Today on Blogcritics
Home » Democrats Flip Flop on Bush Iraq Policy

Democrats Flip Flop on Bush Iraq Policy

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Democrats have been whining about the idea of America being the world’s police. Their argument is that the world is a big and dangerous place, and that America can’t waste its limited resources on protecting random countries from one another or themselves.

This position has gained a lot of popularity lately, especially since July of 2006, when many deemed the current Iraq disaster a civil war. For a long while, I questioned the Iraq policy. Why should America “police” the world? After all, in the end, only one thing can happen. Eventually, something will go wrong in the country we're protecting, and we will be blamed for it by local politicians so that they can save their own backsides from political damnation. This was my line of thinking for the last few months – that is, until the Democrats starting bringing up the idea of intervening in the Sudan.

Don’t pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about. Democrats have been speaking up about the genocide in Darfur as if it were critical to US national security. One small example of this sudden urge by Democrats to police the Sudan was seen in a demonstration held by New York Congressman Charlie Rangel in July of 2004 which led to his arrest. There are a litany of examples of Democrats supporting intervention in Sudan. Buy why?

I don’t want to drag this blog out longer than it needs to be, so I will get to the point. Here are a list of reasons that make the genocide in the Sudan relevant to American national security.

…yep that’s about it.

Here are a list of reasons that made Iraq relevant to American national security in 2003.

• Saddam Hussein – this man was more dangerous than Osama bin Laden in 2003. Why? Keep reading.

• Fear of a WMD program

• Failure to comply with UN weapons sanctions

• Oil

• Connections to terrorism. Don’t pretend they didn’t exist. Al-Qaeda isn’t the only terrorist group in the world.

• The fact that Saddam was still in power in 2003 weakened America. It showed that we were not willing to backup our word against a vicious dictator. That was especially dangerous in a post-9/11 world.

• Saddam’s track record. Everything about Saddam was bad. At the time, he was the only world leader in power that had used WMDs. He was one of only a handful who we believed had a WMD program. We know he sponsored terrorism. Billy Clinton knew it, and so did Jimmy Carter. Please don’t make me argue this one. Read a book. Perhaps the most insane of all the things Saddam did was during the first Gulf War. For those of you who can’t remember that far back, Saddam shot SCUD missiles at Israel after America started repelling the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. He did this because he was afraid he was going to lose power and hoped to divert attention by coaxing Israel into a war. If Israel attacked Iraq, every Arab country would join the war on his side, and he…well, he was a crazy SOB.

• Also, don’t forget that Saddam probably hated America more than anyone else in the world. On September 11, Iraq was the only country not to send their condolences to the US…at least according to Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard.

• Then there was the whole trying to assassinate Bush 41.

I think you get the idea. Saddam was bad. I wish WMDs hadn't been hyped up as being the main reason for invading Iraq because they were only one of dozens of reasons to get rid of that guy.

By contrast, the Sudan has been moving closer to mainstream circles since they banished Osama bin Laden from their country in 1996. You can read more about it here.

The whole situation just baffles me. Democrats keep making statements lie: “I knew invading Iraq would only make Muslims hate us more. It was so obvious that this would happen. Bush doesn’t understand the nuances of the situations.”

I hate to break it to you, but the Sudan has all the negatives of Iraq, and none of the positives. I already listed all the reasons to invade Iraq (none of which apply to Sudan), but the similarities in the negative aspects of these two countries is eerie. Here is the short list:

• Like Iraq, Sudan is currently involved in a civil war. I thought Democrats were against sending Americans to die in other countries civil wars.

• Like Iraq, much of the violence in the Sudan dates back hundreds of years.

• Like Iraq, much of the animosities between the groups in Sudan are based on ethnicity and religion.

