Bush, Rumsfeld et al American traitors?

Hairy Homer

There was a really good article by Gunter Grass—yes that one, the Nobel Laureate—in the LA Times a few days ago. The URL is http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-war-oegrass7apr07,1,6409115.story

but I’ve taken the liberty of printing it here as the LA Times’ site requires registration and will take you a few minutes to log in, despite the fact that it’s free of charge.

Dunno if my doing so conflicts with acceptable-use rules. If comment is required, I would just say that I fully concur with everything he says about the meaning of being pro-or anti-American, and why that country's great values are being betrayed.Only he puts it a lot better than I would.

Well that’s what he gets Nobel prizes for.

Admire:

Core Values?!

by Gunter Grass; Los Angeles Times; April 07, 2003

BEHLENDORF, Germany. A war long sought and planned for is now underway. All deliberations and warnings of the United Nations notwithstanding, an overpowering military apparatus has attacked preemptively in violation of international law. No objections were heeded. The Security Council was disdained and scorned as irrelevant. As the bombs fall and the battle for Baghdad continues, the law of might prevails.

And based on this injustice, the mighty have the power to buy and reward those who might be willing and to disdain and even punish the unwilling. The words of the current American president -- "Those not with us are against us" -- weighs on current events with the resonance of barbaric times. It is hardly surprising that the rhetoric of the aggressor increasingly resembles that of his enemy. Religious fundamentalism leads both sides to abuse what belongs to all religions, taking the notion of "God" hostage in accordance with their own fanatical understanding. Even the passionate warnings of the pope, who knows from experience how lasting and devastating the disasters wrought by the mentality and actions of Christian crusaders have been, were unsuccessful.

Disturbed and powerless, but also filled with anger, we are witnessing the moral decline of the world's only superpower, burdened by the knowledge that only one consequence of this organized madness is certain: Motivation for more terrorism is being provided, for more violence and counter-violence. Is this really the United States of America, the country we fondly remember for any number of reasons? The generous benefactor of the Marshall Plan? The forbearing instructor in the lessons of democracy? The candid self-critic? The country that once made use of the teachings of the European Enlightenment to throw off its colonial masters and to provide itself with an exemplary constitution? Is this the country that made freedom of speech an incontrovertible human right?

It is not just foreigners who cringe as this ideal pales to the point where it is now a caricature of itself. There are many Americans who love their country too, people who are horrified by the betrayal of their founding values and by the hubris of those holding the reins of power. I stand with them. By their side, I declare myself pro-American. I protest with them against the brutalities brought about by the injustice of the mighty, against all restrictions of the freedom of expression, against information control reminiscent of the practices of totalitarian states and against the cynical equations that make the death of thousands of women and children acceptable so long as economic and political interests are protected.

No, it is not anti-Americanism that is damaging the image of the United States; nor do the dictator Saddam Hussein and his extensively disarmed country endanger the most powerful country in the world. It is President Bush and his government that are diminishing democratic values, bringing sure disaster to their own country, ignoring the United Nations, and that are now terrifying the world with a war in violation of international law.

We Germans often are asked if we are proud of our country. To answer this question has always been a burden. There were reasons for our doubts. But now I can say that the rejection of this preemptive war on the part of a majority in my country has made me proud of Germany. After having been largely responsible for two world wars and their criminal consequences, we seem to have made a difficult step. We seem to have learned from history.

The Federal Republic of Germany has been a sovereign country since 1990. Our government made use of this sovereignty by having the courage to object to those allied in this cause, the courage to protect Germany from a step back to a kind of adolescent behavior. I thank Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, for their fortitude in spite of all the attacks and accusations, from abroad and from within.

Many people find themselves in a state of despair these days, and with good reason. Yet we must not let our voices, our no to war and yes to peace, be silenced. What has happened? The stone that we pushed to the peak is once again at the foot of the mountain. But we must push it back up, even with the knowledge that we can expect it to roll back down again.

Biffa Bacon

More anti-American hate speech. Well here’s my take:

A war long sought and planned for is now underway.

Hooray!

All deliberations and warnings of the United Nations notwithstanding…

Completely disingenuous. He is suggesting that the UN speaks with one voice when quite obviously it does not.

…an overpowering military apparatus has attacked preemptively in violation of international law.

If it is in violation of international law, and it’s far from universally accepted that it is, then international law is an ass.

No objections were heeded.

And this is a bad thing? If the anti-war lobby had been heeded, the Iraqi people would still be slaves of Saddam.

