he was seen by some there as an axe-man - he was Bush's rep there, and Bush was going to cut a considerable chunk from the force in an attempt to modernize. 9/11 changed all that. The proposed cutbacks were swept under the rug, modernization accellerated (at a breakneck pace, unheard of since WWII). Now the talk is all about expansion. Short and skinny: Rumsfeld was going to cut the military even further (bitter after Clinton years) in order to give us a pay raise. 9/11 happened, we got pay raise, no cuts, talk of expanding the force... Why do we love him, though? He speaks for us. We haven't had a SecDef in a long time who really was unafraid to tell the world what was on his mind. Leave the diplomacy to Foggy Bottom. We like someone who is ready and willing to tell it like it is. I for one am personally greatfull that he has essentially given the French the Big Finger. Long overdue. And he has a way of putting the threats in perspective. For all the damage he has done to our overseas opinion, he has done wonders for our domestic opinion. Which is far, far more important to me. I care deeply more about what farmer Joe thinks about our Iraq war than what winemaker Jacque thinks about it.
Rumsfeld meets with Saddam ...... France helps build a nuclear reactor in 1981.... Remind me again how visits to Sadam are worse than providing him with a nuclear reactor?
Before bickering with sinohero gets more out of hand, does anybody in the anti-war crowd have a response that is relevant to the original subject of this thread?
Doubtful. If they did you would not see the instantaneous resort to stock photos that are 22 years old. Whether you agree with this war or not, the time has come to support the troops. We do NOT want to see them get the same welcome home the troops received after Vietnam.
Okay, here are a couple of points in response for you. 1. Assuming for the moment that the story is legitimate -- you do know that UPI is now owned by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, don't you? -- if that "human shield" went to Baghdad thinking Saddam Hussein was a good guy, then he's an idiot. 2. There are reasons for opposing or criticizing this war besides being in love with Saddam Hussein (or Jacque Chirac, for that matter). The majority of the population in nearly every country in the world that has been polled opposes the war, and it's not because they think Hussein's a good guy. 3. Personally, I'm sick of the political correctness of having to say "I support the troops." I'm not going to hold any soldiers responsible for our government's policies, much less that government's brazen dishonesty, arrogance, and cynicism in pursuing those policies -- but I'm also not going to let that dishonest, arrogant, and cynical government hide behind the troops just because it started a war. Because that just encourages them to start another once this one ends.
Has it occured to you that there are countries outside of western Europe? I can confidently say that every Eastern European population is for the war. Yes, America still has allies, and very good and loyal ones. ok, you don't support Sadam, I give you that. But you don't support the liberation of the Iraqi people either. whatever.
One of the populations not opposed to the war seems to be Iraq. Since they stand to take the bulk of the casualties from the war, shouldn't their opinion count for more than those tangentially involved at best like France and Russia?
Why is this always given as a reason not to go to war? Just because people don't want us to, then that means that it is wrong? If the majority of the population in every country told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it? As is always the case with the antiwar crowd, you are incapable of giving a single reason not to go to war aside from "people will die", which doesn't work out too well as it is reasonable to assume - based on 25 years of past history - that more people will die if we do not go to war. Like the rest of the antiwar crowd, you are operating purely on emotion. That is a really bad way to set foreign policy.
Of all things...supporting the troops is now PC? How about you support the troops because it's the right thing to do? If you really don't like this country so much, please feel free to go live in France, jackass. Oh...how good of you. Now it comes out...you're a moron. Can you PROVE that what we say isn't true? No...it's unfounded speculation. In fact...48 NATIONS are in the coalition. I suppose this is just the world's largest and best kept conspiracy? Save it for the tabloids.
I have never seen a post being DEMOLISHED like this. So many good arguments that escaped me. I'm proud of you guys.
Thanks for responding. I agree that it's silly and makes no sense to paint anti-war groups as pro-Saddam. I also agree that dissent and protests during a war are acceptable. That being said, the only point you have that actually addresses the original subject of the thread is that the story itself may not be legitimate. So in the entire body of this thread, nobody in the anti-war camp has a response to the fact that the Iraqi people themselves cheer their liberation while the rest of the world boos it. Surely the irony of this is striking. The silence by the anti-war crowd on this subject is deafening to me. It is no surprise that the rest of the world protests this war, because Bush has pushed his way into it belligerently and arrogantly. There was a good deal of anti-US sentiment in many countries already, and certainly anti-administration sentiment by the left in our own country. There's plenty of cynicism on how well the liberation of Iraq is going to go, in light of previous blunders by the US government. But none of this changes the fact that the newly liberated Iraqis clearly do not share the views with the protesters of the world on what is best for them. Again, I ask, does anybody in the anti-war crowd have a response specifically to this irony?
As with so much of what you say, you "can confidently say" it, and yet you're wrong. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/06/opinion/meyer/main543005.shtml http://www.napanews.com/templates/printurl.cfm?id=DCE72522-1824-4AE3-B283-965A73279BA2 http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=175 (cited in above link) Yes, it is political correctness, which is exactly how you're trying to use it against me now. If you can't handle dissent, perhaps it's you who should find a different country to live in. US provides false "proof" of Iraq's nuclear program US providing other bogus tips to UN inspectors I expound at greater length on this subject here, in case anyone cares.
