Political - Why can't he admit a mistake ?

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by JMD
That is your opinion. That doesn't answer the question. What did Bush lie about?

As I said before, every world leader and intelligence agency has agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He has used them on his own people!!! Did you forget that?

And he used them on his own people during the Reagan administration.

May Ronald Reagan rest in peace, but the fact is Saddam Hussein used those weapons on both his own people and the Iranians and the Reagan administration did nothing.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Galahad
Not exactly sure what you're getting at here. I'm not privy to "talking points" and don't generally watch any television news...and I don't listen to talk radio. The fact that Kerry is a francophile is something we wouldn't know if his camp didn't make a point of it. If a candidate speaks French in Canada and uses it in Quebec in a campaign or a candidate speaks Spanish in the U.S. and uses it in Miami in a campaign, it make some sort of sense. There is not a significant population in the U.S. who's first language is French. So what point is there other than the hope of the appearance of superiority to make sure that we know he speaks French?

Most of us are just happy that he can speak english, which is a nice change of pace from the guy currently in the White House

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Hmm....Well, unless you were referring to events that happened years ago and have no relevance to the current discussion, I just assumed you were speaking of the events leading up to the war.

It's also a myth that the weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. When the UN inspectors complained that Iraq was not cooperating with them, the UN ordered the inspectors out of Iraq.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Really ? Last I heard he and his cronies were certainly terrorizing their populace, but that's helluva long way from genocide. (That's not a word to take lightly...it doesn't mean a random rape and torture, no matter how gruesome that might be).

Your last sentance is extremely misleading. A random rape and torture? I can agree that genocide is a far cry to what was going on, but a random rape and torture? This wasn't something that happened once in a while, but was a part of their policy. You do not "terroriz(e) their populace" with "a random rape and torture", it is much more than that.

As for what is going on in the Sudan, why doesn't the UN move in there? We are already (whether you think it right or wrong, it is how it is) fighting on 2 fronts, as well as trying to keep attacks away from us at home, to go somewhere else would be a disaster and would stretch our resources even further. We attacked Iraq because we (and the world) thought that Iraq had WMD's and was looking for a way to use them against us. Sudan doesn't. If we were free to, I would be all for going into Sudan. The UN would gain respect in my eyes if they went in and did something (which they won't). To use it to blast our policy in Iraq is a big mistake - begging the question "why can't (wrevy) admit he made a mistake?"

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy
most of us are just happy that he can speak english, which is a nice change of pace

,,,

can you come up with any credible, intelligent reasons to dislike the president, or is that why you must criticize his public speaking abilities..

some of the most intelligent people in the world are poor speakers,,,

some of the best speakers are nothing more than slimy crooks

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
they were events leading up to the war, and have relevance to the current discussion, unless you are implying that only your point of view is relevant..

No, you're perfectly within your rights to say and believe whatever you want. Just don't expect people not to call you on it when you make misleading statements. The inspectors were IN country, until we gave them notice that they needed to get out. Period.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by JMD
Why should we do what the UN says? What have they done in the last 20 years that gives them any authority to dictate what we do or do not do.

Damned if I know. I never did understand the opinion of some that we had a right to go war because of UN resolutions given the lack of respect for the UN by those same people.

But, as the old saying goes: "Politics makes strange bedfellows".

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Really ? Last I heard he and his cronies were certainly terrorizing their populace, but that's helluva long way from genocide. (That's not a word to take lightly...it doesn't mean a random rape and torture, no matter how gruesome that might be).

There was never anything random about Saddam's torture and killings. Though he was often portrayed as some sort of madman, he is, in fact, quite calculating. What occurred in Iraq in the years prior to the invasion consitutes a large scale operation to systematically kill segments of the Iraqi population based on their ethnicity and religious beliefs. He was not as free to carry out his plans (nothing on the scale of Anfal), but the campaign did continue throughout.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
weapons inspectors also said they weren't allowed to go to a lot of places they wanted to , and they were also kicked out by Saddam..

The weapons inspectors were told to leave Iraq by the Bush administration because of the coming war.

Let's at least get our facts straight.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by MJames41
To use it to blast our policy in Iraq is a big mistake - begging the question "why can't (wrevy) admit he made a mistake?"