The Security Council was disdained…

So why did America go back and try to get a 17th and then an 18th resolution?

…and scorned as irrelevant.

Of course it’s irrelevant. If the Security Council refuses to enforce its own mandatory resolutions, then what is the point?

As the bombs fall and the battle for Baghdad continues, the law of might prevails.

Not the law of might, the law of justice and humanity.

And based on this injustice…

Freeing people from dictatorship is injustice?

…the mighty have the power to buy and reward those who might be willing…

So?

…and to disdain and even punish the unwilling.

France disdained for its shameful stance? Boo-hoo.

It is hardly surprising that the rhetoric of the aggressor increasingly resembles that of his enemy.

It would be surprising if it was actually happening.

Religious fundamentalism leads both sides to abuse what belongs to all religions, taking the notion of "God" hostage in accordance with their own fanatical understanding.

What disgusting moral equivalence. This guy is sick.

Even the passionate warnings of the pope, who knows from experience how lasting and devastating the disasters wrought by the mentality and actions of Christian crusaders have been, were unsuccessful.

Crikey, he’s not that old, is he?

Disturbed and powerless, but also filled with anger…

Now you know how the Iraqis felt when they saw on their TV sets millions of misguided souls like yourself marching against war.

…we are witnessing the moral decline of the world's only superpower…

What kind of sick scumbag thinks bringing democracy and human rights to a horribly oppressed people represents a “moral decline”?

…burdened by the knowledge that only one consequence of this organized madness is certain: Motivation for more terrorism is being provided, for more violence and counter-violence.

A democratic Middle East, starting with Iraq, is part of the process of removing the root causes of terrorism.

Is this really the United States of America, the country we fondly remember for any number of reasons? The generous benefactor of the Marshall Plan? The forbearing instructor in the lessons of democracy? The candid self-critic? The country that once made use of the teachings of the European Enlightenment to throw off its colonial masters and to provide itself with an exemplary constitution? Is this the country that made freedom of speech an incontrovertible human right?

It’s strange, it’s almost like he’s suggesting there’s some sort of contradiction between that and what America is doing in Iraq.

It is not just foreigners who cringe as this ideal pales to the point where it is now a caricature of itself.

Is he talking about the anti-war Left here? People who are supposed to prioritise human rights over all else?

There are many Americans who love their country too, people who are horrified by the betrayal of their founding values and by the hubris of those holding the reins of power.

Thankfully, the vast majority of them aren’t retards.

I stand with them. By their side, I declare myself pro-American. I protest with them against the brutalities brought about by the injustice of the mighty, against all restrictions of the freedom of expression, against information control reminiscent of the practices of totalitarian states and against the cynical equations that make the death of thousands of women and children acceptable so long as economic and political interests are protected.

Make up your mind – now you’re saying you’re for the war???

No, it is not anti-Americanism that is damaging the image of the United States; nor do the dictator Saddam Hussein and his extensively disarmed country endanger the most powerful country in the world. It is President Bush and his government that are diminishing democratic values, bringing sure disaster to their own country, ignoring the United Nations, and that are now terrifying the world with a war in violation of international law.

You can deny reality all you want and it won’t change a damned thing.

We Germans often are asked if we are proud of our country. To answer this question has always been a burden. There were reasons for our doubts. But now I can say that the rejection of this preemptive war on the part of a majority in my country has made me proud of Germany. After having been largely responsible for two world wars and their criminal consequences, we seem to have made a difficult step. We seem to have learned from history.

Do they not teach the history of appeasement in Germany anymore?

Many people find themselves in a state of despair these days, and with good reason. Yet we must not let our voices, our no to war and yes to peace, be silenced.

Sorry, no one will hear you above all the cheering Iraqis.

Lemming

*sigh*

here we go again :rolleyes:

I'll try not to get myself an early coronary, banned, or the thread locked ....

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Completely disingenuous. He is suggesting that the UN speaks with one voice when quite obviously it does not.

Ummmm. That's the point of the UN. And just about every one of those voices WAS voicing protest at the current US administration's activities.

If it is in violation of international law, and it’s far from universally accepted that it is, then international law is an ass.

WTF??? Are you stupid or do you find that you have to work at it? Which part of the various treaties being mentioned by others (which I'm not go to repeat ad nauseum) do you not cop onto abou the legality of this war (or lack thereof)??

And this is a bad thing?

