I think we found the murals after we invaded, but if <b>state-sponsored</b> art celebrates the murder of innocent Americans, perhaps we should "set them straight" as we did with Saddam. That goes for India too, although I think we are only dealing with the idiocy of some individual artist.
Originally posted by FranchiseBlade Because of all these things we should have continued to make sure he never got WMD. The insepctions were working finally, and with additional CIA agents that we could have had on the ground there, in conjunction with the no-fly zones, satellite, and spy planes keep track on things, he wouldn't have had the chance to build up his arsenal again. The payment of money to suicide bombers is miniscule and stopping that does nothing to combat terrorism. The money goes to all the families of all martyrs, not just suicide bombers. More martyrs are killed by Israeli troops, than die in suicide bombings. That money was wrong to be paid to the families of suicide bombers but it isn't an attack on anyone. <b>I didn't bring it up because it "compared." I brought it up because it indicated his anti-American sentiment which, after one war already, made him a likely future opponent, thus pre-emption.</b> The murals? He can paint murals all day long. That doesn't equal an attack, or reason to send people to die, and kill others. <b>He can paint murals. We didn't send people to die. They volunteered. They weren't sent to die; they were sent to win. No doubt, some would die but that is not why they were sent. Are you really sad the Saddam's sons are dead?</b> What he did against the Kurds was over and finished with. <b>What would have happend had the UN sanctions been lifted? Isn't that a substantial indication of the testimony this week?</b> Saddam was a horrible dictator, who was cruel to his people, greedy and deserved to fall from power. He wasn't the worst dictator, the most oppressive, nor did he have the closest ties to terrorism. <b>Dictators don't fall from power. They are killed. He had clear ties to terrorism. He "rewarded" the families of Palestinian suicide bombers et al.</b> He in no way compares to anything Germany was doing WWII <b>Most of the German horrors weren't discovered until long after the US had entered the War-- in fact, near the time when the war ended.</b>
I'm dead serious. Do you actually think we should invade a country based on their state-sponsored art?
giddy, it is no sure thing that we would have gone to war with Germany immediately after Pearl Harbor, if Hitler, against the advice of his General Staff and, believe it or not, without their knowledge(!), hadn't declared war on the United States in an address to the Reichstag. The general population, pre-Pearl Harbor, were very isolationist, and a majority had no interest in getting into "another European war." There was near universal support for war against Japan after Pearl, but Hitler did FDR a favor. FDR wanted to enter the war against Nazi Germany and the Axis, but had had little success with Congress, or persuading the public. Thus the charade of Lend-Lease, in order to get aid to Britain, which FDR, that rotten Democrat, was determined to support. Got it, giddy? Keep D&D Civil!!
You would knowingly allow troops to die because Saddam had a mural that was anti-American? I wasn't referring to Saddams sons. Those aren't the only two casualties of the war. I wasn't even really referring to innocent Iraqis, just the damage and changes that our soldiers who end having to kill other humans will go through. What he did against the Kurds was over and finished with. What would have happened if we continued to have spy flights over his country, intel agents on the ground, and restructured more effective sanctions against Iraq? I think anyone who violated the sanctions against Iraq should have to pay a price, and suffer through penalties. I also think sanctions should have all been restructured anyway. Those rewards are miniscule in terms of support. Again the rewards weren't even specifically for those families, they were just included in the group that received the rewards. The majority group that received that money were not suicide bomber's families but families of Palestinians killed by Israeli troops and explosions. We were talking about the reasons for entering the war against Germany vs. those of entering the war against Iraq. We did know that Germany invaded Czech. Poland, was fighting against France, and Germany, various African colonies etc. We knew that his army was powerful and an actual threat to any nation in the world. We know that we handled Iraq with relative ease in the first Gulf war. We also knew that at the outset of this invasion Saddam's army was at less than half the strength it was at the time of the first Gulf War, and not a legitimate threat to us if anyone. We know that Germany didn't have no fly zones that were enforced over their airspace. Iraq had 2/3 of it's nation controlled from the skies by our war planes. We did know that Germany had declared war on us, and was aggressively invading and fighting our allies. Saddam hadn't declared war on us, and wasn't invading any of his neighbors. His position and that of the UN, and US prevented him from any real attempt at such aggression. We also know that Germany and Japan had talks and were allies of one another. Saddam and Al-Qaeda were not allies of one another. The difference was huge.