• Like Iraq, intervening in Sudan will lead to an increase in violence. This is something that conservatives seem to understand better than liberals. When you fight a war, violence increases. I know for a fact that this isn’t what many liberals expect out of an intervention in the Sudan. A lot of you think it will be like Kosovo. It won’t be. In Kosovo we were saving Muslims. In the Sudan, we will be fighting against them. There is a difference. Don’t believe me? Maybe you will believe Osama who called for Jihad in the Sudan back in April of ’06. If you think intervening in Sudan would be a cake walk, you are dead wrong.

Democrats who were against the invasion of Iraq, but are now in favor of intervention in the Sudan have either got pretty strange priorities or are very confused.  Or maybe it's just that they like their brand of pointless international adventurism better than the Republican version.

 

Powered by

About Media Tycoon

  • http://www.booklinker.blogspot.com Deano

    Actually the problems in Darfur do offer some significant security and strategic risks to the US and the west in general, although they may not be significant enough as yet to warrent intervention.

    Population displacement, civil disorder and social breakdowns, the fragmentation of governmental controls etc. typically don’t stop at the border. The events in Darfur can and do effect the surrounding “neighborhood” and the inevitable costs associated with the ongoing conflict pull resources, monies and attention away from other regions.

    Failed states and states embroiled in civil war and irredentist struggles create their own problems, namely they often give rise, as Afghanistan did, to regions where terrorists and extremists can operate with impunity. In today’s inter-connected world, failed states, can provide safe havens for training of extremists, support infrastructures, funding etc. They often become centres for illegal enterprises such as the arms trade, drug trafficking, slavery, piracy and more. Somolia is a prime example.

    I suspect that the US would see little strategic value in intervening in Sudan except in very targeted, short-term ways (i.e. dropping a force to protect a refugee camp) but given they are overstretched now with deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan that will continue for at least the next two years, any significant action in Sudan will be very limited.

    The Democrats might sound off on Darfur but I seriously doubt they would ever take the chance of actually actively intervening…Most of the current chatter is political posturing in the place of actual policy.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    I pretty much agree with everything you had to say. My point isn’t as much about the relevance the Sudan has to American national security, but the hypocrisy being practiced by Democrats on the issue. There is no way that a thinking human being could be against the war in Iraq and for intervention in the Sudan. NO WAY. Which is why, like you said, nothing will (at least not likely) will be done there.

  • Zedd

    The Flip Flop thing has played out.

    Who cares about flip flopping (changing your mind) when there are liars, perverts, and thieves in office.

    Flip Flop OOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

    Who cares!!!!!!!

  • Baronius

    Tycoon, don’t forget that Iraq was shooting at American and coalition aircraft just about every day.

    I’d love to see someone get involved in Sudan. The UN, non-government organizations, and African neighbors can all play a role. Maybe some of the countries who didn’t support our invasion of Iraq will want to get involved in a more explicitly humanitarian mission.

    In the old days, the CIA might have stepped in and made things… different. Not always better, but different.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    #3

    ***fallacy alert***

  • Bliffle

    MT: “My point isn’t as much about the relevance the Sudan has to American national security, but the hypocrisy being practiced by Democrats…”

    So I infer that your message is political rather than patriotic, which makes it less interesting. You’ve named the democrats as the enemy, not the terrorists, or OBL, or saddam, or islamo-fascists, or whatever. I find this a distressing tendency among the usurpers who have (temporarily, one hopes) taken over the Republican party.

  • Bliffle

    MT: “My point isn’t as much about the relevance the Sudan has to American national security, but the hypocrisy being practiced by Democrats…”

    So I infer that your message is political rather than patriotic, which makes it less interesting. You’ve named the democrats as the enemy, not the terrorists, or OBL, or saddam, or islamo-fascists, or whatever. I find this a distressing tendency among the usurpers who have (temporarily, one hopes) taken over the Republican party.