It's called "leading by example". The US claims to be a world leader. What example is it sending out tot he rest of the world? That the law of the gun dominates all else and that dialogue and diplomacy are to be discarded as soon as they don't suit your agenda

So why did America go back and try to get a 17th and then an 18th resolution?

Because it would have given them access to various countries facilities in the end. Which didn't happen because a) the UN didn't sanction it and b) they side-stepped the UN because it looked like they might have a tough fight to presuade people that war WAS the best option.

Of course it’s irrelevant. If the Security Council refuses to enforce its own mandatory resolutions, then what is the point?

To say that the minority should dictate to the majority is a dangerous precendent. Also, the security council is only as powerful as the resources that it's members give it. Since the US is the largest military resource provider of the UN (iirc), then surely you should be levelling this accusation at the US as well then, no?? :rolleyes:

Not the law of might, the law of justice and humanity.

Really??? What would you call war? Just? Humane? Diplomatic? Graceful? Elegant? Compasionate?

War is the most base level of human interaction. It is the complete and utter failure of humanity. There is no justice in war. Only survivors. Everyone is game. Bullets and bombs do not discriminate. Shrapenel does not discriminate. Chemicals do not discriminate. Bayonets do not discriminate.

The law of might says one thing and one thing only. "Those with the largest guns/most powerful weapons are ALWAYS right." I do believe the other term for that is "bully". The same people who beat up weaker kids in the playground for fun. IE. SCUM.

So?

the finest response to anything I've ever read. It only shows your absolute inability to think for yourself. Absolute apathy.

France disdained for its shameful stance? Boo-hoo.

Au contraire. France did it's duty. War is the final step in politics and should never be entered into lightly. France upheld that. The current US administration did the opposite, singing "Hi ho Hi Ho .. it's off to war we go!"

What disgusting moral equivalence. This guy is sick.

In light of your comments about war being just and humane we should be calling YOU sick and utterly of disgusting moral values.

Now you know how the Iraqis felt when they saw on their TV sets millions of misguided souls like yourself marching against war.

SO you're a mind-reader now, eh? I would think that most people in Iraq were hoping not to have bombs landing in their laps rather than beggnig the CoW to bomb, kill, or maim them, their families, and everyone/thing they know.

What kind of sick scumbag thinks bringing democracy and human rights to a horribly oppressed people represents a “moral decline”?

Whether or not democracy and human rights are delivered to the Iraqis remains to be seen Biffa. Need I also remind you that you cannot force democracy on a populace, since that is the opposite of what democracy is. The right to choose.

A democratic Middle East, starting with Iraq, is part of the process of removing the root causes of terrorism.

Actually, examining foreign policy is the start to removing the root causes of terrorism. Do you think the ME just hated the US over night?? It happened over time. Just like Ireland & the UK. Just like India & Pakistan. Bombing innocents inflames hatred. That's all.

DadaKopf

If it is in violation of international law, and it’s far from universally accepted that it is, then international law is an ass.

At present, international law is an ass. But as Grass says:

we must not let our voices, our no to war and yes to peace, be silenced. What has happened? The stone that we pushed to the peak is once again at the foot of the mountain. But we must push it back up, even with the knowledge that we can expect it to roll back down again.

This is what must be done. It angers me, to say the least, when people claim that because the laws don't work as well as they could or at all in many cases, that we should acknowledge their failure and turn our backs on them. To me, that is the most irresponsible position of all.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
More anti-American hate speech. Well here’s my take:

Wha-a-at? Let's remind ourselves what he said:

There are many Americans who love their country too, people who are horrified by the betrayal of their founding values and by the hubris of those holding the reins of power. I stand with them. By their side, I declare myself pro-American.

You call that hate speak? To paraphrase another great American, Groucho Marx: 'That's a new definition of hate speak with which I'm not familiar'

Big Daddy Cruz

Don't forget like lot of you do. Saddam is bad.

I don't know what some of your definitions of evil are, but Saddam fits mine.

I really don't understand why people support Saddam so much. I understand the French doing it for the money. What are your excuses?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Do they not teach the history of appeasement in Germany anymore?

They do - hence their objection to the present invasion.

Originally posted by Big Daddy Cruz
Don't forget like lot of you do. Saddam is bad.

And four legs good, then?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by daveirl
I'm looking but I still can't see where people are saying they support Saddam here?

Well they seem to wish he was still in power.

Lemming

For those with rather dodgy vision and/or brain's unable to grasp simple concepts ....