No. It was one of five illustrations that I used to point up Saddam's anti-American bent which was ripe to turn to anti-American state-sponsored terrorism as soon as he had managed to call the UN dogs off through his various efforts at bribery.
Gee, that sounds familiar, doesn't it? 9/11 > Saddam's Iraq as Pearl Harbor > Hitler's Germany So can we look forward to the day that GWB is the icon that FDR, who likewise provided leadership rather than wet finger to the wind politicking, is for this country? got it deckard, my friend?
Your vacation didn't take, did it? You are still snarly. In threads long ago, you had provided details here about how German subs were off the East Coast in the late 30s and early 40s and that was used as counter-argument that our entry into WWII to fight the Nazis was not pre-emptive... when I thought it was.
Is that a good kind or a bad kind of arrrgghh? Seriously. I think it is the bad kind, but you were so stunned you didn't add anything to the discussion... I'll check back later. I've rented Fahrenheit 9/11 and I'm off to watch it. Watch out! I'll probably come back with a lot of pent up liberal-bashing to get off my chest.
Not snarling at all, just factual. Anyway, that was not I. Perhaps you think of the Thane of Glamis and Cawdor....
Hold on now. Our fight against Germany in WWII was definitely NOT preemptive. We declared war after Germany declared war on us, and after Germany had savaged our allies, the British and French of WWI. More importantly, the Axis pact was a known alliance between Germany and Japan. Even more importantly, I don't think one can argue Hitler was not a threat to the U.S., nevermind the world. Hussein on the other hand - well that's not so crystal clear. That being said - let me stir the fire The Japanese attack was most certainly pre-emptive. On November 26, 1941 Secretary of State Hull presented "peace terms" to the Japanese. The terms presented by Hull were such that in order for Japan to agree to them they would have had to withdraw from China, and essentially end all hostilities. Before this, Roosevelt had frozen Japanese assets, effectively stopping the oil flow to the Japanese war machine. Japan had little choice but to attack. Roosevelt knew that they would attack to strike the first blow rather than let the Americans build up their pacific forces. FDR had been concerned since the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1932 that Japan would declare war on Russia. Japanese forces had already made rounds in eastern russia, and the area was also a testing ground for Japanese biological weapons. FDR was concerned, and righty so, that should Russia fall, Europe was doomed and the US was next. He could not go to war though without provocation, since the US people were isolationist and anti-war. To complicate the story further, the US had ignored offers from the peace party in Japan in the early 1930s before Hirohito and Tojo took complete control. This interesting move is attributed to communist sympathizers in the US and Roosevelt's aforementioned concern that Russia would fall. Also, the Japanese did not maintain radio silence as they sped towards Pearl Harbor, even though I was taught that all the way through high school. History is never as simple as textbooks would like you to believe.
It is very provocative so far. The Bush Family-Saudi Royal Family stuff is disturbing and of concern. I enjoyed the two clips with Moore narrating a script of racially-motivated voter fraud. Both clips showed black polling workers "manipulating" the vote. ha -ha... The power of editing. Lots of low blows, but some disturbing revelations as well. It's on pause now... Christmas Eve 2003. I have to go pick up my kids.
You're still not making sense. AQ was in dozens of countries whose governments may or may not have sanctioned their presence. The linchpin of this argument is that there is no proof of cooperative ties between the Sadaam regime and AQ. This has been verified by both Powell and Rummy very recently. Your most recent grasping at straws (the computer disk) has also been swatted away. If you refuse to accept this tenant (by what can only appear to be keeping your head shoved in the sand when the leaders of the administration you're voting for affirm it) then I'm giving up debating the issue with you. When Powell and Rummy both declare that there's no evidence of a relationship, this debate is closed. If you don't like it, go take it up with them. Or just keep your head in the sand. It's insane that on in justifying war the president says Iraq is a "grave and imminent threat," and when we have a full-blown report showing they clearly were not, they say war is still justified. This administration has no cajones, no responsibility, no accountaibility. They are unworthy of respect and have lost all credibility internationally. By your logic, we would be justified in preemptively invading and toppling the government of any country in which AQ could have been found, particularly if the government/regime/dictator was a bad. Why didn't we topple Suadi? Iran? Syria? Jordan? Egypt? Lebanon? Africa? We should have had good rationale with solid evidence and true justification. We should have gone in with a good plan. We got none of the above.
