|
Post by Gorf on Apr 24, 2004 12:54:58 GMT -5
How many "power figures" do you know of that have used WMD's to massacre larges numbers of their own people?
I don't think you can reasonable equate Hussein with "typical" people / rulers from which you may be drawing your conclusions.
He already showed that he pretty much planned to do whatever he wanted to do regardless of what anyone else might think of his decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Hadrian on Apr 24, 2004 13:35:03 GMT -5
How many "power figures" massacred large numbers of their own peole? My God, Gorfy, lots!
First off, rulers have massacred their own citizens without as much as a blink. They may not have used WMDs but you can equate their military power to one.
Hilter -- exterminated thousands of Jews through the vehicle of his Nazi power. He gave a blank check to his footmen to shoot Jews on sight, if necessary.
Kim Jong-Il and his predecessor father, Kim Il-Sung -- openly and, without shame, let their North Korean country face a famine that cost the lives of 3 million. For what purpose? Maintaining a regime to keep his power intact by isolating his nation from outsiders. He had options to turn the tide but those optons would have risked the sanctity of his Juche ideology and thereby allow his people to believe he is NOT God. Maintaining power is important. Tragedies still going on.
Deng Xiaoping -- Tiannanmen Square massacre; let's squelch the insurgents and then, in subsequent days, hunt down the student leaders and anyone who harbored them. Do what you can to keep them from raising "issues."
Mao Zedong -- let famine spread throughout his country costing millions of lives solely so that he could build his industrialized state and curry favor from the West; let his Red Army massacre thousands of innocent people as he executed his social reform policy (take away everything from the rich, give them to the poor, jail and execute all critics).
Hussein is a typical ruler. Like all those before him, he used money and fear to retain control of his people and the government. For them, they know of only one way to maintain their comfortable lifestyle, and that is to remain in power. He, like Kim Jong-Il, will do anything to continue living in a manner he grew accustomed to. (Of course, Saddam has been captured, but I say this for the sake of argument).
I am not saying I favor or oppose the invasion. I tend to generally be anti-Bush on these matters. It's just that you and Ruffda brought up a point I disputed. I'm not saying there were or were not WMDs. There may not be. Bush probably fabricated his reasons for the invasion, but there have been reports, even as early as early 2003 (if not earlier) that Syria hid them for him. Do I believe that? I don't know.
The only point I'm disputing is that if he had WMDs, some believe he would have used them. That, I disagree with, respectfully.
|
|
|
Post by Hadrian on Apr 24, 2004 13:40:03 GMT -5
Precisely the reason I don't get into political discussions. No one wins, no one loses. No one gains enlightenment. Somebody gets hurt. Bloody mess on floor and who cleans up? Not Harvey Keitel.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Apr 24, 2004 21:55:10 GMT -5
I guess if you let such discussions give you a lot of angst or worse high blood pressure that could lead to a heart attack then they're not worth your time.
I find them the be of interest much of the time and even enlightening in seeing some of points of view and the thoughts that go behind the beliefs of others on the board.
I'm somewhat apolitical in general and before the discussions in here regarding Kerry, Bush, 9/11, Iraq I had a fairly neutral opinion of Bush and his tenure in office. The more I started reading other sources after reading statements in here my opinion has turned much more negative.
I hope you don't take the comments made as personal attacks.
You'll see some bating going on between (R)uffda! and myself at times in the various board, however, he and I have known each other for going on 20 years now and are good friends.
BiK has somehow grown into that mix in here as well and I tend to take his more animated / flambouyant comments (as hopefully he does with those from myself and (R)uffda!) with a grain of salt. He makes some good points at times and we have opposing opinions at times.
|
|
|
Post by Rainforest on Apr 24, 2004 23:10:25 GMT -5
My statement was made in jest. Note the reference to "bloody mess."
|
|
|
Post by benwhipdrofn on Apr 25, 2004 14:15:18 GMT -5
Gorf I understand your stance and appreciate your comments, I guess my view of the whole situation is based on the facts that I have several friends that are either in Afganistan or Iraq. A very close friend of mine that I played VB with in high school is in Afgan with a special forces division. She sends updates when she can and speaks highly of Bush. In fact, all of my friends that are there speak highly of Bush. Most of them say that we don't really see the whole big picture. So my view are tainted by what the people who are facing it all say.
AND I must say, you called Bush a liar....please someone tell me one president, just one in our generation that hasn't been caught lying about something?
In 1993, we had the first WTC bombing. In 1998, our 2 African embassys were bombed, which a few days later, there were so many reports from so many terrorist groups saying that they were sorry for the lose of life, but no american was safe anywhere. Clinton bombed a camp in Afganistan and a nerve gas factory. In 2000, was the USS Cole attack. How many of these had inquires done and to what extent. What could have been done then to prevented what happened later? Clinton knew that something was going on in IRAQ and wanted to do something about it, but didn't have enough support. His health insurance plan was failing and he needed support. So he worked on unemployment. Saddam and Osoma were working hand in hand.
Listen, I'm not pointing fingers at Clinton, he did what he was told was best for the American people at that time. But I can't help but think that there was crediible threats then too, which after the fact was too late. All Presidents lie about something or another. We are going to face terrorism from now on. Take out what terrorist we can when we can, Saddam is out.....one less "terrorist" even if he was only a terrorist with his own people. What is Bush doing? What he thinks and is being told is best for the American people at this time. Is everyone going to agree...nope. but come on, weren't we all happy to see Saddams hairy face on the screen in custody.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Apr 25, 2004 15:49:00 GMT -5
Saddam and Osoma were working hand in hand. There has been absolutely no proof of any connection between Saddam and Bin Laden. Bush did a masterful job of planting this idea in the collective minds of Americans as part of his deceptive efforts to justify the invasion of Iraq. The worst part of this whole mess is that we have diverted resources and attention from the real war on terrorism. If we had remained focused on the pursuit of Bin Laden and his associates, we might have seen much more success in that endeavor. By invading Iraq Bush has created a bigger mess with no clear way out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Apr 25, 2004 15:58:54 GMT -5
AND I must say, you called Bush a liar....please someone tell me one president, just one in our generation that hasn't been caught lying about something? Most presidents appear to have lied at times about some things. Bush, on the other hand, appears to lie about almost everything if you look at his record. He makes bold statements about what he stands for, what he backs, what he simply won't do, etc... Then in relatively short order he changes his tune and does the exact opposite. His stated reasons for declaring war on Iraw have all proven to be false. He stated there would be a full turnover of authority to the Iraqi's on June 30's (July 1st?), now he's saying it will only be a partial turnover of power, the new Iraqi government won't be able to make new laws or alter existing laws. Those are just the tip of the iceberg (so to speak) on his lies. Then he and his backers have the audacity to call Kerry a flip-flopper. I'm not a Kerry fan (though at this point I do find him to be a lesser "evil" than Bush), I don't advocate that we pull out of Iraq now that we're so entrenched there and backing out would likely only further embolden the terrorits and insurgents.
|
|