Kurds told, "We will gas you when US bombs fall"

I dunno bro. Chris Baker (and others like him) has made a real good point about why there were no anti-war protests when Clinton was steering the ship.

We didn't do any invasions during the Clinton era. We also never threatened to work outside of the U.N.

 

[Edit:] any major invasions on this kind of scale, at least.

 

You know, Chance,

I do think my view of "protestors" above is a little overly simple and ideal. I've got to admit it has political connections, of course, and I'll also admit that yup, there are a bunch of people who would rather protest and dress up like a grim reaper than they would just about anything else. That being said, when you get this many people (and I do know quite a few), some really just want to say "I'm worried here, let's think carefully about what we're getting into and what messages we're sending."

Have a swell weekend evurybuddy. I should have started an Austin bball thread, but I'm too lame. I am supposed to be there next week with about 20,000 other physicists. Austin, prepare to be invaded by an army of science nerds, weilding thick glasses, name badges, and weapons of mass abstraction!

 

Am I the only person who finds this paragraph disturbing?
This is from the National Review. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

We're going to war with Iraq. I think it's the wrong place to be looking at right now and I think it could wait. But all the signs are there. Bush will never change his mind... not after sending such an enormous military force there. And soon to include 6 carrier battle groups. Yes, six. It reminds me somewhat of WW-1. Once the Great Powers were mobilized they thought they HAD to go to war. It was almost impossible not to. Or so they believed.

I think Bush has commited himself so deeply that the chances of not following through are nil.
And I think he is a fool. This could wait. There are other fish to fry.
In my opinion.

Good luck, treeman. Sincerely.

 

The lone 1% feel that Saddam is misunderstood.

 

Bob,

I support anyone's right to voice their opinion, the apologists bit was total sarcasm.

There is no sarcasm smiley face...so you just kind of have to get it.


As for HP, he and I don't get along, of course, he and Clutch don't get along either.

Personally, I think it is cowardice to put someone on ignore because you don't agree, but, to each his own.


Back to the topic, I really don't believe there is any such thing as a Saddam apologist, just trying to get people's goat.

Kind of like folks around here calling people haters when they criticize the team...just trying to join in the fun.

DD

 

PS.

I also have been the one who asks why we are going to war when it is the UN that Iraq has signed the deal with.

I do not think we should act unilaterally, it could weaken our stance politically all over the world.

I do however, support getting rid of Saddam with the UN behind us.

DD

 

No, it ruined his well reasoned article.

 

Has anyone been able to find a secondary confirmation of the information in this article? It seems very odd that Saddam would have his military tell the Kurds "We're gonna get you when the war starts". It just doesn't seem logical. Why readily admit to having the things that they've been so careful to keep away from the world? It just seems really fishy to me.....

 

Oh yeah...considering that Saddam is such a logical and level headed dictator most of the time?

 

Oh...so bomb them to smithereens when it's politically expedient...but don't let a single foot touch the groun.

That is a gross double standard.

 

Oh...so bomb them to smithereens when it's politically expedient...but don't let a single foot touch the groun.

That is a gross double standard.

It's a gross double standard for Americans to voice their opposition to putting American lives in danger? It's a gross double standard for Americans to want their country to work through the UN as opposed to outside of it? What exactly is the double standard here?

Is there no difference between peacekeeping or limited engagement vs. all-out war?

 

So, is it a gross double-standard to question the President's motives in 1998, but to call those who question the President's motives in 2003, un-American?

Makes sense.

 

Whoops. Got it. ... Long week in the lab for me, I guess.

 

There are a certain number of people who would not say anything about it if Clinton were the one calling the shots today. Not EVERYBODY...but a healthy percentage of those protesting today. That is where the double standard comes into play.

Saddam has proven time and time again that "peacekeeping" is a short term fix to a long term problem. It's like putting a Band-Aid on a broken arm. It looks like you've done something, but it is purely cosmetic...it doesn't fix the problem.

Actually the Iraq action in 1998 and the Kosovo action were the only two things Clinton did in office that I was behind 100%. I thought both actions were right and just and he showed leadership. I thought the timing of the action was...well...curious. But I thought Saddam had deserved it nonetheless.

The question is, in light of the implied admission that he has chemical weapons that he intends to use...how many chances are we going to give him to comply? Are we going to wait until he does something utterly devastating and then wonder why we never did anything to stop it?

 

Agreed. Clinton isn't looked upon with contempt by many because of party affiliation in my opinion. Intervention in both conflicts was imperative - I agree. But I will say the parallels between Kosovo and Iraq do raise eyebrows as far as the arguement goes.


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/h990505-kosovo01.htm