_I_ _DO_ _NOT_ _SUPPORT_ _SADDAM_ _HUSSSEIN_

My objections arise from a number of other issues, such as the US unilateralist approach, violating decades worth of treaties, agreements, and political building for what seem EXTREMELY dubious reasons.

It is possible to be pro-american, yet not agree with the current activities. Friends do not always agree. Friends will tell you when you are doing something VERY bad not out of spite, but to stop you from getting hurt.

ALSO

the US actions are destabilishing world politics. The Turks are already itching to go into N.Iraq on a "pre-emptive" strike of their own following the US. The Indians & Pakistanis are now using the same excuse, the Israelis are at it again seeing how the US does it, and there will be more for sure.

Leaders lead by example. Some example! :rolleyes:

dathi1

Well they seem to wish he was still in power.

eh....so you'd prefer:
Armed militias
Doctors defending hospitals with ak47's from looters.
No Law and order (very important Human rights etc)
a country on the break of 3 way partition
Suicide bombers
Arab national separatists
Kurdish infighting
Probable Turkish invasion
Shia infighting
10,000 dead civilians
uranium bullets and carpet bombs
Unknown dead civil and military admin 10,000-50,000?
No poloice
No army
No civil service
Rumsfeld on the telly smiling and joking at the idea of all the above..its bull man.
I could go on
America’s friend for 30 yrs but they needed a diversion from the econmy and back their Zionist friends....the Iraqis? Who gives a ****.

Meh

Originally posted by dathi1
10,000 dead civilians

Haha, even Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf hasn't been making claims that wild. You're even more detached from reality than he is.

seamus

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Well they seem to wish he was still in power.

No-one has said that they liked having Saddam in power. The fact of the matter remains.....the U.S. attemped to use WMDs as a smokescreen to secure an invasion of Iraq, for whatever purpose. He went in anyway. Illegally. I said all this in another thread.

The fact of the matter is, war is always the last option and almost never the only option. If Bush was so unhappy about Saddam being in power, then the UN could have worked towards peaceful ways of removing him from power, without throwing World politics into disarray. Instead, he lied, failed to get backing and went in anyway, when political options were 1) Working and 2) far from exhausted.

I'm glad that Saddam is gone, but upset that the Americans won, simply because I would have like to see the Americans bitten, and maybe Bush would think twice before pushing war on anyone else.

It may take longer to remove him peacfully, but it would have been well worth it. If only to give that boy back his arms and his family, a few more years under Saddam for the entire population would be well worth it.

If Saddam couldn't have been removed peacefully, and the UN decided that force was the only option, then I'd back them. Most of it's major players have had cities devastated and chunks of their populations killed. I trust them, they won't do anything too rash. The Americans haven't experienced it. 9/11 and Pearl Harbour were both minor compared to the devastation in Europe in WWII, and far from making the US afraid, it just made them angry. That's why I don't trust Bush to make the right decision. His population would seem to prefer him to proactively 'defend' the US, because they have no horrible history to learn from.

(waffle, waffle, waffle....study seamus *smack* *smack*)

Sparks

Meh,
Firstly, there are 1100 to 1400 dead already. Civilians only. Then there are the military dead. There estimates range from 4 to 10 thousand. We may never know how many in reality, thanks to the lovely technique the US had of bulldozing trenches with men in them. The ICRC has offically given up trying to count the civilian wounded flowing through hospitals around baghdad, and despite all of this, the war is not over yet! MOABs are being shipped to the gulf, Tikrit has not yet been assaulted, and large sections of the country were bypassed and unchallanged.

And to make all this even worse, the body count today is the best news that will come from this war. We have a humanitarian crisis brewing in the major cities, water supplies are iffy, the WHO is going frantic at the probability of a cholera or dysentry outbreak in Basra and Baghdad, and we haven't seen refugees yet because the food crisis hasn't fully hit home yet. The damage to Iraqi infrastructure is enormous and estimates are that it will take $4 billion to repair.

Wait a few months. Then tell us that onlt a few thousand died because of the war. The total for the last one was 100,000 iraqis dead because of the war, but only a few percent of those died during the war. The others died as a result of the disease, wounds, famine or environmental poisoning from things like DU weapons.

And this war looks like it's going to be far worse in that regard.