  • Bliffle

    MT: “My point isn’t as much about the relevance the Sudan has to American national security, but the hypocrisy being practiced by Democrats…”

    So I infer that your message is political rather than patriotic, which makes it less interesting. You’ve named the democrats as the enemy, not the terrorists, or OBL, or saddam, or islamo-fascists, or whatever. I find this a distressing tendency among the usurpers who have (temporarily, one hopes) taken over the Republican party.

  • Zedd

    Flip flop

    Clip Clop

    Drip Drop

    WHATEVER!!! Its silly and its made up!

  • Paul

    The whole article is inconsistent crap and the flip/flop concept is absolutely ridiculous and construed, simply because you cannot compare Sudan with pre-war Iraq.

    There has been a long-time conflict in Sudan and it might be suitable to go there with a UN mandate to achieve certain humanitarian goals.

    There was no compareable conflict in Iraq, there was no UN mandate (therefore illegal) and the goal of the invasion was regime change. The conflict erupted after the US army went in. And all the other fabricated reasons proved wrong:

    ” Saddam was bad. I wish WMDs hadn’t been hyped up as being the main reason for invading Iraq because they were only one of dozens of reasons to get rid of that guy.”

    –Aha, excellent argument. The WMD weren’t “hyped up”, there weren’t any.

    “Everything about Saddam was bad.”
    –Would you mind citing that source?

    “We know he sponsored terrorism. Billy Clinton knew it, and so did Jimmy Carter. Please don’t make me argue this one.”

    –You dont have a source because there is no source and thus no argument. Iraq didn’t sponsor terrorism and wouldn’t have been interested in it – it was not a religious regime. There were no links to Al-Quaida, the US Senate concluded.

    “Also, don’t forget that Saddam probably hated America more than anyone else in the world. On September 11, Iraq was the only country not to send their condolences to the US”

    — thats your reason for going to war ?

    You’re hilarious, go back to elementary school.

  • Clavos

    There has been a long-time conflict in Sudan and it might be suitable to go there with a UN mandate to achieve certain humanitarian goals.

    Or not.

  • Aku

    I have wondered for some time why the EU does not take the lead on this issue, especially since the EU is seeking to raise its level of power ond prestige. A European (perhaps + Canadian) contingent with US logistical support (we fly them and their supplies there, keeping them supplied over time) is definitely doable, IMHO.

  • Aku

    By Zedd
    “Flip flop

    Clip Clop

    Drip Drop

    WHATEVER!!! Its silly and its made up!”

    Your presents brightens us all Zedd.

  • http://www.myspace.com/135553418 Anthony Grande

    Democrats flip floping? Since when?

    Democrats have no real issue they just go with what’s popular in the the poles.

    AG

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    re #14, “in the poles”:
    Two new lobbyist groups have been formed–
    Free the Elves, and Save the Penguins!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    The whole article is inconsistent crap and the flip/flop concept is absolutely ridiculous and construed, simply because you cannot compare Sudan with pre-war Iraq.

    He actually does a rather good job with that comparison in the article.

    There has been a long-time conflict in Sudan and it might be suitable to go there with a UN mandate to achieve certain humanitarian goals.

    There was no compareable conflict in Iraq,

    Except for the 40 years of history of tension between religious and ethnic groups there. You think Saddam gassing Kurds and massacring Shiites and invading his neighbors isn’t a history of conflict?

    there was no UN mandate (therefore illegal)

    Except, of course, that there clearely WAS tacit UN approval for action against Iraq.

    and the goal of the invasion was regime change. The conflict erupted after the US army went in. And all the other fabricated reasons proved wrong:

    Well, maybe one of them, anyway.


    –Aha, excellent argument. The WMD weren’t “hyped up”, there weren’t any.

    Nice try, but we sold them to him, so we know they existed at one time. Plus he USED them to kill thousands.

    “Everything about Saddam was bad.”
    –Would you mind citing that source?

    Perhaps you could share with us the good points about your favorite genocidal dictator.