If I make one, I'll be sure to let you know

We're only fighting on two fronts because of the extremely poor handling of those two wars to this point. Afghanistan wasn't in a "mission accomplished" state by the time the president was flying that stupid banner for Iraq. If we'd not gone ahead and invaded, maybe we would have the troops needed.

 

[disneydad2]

Originally posted by KarenC
It's also a myth that the weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. When the UN inspectors complained that Iraq was not cooperating with them, the UN ordered the inspectors out of Iraq.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

A myth? When Iraqi officials refuse to cooperate with the UN Inspectors, thus not allowing them to travel the country to do their inspections, how is this any different than being kicked out? They were ordered out by their superiors for their safety since Clinton threatened attacks if Saddam did not cooperate.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
And he used them on his own people during the Reagan administration.

May Ronald Reagan rest in peace, but the fact is Saddam Hussein used those weapons on both his own people and the Iranians and the Reagan administration did nothing.

It's not entirely clear that the US did nothing during the 1980's. We may have armed Iraq.

US government documents showed that from 1985 to 1989 pathogenic, toxigenic, and other hazardous materials were legally exported from the United States to Iraq.

The list of biological items legally exported during that period includes botulinum toxin, anthrax, gas gangrene, and vials of West Nile fever virus and Dengue fever.

http://www.cursor.org/stories/burying_news_on_iraq.htm

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
There was never anything random about Saddam's torture and killings. Though he was often portrayed as some sort of madman, he is, in fact, quite calculating. What occurred in Iraq in the years prior to the invasion consitutes a large scale operation to systematically kill segments of the Iraqi population based on their ethnicity and religious beliefs. He was not as free to carry out his plans (nothing on the scale of Anfal), but the campaign did continue throughout.

I guess I see your point. I just look at it as a matter of scale, and for all intents and purposes, Saddam was contained. What is happening in Sudan is not. To endorse one while not supporting the other just smacks of politics to me.

JMO

 

[faithinkarma]

So what point is there other than the hope of the appearance of superiority to make sure that we know he speaks French?

So when Kerry says he speaks another language he is being arrogant, and when Bush says God speaks through him, he gets a pass?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/07/16/quote_of_the_day.html

http://lancasteronline.com/pages/news/local/4/7565

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by wvrevy
If I make one, I'll be sure to let you know

We're only fighting on two fronts because of the extremely poor handling of those two wars to this point. Afghanistan wasn't in a "mission accomplished" state by the time the president was flying that stupid banner for Iraq. If we'd not gone ahead and invaded, maybe we would have the troops needed.

My statement already gave you the last sentance. However, your bringing up Sudan as if we should go in their now is misleading and is wrong. To say what we should have done is different than saying what we should do now. We cannot go back and uninvade Iraq, and then move on to the Sudan.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Seems like the WMD search/discussion is still going on. Is it plausible that Iraq sent these weapons to another country or even buried them in the sand? Has everyone forgotten about these pictures?

 

[jrydberg]

Fair enough, wvrevy. Just having worked in this particular area in years past, it does bug me when the argument is made that there are plenty of dictators like Saddam around the world. In my opinion (take it for what it's worth), no current dictator compares. I'm probably a bit biased in that I've been exposed to a lot more of what's gone on in Iraq than I have Sudan. But your point is a fair one as well -- outrage and calls for action in one case while not the other certainly seems to be based in politics.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I guess I see your point. I just look at it as a matter of scale, and for all intents and purposes, Saddam was contained. What is happening in Sudan is not. To endorse one while not supporting the other just smacks of politics to me.

JMO

So why hasn't the UN moved in?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by MJames41
My statement already gave you the last sentance. However, your bringing up Sudan as if we should go in their now is misleading and is wrong. To say what we should have done is different than saying what we should do now. We cannot go back and uninvade Iraq, and then move on to the Sudan.

My whole point in bringing up Sudan is that our failure to give any sort of real response to the ongoing genocide in that country should at least call into question Bush's real motives when he uses a decade old genocide in Iraq as reason for war.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by wvrevy
My whole point in bringing up Sudan is that our failure to give any sort of real response to the ongoing genocide in that country should at least call into question Bush's real motives when he uses a decade old genocide in Iraq as reason for war.

Fair enough.