Cork

We have a humanitarian crisis brewing in the major cities, water supplies are iffy, the WHO is going frantic at the probability of a cholera or dysentry outbreak in Basra and Baghdad, and we haven't seen refugees yet because the food crisis hasn't fully hit home yet. The damage to Iraqi infrastructure is enormous and estimates are that it will take $4 billion to repair.

Infrasture can be rebuilt & humanitarian crisis can be resolved.

Saddam is a brutal and evil dictator. The Iraqis lived in fear of touture & were clearly oppressed under his reign.

The Iraqis would not be able to get rid of this tyrant on their own. Now - he is gone. Sanctions can be lifted and the lot of the average Iraqi will improve.

The US & UK went to war without the second mandate. Sanctions did not work & 1441 was not complied with.


The global community now need to focus on Iraq. It is time to stop continuing on about were the US & UK right. Saddam is gone & the situation has moved on.

In my openion Bush and Blair were right. There is an equally valid contrary view.

But the focus should now be on the Iraqis. Saddam is gone. Good Riddance. We need to focus in on the lot of the Iraqi people.

seamus

Originally posted by Cork
The global community now need to focus on Iraq. It is time to stop continuing on about were the US & UK right. Saddam is gone & the situation has moved on.

It'd be nice, wouldn't it? "Ah for God sake Garda, that was 2 weeks ago I was drink-driving! It's time to move on." Cork, whether this war was right or wrong is a purely moralistic question. However, the UK & US must be brought to book for 1) Breaking international law and 2) killing civilians & military of another country for (what now seems to be) an unfounded cause.

But the focus should now be on the Iraqis. Saddam is gone. Good Riddance. We need to focus in on the lot of the Iraqi people.

The UN can multitask. God knows it does it all the time. Debating on the Internet, there's not really much we can do to help the Iraqis, spare donating money. What is there to focus on? Where best to send supplies? How best to manage hospitals? The UN will give aid regardless. We can take that for granted and almost forget about it.
We can't forget about what Bush and Blair have done though.

Cork

It'd be nice, wouldn't it? "Ah for God sake Garda, that was 2 weeks ago I was drink-driving! It's time to move on." Cork, whether this war was right or wrong is a purely moralistic question. However, the UK & US must be brought to book for 1) Breaking international law and 2) killing civilians & military of another country for (what now seems to be) an unfounded cause.

The Iraqis who were shouting with Joy with the ridding Iraq of an evil & brutal dictator views need also be taken on board.


The Iraqis would not have gotten rid of Saddam on their own. Sanctions did not loosen Saddams grip on power. He did not comply with resolution 1441.

Bush & Blair need to be commended for ridding Iraq of Saddam.


There are 2 views on this subject. Everything is not either black or white. I see your points (that are perfectly valid) but there is another equally valid arguement that was taken on board by the US & UK.

Sparks

Cork,
There's a fantastic optimistic streak through your postings - but it is so optimistic that it seems to ignore reality.

Infrasture can be rebuilt & humanitarian crisis can be resolved.

Yes, but not before people die.

Saddam is a brutal and evil dictator. The Iraqis lived in fear of touture & were clearly oppressed under his reign.

Yes, but the manner in which he was deposed has made things worse for the other six billion of us on this planet. For example, the DPRK's nuclear program. The US has demanded that they allow weapons inspectors in, and they happily told them to get stuffed, saying "The Iraqi war launched by the US preemptive attack clearly proves that a war can be prevented and the security of the country and the nation can be ensured only when one has physical deterrent force, a military deterrent force strong enough to decisively repel any attack of the enemy with any types of sophisticated weapons."

The Iraqis would not be able to get rid of this tyrant on their own. Now - he is gone.

Take Milosovich. NATO bombed kosovo for 78 days straight to get rid of him and in the end gave up. Years later his own people threw him into the Hague. Then there's Chauchesku. Again, overthrown by his own. In other words, it's not impossible. And it sure as hell doesn't need a full-scale invasion breaking the geneva and hague conventions.

Sanctions can be lifted and the lot of the average Iraqi will improve.

Those two are not only not necessarily related, they're also not dependent on the removal of Saddam and never were. In fact, when saddam came to power, the lot of the average Iraqi did improve, quite substantially by our standards.

The US & UK went to war without the second mandate. Sanctions did not work & 1441 was not complied with.

Actually, the evidence is heavily in favour of exactly the opposite conclusion - namely that 1441 was being complied with and that sanctions were working (at least in northern Iraq).

The global community now need to focus on Iraq.