    –You dont have a source because there is no source

    There are PLENTY of sources. Why the hell do you think Clinton bombed Baghdad?

    and thus no argument. Iraq didn’t sponsor terrorism and wouldn’t have been interested in it – it was not a religious regime.

    Except that they DID sponsor terrorism for whatever reasons – general hatred if Israel if nothing else. The payments made to the families of suicide bombers in Israel are extremely well documented.

    There were no links to Al-Quaida, the US Senate concluded.

    And becase the Senate was so right in its assessment of the WMD evidence you think they’re right on this too?

    Dave

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    LOL…I NEED TO CITE A SOURCE THAT SAYS SADDAM WAS BAD?!?!??!?!

    …how about common sense. Just as many Iraqis died under Saddam than have died in the Sudan.

    As for Iraq sponsoring terrorism…Iraq was first put on the state sponsor of terrorism list in 1979 under Jimmy Carter. Iraq was briefly removed from the list during the 80s so we could trade with them during their war with Iran. They eventually got back on the list and remained on there during the Clinton years.

  • Aku

    “Everything about Saddam was bad.”
    –Would you mind citing that source?

    Perhaps you could share with us the good points about your favorite genocidal dictator.”

    I heard he mad a great coffee cake.

  • Aku

    ahem, made.

  • Paul2

    The conflicts are not compareable and neither is the mission that was supposed to follow. A UN mission is not an invasion of another country.

    Tensions in Sudan where significantly graver than in Iraq, and the US didn’t invade to “ease the the tension”.

    WMD: the US gov’t clearly based the war on Iraq on development of new weapons and not on some antiques from the 1980s. Powell himself said this presentation of false data at the UN was an “embarassment”.

    Terrorism sponsorship: It was clearly said that Al-Quaeda/911 link existed and that this link actually posed a threat to the US. That was obviously wrong. And all the other Arab nations namely Saudi Arabia and others support suicide bombers as well.

    To call someone else “bad” or “evil” is neither a political nor a legal nor a rational argument for justifying a war. And neither is a “list” that “Billy” or “Jimmy” set up.

    The UN Security Council voted “NO” to the war. Thats hardly an equivocal statement.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    I don’t think calling Saddam bad is an argument for going to war. I don’t think calling the genocide in Darfur “bad” is an argument for going to war there either.

    Looks like we pretty much agree.

    On a side note, The Economist made a beautiful argument for the invasion of Iraq minus the links to Al-Qaeda and minus WMD in Feb on 2003. Go read it if you get a chance (You will probably have to take a trip down to the local library to do it, but it is worth it). Iraq was a failed/out law regime in 2003. The only other state that was even close to Iraq in terms of threatening US national security at the time arguably North Korea.

    Unfortunately, no military action there is possible for reasons that are irrelevant to this blog (but to sum it up, there would be 3 million dead South Korean’s before we could get within 20 miles of Pyongyang).

  • Lumpy

    I think you could easily argue that iran was more of a threat and more of a sponsor of terrorism than iraq.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    No you could not…but if you can, I dare you to.

  • Paul2

    And maybe Media Tycoon you could tell us what this good reasons and threats to the US where, since you already read the article. I’d be especially interested in these threats to US security, since all your other arguments failed.

    By the way, it is kind of childish that someone who was against the war ultimately has to be someone that found Saddam Hussein great. I never said that.

    And North Korea, with its starving population a threat to the United States of America … yeah right.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    If you don’t think North Korea is a threat to American national security, that is fine, but you are a intellectual loaner.

    As for the Economist’s argument for war…i scanned the article. I’ll try to find it when I get home from work.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    Media Tycoon: I assume you mean “loner” but, setting that aside, how is North Korea a threat to US national security?

  • Paul2

    Media Tycoon,

    you’ve made and invalid comparison with no reliable facts to back them up. You’re not able to respond to arguments either.

    And what you’re writing reveals that you’re not very well informed. It doesn’t help to imply that everyone who doesn’t share your opinion is stupid.

  • http://conservativebastion.com David Quijano

    Paul2:

    You have not said anything of substance that intellectually contradicts what I have said.

    Christopher Rose:

    If you don’t think North Korea is a threat to US national security, then that is fine, but I don’t know one person alive that agrees with you. If you want to know the argument as to why NK is a threat to us, read anything.

  • http://conservativebastion.com David Quijano

    I feel like a broken record here, but I feel that I must make this argument one last time.

    One of the big arguments against the Iraq war right now is that we are trying to be the mediator of a civil war. Many say that is bad because our soldiers are caught in the middle.

    Many of these same people say we should get involved in the Sudan where there is a civil war where our soldiers would also be caught in the middle.

    If you are a reasonably smart person and/or honest, you will understand that many of the same arguments used against the current Iraq conflict could also easily be used against the Sudan conflict…or any conflict for that matter.

    You people don’t want to admit this because you are too politicized to admit you are wrong. You want more than anything for the mission in Iraq to fail, and frankly, I can’t relate to being filled with so much animosity.

    I, on the other hand, am a mild tempered moderate who can admit when he is wrong, but seldom ever is. As a moderate, I like to point out when one side is being obnoxiously partisan or dishonest. In this case, it is certain people on the left who use these lame brained arguments against the war in Iraq, but ignore these arguments when they can be applied to a similar situation in the Sudan.

    Don’t forget what happened in Somalia. If we go to Sudan, expect more of the same. It won’t be cakewalk. Sudan is a Muslim country with ties to terrorism, and if we were to have any sort of presence there, we would be forced to fight the locals just as we are in Iraq.

    If you think the situations are different, tell me WHY they are different. Don’t pretend you are smarter than me and say that I can’t “respond to arguments”.

    That statement is funny because it proves that YOU can’t respond to arguments. Talk about the situation at hand and stop talking attacking the messenger. That’s a fallacy.

  • http://conservativebastion.com David Quijano

    editors note:

    david quijano is Media Tycoon.

    I don’t want to talk about North Korea right now because it is not directly related to what we are talking about. I mentioned it in passing. Whether or not North Korea is a threat has not barring on this subject.

    as for the Econimist article, I can’t find it now. Since it does seem like a great article to base a future blog on, I will probably head over to my local public library and re-scan. Ill make sure to post it here to make all the libs happy!

  • Clavos

    Out of curiosity:

    Why would the USA have an interest in sending troops to the Sudan?

    Because Sudanese are killing Sudanese?

    How is this our business?

  • Zedd

    Uhmmm because we are HUMAN BEINGS, you know Earthlings and international boarders are just made up but have nothing to do with our humanity. Because people are being tortured and dying and we know about it and we can do something about it.

    Because if you were being tortured or your children were being persecuted you would want someone to help you. You wouldn’t care what country they are from.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Zedd, that seems like a great basis for humanitarian work, but a terrible principle for a government to operate on. Based on your philosophy we’d be invading a third of the countries on earth within the year. There’s got to be a common sense limit.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    It also makes a great justification for our having invaded Iraq, which I believe Zedd is opposed to?

  • http://conservativebastion.com David Quijano

    Zedd is confusing me…really you are. So the current situation is Sudan is so bad that we must intervene, but the situation in Iraq before the invasion wasn’t?

    To help everyone out here who is too lazy to find it themselves, here is an article that talks about how 1 million iraqi’s died from 1991-2000 because of Saddam.

    The American haters would blame UN sanctions for the deaths, but clear and fair minded individuals could only blame one person: Saddam Hussain. We now know he stole billions from his own people through the oil for food program. money that was meant to help his people, but often used to build palaces and do business with the french and other low life countries.

    Now i know some of YOU may even want to blame america for this one, but before you do, think who was president during this time. i’ll give you a hint: his first name was billy.