I think a lot of us are now focussed on it, seeing as how the largest political protests in years have taken place across the globe in protest at the war.
Whether or not the full focus shoul be on Iraq is debatable - the Congo, Zimbabwe, and Burma are as much in need of humanitarian aid as Iraq, so is the DPRK and some others. Also, the SARS virus needs addressing (The WHO is having kittens on that one) and the AIDS epidemic in africa is out of control (and bush's promised aid to that program now turns out to be less helpful than was initially suggested by his state of the union speech).

It is time to stop continuing on about were the US & UK right.

No, now is the time to sit down and sort out the consequences of their actions. Whether or not they were right, which frankly I'm not sure anyone can judge objectively and accurately yet, their actions were illegal and now we have got to examine the consequences of that. How do we cope with the situation where the most powerful nation on earth has no regard for international law? How do we try them? How do we enforce a judgement? What will it cost? Can it even be done? How do we update international law after the course this war took - it's obvious that the Geneva convention needs to be updated again past the 1977 protocols, because asymmetric warfare is now the dominant form, and we also have to discuss how to enforce the convention.
The UN must also face evaluation, and especially the veto arrangements for the UNSC.

Saddam is gone

Seen the body, have you?

the situation has moved on.

No, it hasn't.

In my openion Bush and Blair were right. There is an equally valid contrary view.

Indeed, but being right is not the same as being legal.
We need now to resolve that conflict.

But the focus should now be on the Iraqis. Saddam is gone. Good Riddance. We need to focus in on the lot of the Iraqi people.

Yes, the humanitarian effort must be given a high priority, but it's also necessary to focus on getting the US to quit Iraq as soon as is humanly possible, and to resolve the issues I've pointed out above. Not doing so means that this can all happen again.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Big Daddy Cruz

US marines found more nuclear materials in three weeks than twelve years of inspections did.

FYI The UN has only backed two wars. Korea and Gulf War 1. Both left the job unfinished with problems festering.

The Kosovo attack was not UN santioned why don't some of you try to bring responsible countries to task for that?

Thousands of innocents died in Africa this week from fighting. Where are the protestors? What about in Cheniyea(sp)? Hyprocites?

Saddam is the bad guy. He killed millions. He attacked five of his neighbors. He tortures millions. Iraqis seem happy he is gone. He has WMD. He lead his country to ruin. He isolated his country internationally.Why do some of you like him so much and hate the US?

One final note many of you wouldn't like. No US in NATO means no NATO. NO US in the UN means the end of the UN. The USA are your friends and allies not your enemies.

sam

big daddy cruz:
I don't know what some of your definitions of evil are, but Saddam fits mine.

lets have it then.
whats your definition of evil, and why?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Big Daddy Cruz

Killed two million people, attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qutar and Israel. Tortures people. Hung a little girl for waving at a helicopter. Arrested and tourtered people for walking too close to a palace. Kidnaps women to be sex toys. Owns torture chambers. Has torture centers. Killed a mamber of Iraqi soccer team for losing a game. Killed 8,000 people with chemichals. Brutally crushes any form of dissent. Can and does excute people for not saying,"god protect Saddam at the end of sentences. People are tied up and electroucted for looking at the wrong person. If a child says something negative about Saddam the whole family is excuted as being bad influence to the child. Does this cutting out of your tounge thing that makes me sick just thinking about.

Man I really can go on for pages and pages. If you are trying to set me up by saying stupid **** like,"but America...... this and that." And cutting up my statement line by line pulling **** out of context. Don't even start I have seen how some of you operate.

Saddam is bad, Saddam is Evil. He fits my definition of both clearly.

Sparks

BDC,

US marines found more nuclear materials in three weeks than twelve years of inspections did.

Wrong. Would this be what you're on about?
I fail to see how they can have found more nuclear material in three weeks than the UN, when they had to break UN seals to get to the material...
BTW, I think you'll find that Scott Ritter's UNSCOM teams destroyed more weaponry in Iraq in their tenure than the first gulf war did, and all without killing anyone.

FYI The UN has only backed two wars. Korea and Gulf War

Well, we're sorry that the UN couldn't back WW1 and 2 but it wasn't around at the time...
And frankly, the fact that it's not a bloodthirsy organisation is a good thing...