    And there you have it. mass death in one country because one man with absolute power was too greedy and stong willed to share money with his people, and allow inspectors into his country.

    remember these are just deaths from sanctions. Iraq suffered millions of more deaths through war and oppression under Saddam. this guy was hitler. if you cant see that, you are blind.

  • http://www.antequeravillarental.com Christopher Rose

    David: Re your #28: If you don’t know anyone who doesn’t consider North Korea a threat to US national security, maybe you need to widen your social circle beyond your cozy little conservative bastion. Until you do, maybe you can indulge me by explaining yourself…

    As an aside, does anybody else find it bleakly funny that North Korea has, in a short space of time, gone fron part of the laughable “axis of evil” to a country worth trading with?

  • Zedd

    Clavos
    Dave
    David

    Why do we have to invade to help people. The reason that Iraq is such a mess is because of our own dishonesty. We complicated the situation.

    Pay attention and don’t take any leaps.

    We supported Saddam. He was our friend. We knew he was a nut case. THAT is when we should have intervened (without attacking) to deal with the human rights issues in that country. But the truth is we just wanted to get something out of that country so we allowed what we are now having to clean up to happen. We were greedy and forgot that we were human and simply saw ourselves as strategist (DAVE). Off course it blew up.

    ON THE U.N.

    We all know that democracy doesn’t work if you don’t believe that it works. If the majority of Americans stopped believing in democracy, this country would crumble (please don’t bother to argue this point it is a basic concept)

    We approached the UN as if it was an extension of the US. Not understanding the challenges of a diplomatic core, we wanted things our way and were impatient with the processes for negotiating consensus. Being the perpetual impatient teenagers, we mouthed off starting in Reagan’s era and eventually stopped paying dues in Bush Sr’s administration missing the point that this is THE one and only body that we have here on earth with authority to manage the affairs of our globe and keep things contained.

    Because we got cocky and dismissed this VERY important institution it lost its significance and its effectiveness was lessened.

    Had we committed to strengthen this body, deal with the challenges that are inevitable and act like members instead of owners, we would have a body that is able to deal with such matters without FIRST attacking.

    Military solutions are the VERY last resort. All three of you approached my contribution by assuming that a military solution is where the answer is. It’s not.

    Brains vs Brawn.

    I know your brains just don’t work that way and you are the knee jerk types. It takes all of us to make the world function. However, since that is the case, you wont understand what I just posted, it will not sink in because it cant so when you respond know that you just weren’t able to comprehend because you think differently.

    Perhaps your strength is with mechanical things I don’t know either of you but I suspect…. Clavos you seem to have a great personality but like Dave seem to clasp on to an idea for dear life as if it is the idea that is master instead of YOU. Neither one of you seem to trust your own ability to reason and solve problems. Hence the inflexibility. You discuss things in terms of your ideology (which was made up by some other guy in HIS own mind) as opposed to what is feasible.

    We will have other discussions but as for this one, I KNOW you won’t get it. You don’t have the capacity.

    See you next time around.

  • Clavos

    OK, Zedd, fair enough.

    Let’s see your ideas on how to solve the situation in Darfur without military participation.

    Spell it out: how would you do it.

    Be specific; don’t tell us the UN would do it, tell us HOW it would.

    The ball’s in you court; hit it.

  • http://conservativebastion.com David Quijano

    Why are you still talking about North Korea? I mentioned it in passing. I don’t care about North Korea. Frankly, I almost borderline agree with you. The problem with acting like they aren’t a threat to us is that they do threaten some of our allies in Asia: Japan, South Korea, Philippines. If you think for a moment that an attack by North Korea on any of these countries wouldn’t drag us into war, then you are naive. Since a North Korean attack on another country could bring us to war, North Korea is directly relevant to US national security.

    As for the axis of evil comment. if you have read anything abotu hte gulags in North Korea, you wouldnt call the axis of evil comment rediculous.

  • MCH

    “…Dave…Why do we have to invade to help people. The reason that Iraq is such a mess is because of our own dishonesty. We complicated the situation.”

    Actually Zedd, Dave (Vox Populi) Nalle only believes in invading as long as someone goes in his place.

  • Paul2

    #35

    You misunderstood your own source.

    1 million Iraqis died because the sanctions were too tough. Everyone wanted to ease the sanctions but the US that vetoed every attempt to alter them. Thats why thousands died. So thats obviously not an argument for an invasion.

  • http://conservativebastion.com David Quijano

    Zedd: “We supported Saddam. He was our friend. We knew he was a nut case. THAT is when we should have intervened (without attacking) to deal with the human rights issues in that country.”

    Unfortunately, this would not have worked. The only moment in history in which Saddam was our “friend” is when we sold him about 100 helicopters in the 80’s so that he could fight Iran. I don’t think anyone ever considered Saddam our friend, but it was in the best interest of the US for Iraq not to lose that war with Iran. We did not, as many claim, put Saddam in power. Our support for his WMD programs and military institutions are way overblown.

    Since we weren’t as friendly as many people say we were, and since he was in the middle of a war, there wouldnt be much room for reform. Not to mention, at the time, Iraq was the most liberal country in the middle east. asking them to be more liberal would have almost been absurd.

    This fails to mention that his most major human rights violations came after we stopped giving his country military aid. at no point post the iraqi invasion of kuwait could we have used diplomacy to try and get him to turn around. we tried it for 15 years and it didnt work. millions died because we waited so long. anything short of military intervention in 2003 would have been a moral failure on the part of the US.

    to bring this argument full circle…none of that should matter to you guys because you still hate President Bush and the Iraq war. That is fine, as long as you hate the idea of going into Sudan.

    You still dont seem to though. You think we can send a bunch of people in there bringing flowers and candy and that we will be treated like liberators. WHat is happening in Sudan is a civil war. To break up a war you need to use your military. If we use our military, they will fight. If they fight, the radicals will go to the Sudan and kill American soldiers. It is a fact.

  • http://conservativebastion.com David Quijano

    #41 I am doing my best to be patient with you. Saddam had enough money to take care of his people. We know he stole billions in oil for food. 1 million Iraqis died because Saddam essentially withheld aid from them. That is a historical fact, and you ignoring that would be equivalent to denying the holocaust.

  • Paul2

    Its generally accepted that the sanctions where to tough for the country to bear and of course, there was some money withheld too and thats to be criticized.

    But the entire UN were out on easing the sanctions –and and least I don’t assume that their all totally stupid– besides Mr. GWB.

    He thought the Iraqis would topple Saddam Hussein and he obviously thought it wouldn’t be that bad if some of them might die in the meantime.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Paul, you seem to be remarkabley ‘truth-challenged’ in a way that makes even Bush look good.

    The fact is that we DID ease the sanctions, by supporting the oil for food arrangement, which Saddam, the French and various cronies of Kofi Anan then took advantage of for their own benefit and to the detriment of the Iraqi people.

    Don’t try to put that blood on the hands of the US, since all we were trying to do was save the people of Iraq from a repressive regime without having to invade the country.

    Dave

  • Paul2

    The sanctions were eased, but not enough.

    All other nations wanted to ease them more and the US repeatedly refused.

    Everything else is a fairy-tale from your own imagination …

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    So what you’re saying is that the other countries wanted to give Saddam and his allies more money and the US held the line because easing the sanctions was counterproductive.

    My ‘fairy tale’ at least has correct facts and makes sense, unlike your deceptive blathering.

    Dave

  • MCH

    “Paul, you seem to be remarkabley ‘truth-challenged’ in a way that makes even Bush look good.”
    – Dave (Vox Populi) Nalle

    This from the same guy who is notorious on BC for at least two bald-faced lies:

    1) about his killing of stray dogs with a hunting rifle; and 2) that his fraud and deceit during the Vox Populi scam was an accident.