1. Both left the job unfinished with problems festering.

Nope, wrong again.
The first gulf war was sanctioned under UNSC resolution 678. 678 called for full compliance with resolution 660. And by the end of the gulf war, 660 was being complied with. The fact that the US then went on to attack troops covered by the geneva convention isn't down to the UNSC, though their failure to condemn the act effectively certainly is. And oddly enough, there were no problems left festering afterwards - or have they since discovered weapons of mass destruction or giant armies ready to invade another country in Iraq?
Secondly, the US decided to attack the DPRK before the UN sanction came into effect. The US had their asses handed to them several times until the other UN countries entered the war. Joined by 31 other countries, the UNC pushed the DPRK back to the 38th parallel, thus fulfilling the UN mandate - and then decided to push further, got hammered when China got worried and reinforced the DPRK and eventually the '53 armistice had to be signed. In other words, because the US didn't stop at the limits of the mandate, lots of people died needlessly. So please don't blame the UN for the US's messes, when the UN is who cleans them up.
http://www.korean-war.com/unitednations.html

The Kosovo attack was not UN santioned why don't some of you try to bring responsible countries to task for that?

The one and only responsible country for that was China, who vetoed the UNSC on the matter because of politics to do with Taiwan. But you are correct, the veto rules in the UNSC (and frankly the whole UNSC itself) needs revision.

Thousands of innocents died in Africa this week from fighting. Where are the protestors? What about in Cheniyea(sp)? Hyprocites?

Careful calling us hypocrites. For a start, the UN is now in the Congo. Secondly, how you can call us hypocritical while the US ignores the Congo and Zimbabwe while prattling on about Iraqi human rights is beyond me, unless you really have a neck like a jockeys proverbials!

Saddam is the bad guy.

He's not the only one.

He killed millions.

So has the US in their time, both directly and indirectly

He attacked five of his neighbors.

Five? I knew of Iran and Kuwait - who were the other three? Regardless, the US has either attacked, invaded, or overthrown legal governments in over forty countries in the last fifty years.

He tortures millions.

Well, I have to admit, the US isn't that bad. They're only torturing hundreds. But they've been allies with those that are torturing millions, including Saddam. That count?

Iraqis seem happy he is gone.

Nope, some Iraqis do. The rest are busy trying to stay alive, avoid looting, find body parts from their families and other normal day-to-day tasks of the "liberated". :mad:

He has WMD.

Indeed? And you have proof of this? So far, we've seen UNSCOM eliminate 97% of his weapons, a US air strike eliminate the remainder, UNMOVIC spend months searching and finding nothing beyond a possible but unproven technical discrepency with some weapons that didn't qualify as WMDs, and we've also seen Iraq invaded without one banned weapon used in defence, even in desperation. So where are those WMDs?

He lead his country to ruin. He isolated his country internationally.

Is that Saddam or Bush? Because it applies to both.

Why do some of you like him so much and hate the US?

We don't. No-one here has defended Saddam's horrific human rights record. And what has been taken as anti-americanism is in fact disgust and loathing of the actions of some of the US military, most of the US media, and almost all of the Bush administration. Now, if someone said "the gardai are thugs, RTE is biased and Ahern is crooked", I don't think you could find one person that would say that they were anti-Irish. So if we point out that the US is acting as a thug, and breaking international law, it cannot be sanely described as rabid hatred of all things american.

One final note many of you wouldn't like. No US in NATO means no NATO.

Oh gee whiz, noone to protect us from the USSR :rolleyes:

NO US in the UN means the end of the UN.

Bollocks. No US in the UN means serious repercussions for the US, and the loss of a bad debtor for the UN.

The USA are your friends and allies not your enemies.

Really? Then act like it. Right now, your government is acting like the world's worst enemy of peace and stability.

Big Daddy Cruz

daveirl here is one location

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html

However I feel you won't belive it anyhow. There are other sources for this story, feel free to look them up for yourself. And please spare me a propaganda rant.
Honestly do you feel Saddam has no WMD?
Honestly do you think after twelve years inspections would work? Saddam didn't even start to cooperate till 300,000 troops parked outside his boarder.

The UN will turn into another League of Nations without the US. The UN needs the US, the US does not need the UN. If the USA is as evil as so mnay here like to think, why is the US in the UN at all?

You sound very angry. Maybe too much coffee. Have you tried ExLax?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

BDC,

Killed two million people,

Care to tot up the total that the US has accrued over the last 25 years? Remember, you have to include deaths that they are responsible for - which gets you a share of Pinochet, El Salvador, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea (after the 38th parallel was retaken), and a host of others. Since Korea alone totted up 3.5 million civilians, .5 milliion UNC soldiers and 1.5-2 million DPRK soldiers, I'd say you're making SH look like an amateur.

attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qutar and Israel.