  • http://conservativebastion.com David Quijano

    “But the entire UN were out on easing the sanctions –and and least I don’t assume that their all totally stupid– besides Mr. GWB.”

    I don’t really what you are saying here.

    1. I don’t know if anyone has said anyone is stupid – besides you – at least I haven’t.

    2. Remember who was president during the millions of death in Iraq.

    3. If Saddam’s main focus had been his people, there would have been no humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    I dont know why we keep talking about Iraq. The point is that intervention in Sudan (by liberal arguments) would be folly.

  • Paul2

    The hostage nation
    Former UN relief chiefs Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday speak out against an attack on Iraq The Guardian Thursday November 29, 2001

    A major shift is occurring in US policy on Iraq. It is obvious that Washington wants to end 11 years of a self-serving policy of containment of the Iraqi regime and change to a policy of replacing, by force, Saddam Hussein and his government.

    The current policy of economic sanctions has destroyed society in Iraq and caused the death of thousands, young and old. There is evidence of that daily in reports from reputable international organisations such as Caritas, Unicef and Save the Children. A change to a policy of replacement by force will increase that suffering.

    [Paul2: Please don’t post entire articles from the mainstream media into comments. The correct form is to include a properly formatted hyperlink, as I have above, to the full article whilst judiciously quoting an excerpt. Thanks. Comments Editor]

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    why dont you summarize next time.

  • http://conservativebastion.com Media Tycoon

    I re-read the article and I understand the point of you posting it now. You are trying to say that you agree that the Clinton policy was a failure and that the new Bush policy, although far from perfect, is a step in the right direction. Self-governance is the only way for Iraq to be free. Thanks to president Bush, that is now possible. Three cheers for President Bush! Liberator of the oppressed Iraqis! Not only did he liberate them from Saddam, but also from Clintons murderous economic sanctions. Bravo Paul2…you devil.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Well put, MT.

    I think Paul doesn’t know how to write HTML links.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    FLIP FLOP – wow how neveux and clever!!! I may be out of my element here. This crowd is too sophisticated and perhaps even avant-garde for me. WOW!!

    Hey hipsters, has anyone heard of THE new dance called the jitter bug?

    Check you hep, cats later!!

  • Zedd

    Clavos

    Sorry I forgot about this thread.

    You see Clavos that is the difference between your way of thinking and mine.

    I don’t hop in to hard and fast theories then hang on to them for dear life.

    I think that we should take the step to evaluate the situation. Understand the players. Collaborate with the AU putting sanctions on neighboring countries who exacerbate the issue (Ethiopia et al). Coalesce with the international body and address the various issues independently with a goal of accomplishing the goal of stabilizing the entire country. Each sector of the problem has a philosophy that supports its position. Address the groups outside of the country who hold those same views and make them an intricate part of the solution, monitoring each of them.

    That is how you solve a problem. You address the issues. You just don’t set a strategy based on “we’ll wup them into actin’ right”.

  • Zedd

    David #42


    This is
    a chronology of the US involvement with Iran.

    We had plenty of leverage to help shape their policy. We just didn’t want to. We were too obsessed with Iran.

  • Zedd

    It takes a great deal of practice to learn how to FLIP FLOP. My daughter had years of gymnastics and tumbling before she mastered a FLIP FLOP. Its tough.

    Tips:

    Try not to bend your legs too much or sit too far down going into the flip-flop. Bending your legs will cause your momentum to be lost into the floor.

    Your flip-flop should not be too high. The energy you use in going too high will be lost from the lateral momentum, and it would most likely feel like you’re going straight up and coming straight down.

  • Zedd

    I wish I knew how to FLIP FLOP. I’m just too old and rusty to do so… sigh

    I guess you have to be a leftist liberal to know how. Some how I cant imagine Charles Rangel doing back hand spring. Oh well you never know.

    If he can do a Flip Flop, maybe I can. I’m going to the gym.