Only five? Definitely an amateur, the US is up to over 40 in the same timeframe.

Tortures people.

Guantanamo bay. Torturing people there, with no idea of their identity. Not to mention the bases in Afghanistan.

Hung a little girl for waving at a helicopter.

Shot and killed a ten-year-old without a warning shot. Shot two kids today. Shot a family a few days ago. Dropped cluster bombs on farms, killing children.

Arrested and tourtered people for walking too close to a palace.

The US is currently "disappearing" people from their own streets for donating money to charity.

Kidnaps women to be sex toys.

I don't even need to go near that one I think. How many people were raped in the US this year?

Owns torture chambers. Has torture centers.

Guantanamo Bay - purpose-built (by Haliburton) detention centre with torture chambers.

Killed a mamber of Iraqi soccer team for losing a game.

So did the columbians as I recall...

Killed 8,000 people with chemichals.

Got paid $300 million for it in credit by Rumsfeld himself less than a fortnight later. (That's 5,000 kurds in halajba in northern Iraq by the way, you should know it because the US bombed it last monday). BTW, the US killed more in Vietnam with chemical weapons like agent orange than Saddam ever managed.

Brutally crushes any form of dissent.

Can you say "DMCA" or "Patriot Act"? Have you seen how antiwar protestors were shot at in Oakland? How they were charged by mounted police in New York? Have you seen how anyone speaking out against the Bush administration has been treated anywhere in the world today by the US? Germany - Rumsfeld threatens to damage the economy by pulling out troops and bases. France - well, enough said. EVERY nation - gets this "polite note".

Can and does excute people for not saying,"god protect Saddam at the end of sentences.

Nope, can't say bush does that. Mind you, he does encourage soldiers being shot at on the battlefield to pray for bush...

People are tied up and electroucted for looking at the wrong person.

Not as bad as 18 months in Guantanamo bay for being disliked by a taliban informer or for being on the wrong hill at the wrong time and not being fluent in english.

If a child says something negative about Saddam the whole family is excuted as being bad influence to the child.

Wow. That's a nasty one. Can I see the proof please?

Does this cutting out of your tounge thing that makes me sick just thinking about.

Yes, nasty death for the CIA guy they did that to for pinpointing saddam for the initial strikes.

Man I really can go on for pages and pages.

And I can match you, page for page, more than likely.

If you are trying to set me up by saying stupid **** like,"but America...... this and that." And cutting up my statement line by line pulling **** out of context. Don't even start I have seen how some of you operate.

What, you've seen point-by-point debate? Okay, cool. Now, go back over my posts where I replied to you and show me where I quoted you out of context. Or complain to the moderators.

Saddam is bad, Saddam is Evil. He fits my definition of both clearly.

Mine too. And so do the actions of the Bush Administration. In fact, their actions have a far more apt term - anti-american.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Big Daddy Cruz
daveirl here is one location

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html

Weapons-Grade Plutonium Possibly Found at Iraqi Nuke Complex??!!

Can we wait until independent confirmation please? This is a speculative piece.

The UN will turn into another League of Nations without the US. The UN needs the US, the US does not need the UN.

You’re an American supremacist aren’t you?

If the USA is as evil as so mnay here like to think, why is the US in the UN at all?

You’re kind of forgetting why the UN was set up in the first place.

You sound very angry. Maybe too much coffee. Have you tried ExLax?

And you've had too much apple pie...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Big Daddy Cruz

Just the cut and paste tool I didn't want to deal with.

I repeat.
Fact US soilders found Nuclear material Blix missed.

Fact Korea and Gulf War 1 Left business unfinished. I am sitting close to Korean boarder and you are trying to tell me things are fine. 300,000 troops in Iraq finishing what GW1 didnt.

Fact Iraq attacked Iran, Kuwait, SaudiAraiba, Qutar and Israel.DUH!

Fact Saddam is a very bad person who is a threat to regional and world stability. You really still don't see that? You back Saddam I want him gone that is causing problems around the world. Your response is But this... and but that ... You need to pull your head out of your ass and smell the coffee.

You seem like a person will argue any fact no matter what I say or what facts I present. You wont even accept the fact that Saddam is very bad. I don't think it is possible to communicate with you on a level that requires thought.


And for goodness sake, if you are going to do this cut and paste bull****. At least use whole sentences 'ya tool.