Impeach NOW!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Donkey Rhubarb, Jul 11, 2004.

  1. Donkey Rhubarb New Member

    YOu know what's more embarrasing?

    That the UN sanctions made Saddam even stronger by removing free trade from the area through economic sanctions. The 1441 council denied Iraq access to nearly all medical supplies, food, and any industrial equipment for 12+ years.

    Saddam's power grew as a result; the people of the nation became more weak, saddams power grew.

    If we had allowed the Iraqi people to stay strong by leaving them alone and letting them have access to food and weapons like they do right now, the people could have risen up and ousted Saddam themselves, like what they are trying to do with us now.

    Granted it's easier to kill a small of soldiers than it is to kill a secretive anti-social psychopath, revoloution would have been a lot easier to come by on the Iraqi's own part if they weren't all starving to death, if their children weren't all dying of GI tract infections because they didn't have access to clean water, if the majority of their chldren grew up strong, unaffected by Depleted Uranium that the US invading forces had left all over the place after the Persian Gulf War (which led to gulf war syndrome as well... when we f**k with DU, everyone loses.)

    Besides that, you need to understand the mentality of the Iraqi people. I don't like George Bush, and he's "dissapeared" alot of Arab citizens, but if some foriegn invader came in to "liberate" us from George W Bush, you bet your arse I would defend my country against them, no matter what "freedom" they promised. Especially if this country had left chemicals and radioactive waste laying all over my country 12 years eariler.
  2. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I sincerely doubt this. Most Iraqis were even more oppressed when sanctions were not in place. The Kurds flat-out got gassed when they tried to rebel. And Saddam's secret police were more in effect when Saddam had power - most potential rebels and their plans were probably given away before they got too far.
  3. Saddam controlled whatever his people recieved. 1441 or not, they were only going to receive what he allowed them to. This is one way he managed his control over the Iraqi people.

    With Uday and Qusay rising on the horizon to replace his father one day (not to mention their envolvement in his father's dictatorship already) do you really believe the Iraqi people could have became stronger and risen up? Even so, would fewer Iraqi lives have been spared over the course of time?

    To this date, Saddam was about a 30-year regime here that murdered, tortured, and starved his people into a submission--and the world just stood by and watched.

    I believe that your perspective of the Iraqis to combat U.S. Forces is very skewed. Elements that are engaging us are foriegn terror networks and Baathist vying for a powergrab.

    On humanitarian grounds alone I think Iraqi Freedom is worth it. Besides, it's not as though we didn't know what Saddam ws all about when he manufactured, possesed, used and hid WMD already. Again I say, in this case, better to err on the side of caution post 9-11 with someone we could see coming a mile away.


    You wrote:

    Besides that, you need to understand the mentality of the Iraqi people.

    Just a few questions regarding this statement:

    I'm interested in what your understanding of the Iraqi people is? Are you of Arab or middle-eastern descent? Have you studied middleast policy or history in school or spent time there?

    The reason I say this is because I don't believe it takes even this perspective to understand human suffering and welcome relief when you see it (by the way I spent 6-months in the Sinai Peninsula).

    Again, I think many are stretching very thin the presence and activity of foriegn fighters and regime holdouts as representing the whole or even most of the Iraqi people.
  4. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I think al-Sadr's militia is pretty close to that point. He's Shiite and apparently commands some respect in that he can influence and coordinate actions in several cities at once.

    I'm sure there are other Iraqis, Shiite or not, who simply want peace and/or a chance for the country to rebuild. I'm just saying al-Sadr is a growing influence and factor.
  5. Donkey Rhubarb New Member

    Okay, I dont' know why this misconception is still being entertained by anybody with any amount of intelligence... He didn't pose a threat to us. Even in the slightest. He had the capability to possibly create a situation in which he could create an environment in which he could prepare for the creation of weapons of mass destruction. That's not the same as having weapons of mass destruction... and funny enough, Pakistan has sold weapons of mass destruction to everyone in the area... EXCEPT Iraq!!

    I've read many books by people who were there, I have a personal freind who went to baghdad, and I've seen the pre-iraqi freedom, post sanctions documentary "Greetings from missile street" in which a coalition of activists from Voices in the Wilderness went to Um Qasur for a year and video taped the families they lived with. They shared stories, they talked about what life was like before the sanctions. It's horrible what we'd done.


    But we aren't welcomed there!!!

    YOu are right in saying that the world sat by and watched as saddam did what he did, but what you left out, is that the 1441 sanctions, by enforcement of the United States of America also helped Saddam do what he'd done the whole time, through keeping medical supplies out of the hospitals, through keeping pencils and books and paper out of the schools, and through keeping clean drinking water out of peoples houses.
  6. Donkey Rhubarb New Member

    Uh what? Can you offer ANY qualifying statement for that?


    Yeah, and guess who was providing the weapons for that massacre?

    OH that's right! The USA under Reagan! Donald Rumsfeld sold them to Saddam! He met the guy! Shook his hand! Closed a weapons deal!
  7. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Hmm, you're right. I can't offer any qualifying statement to say whether the Iraqis were more oppressed without the sanctions than with the sanctions. So I'll modify it to "oppressed the same".

    Irrelevant to the response, however true it may have been. Fact is, the Iraqis had almost ZERO chance of rebelling even if they had food and weapons when sanctions weren't in place.

    (to refresh your memory of your original statement)

  8. You wrote:

    I dont' know why this misconception is still being entertained by anybody with any amount of intelligence... He didn't pose a threat to us. Even in the slightest.

    I appreciate your passion and view in general, but I think this one issue is the bases for many who argue against the war. And while I disagree with quite a few of your positions, I would like to discuss this one matter alone.

    Things to consider—

    1. Invaded a neighboring Arab country unprovoked.
    2. Launched SCUD missiles into Saudi Arabia.
    3. Gassed the Kurds in the north.
    3. Behaved like an vicious animal (as dictators commonly do) torturing and murdering thousands of human beings.
    4. Saddam possesed WMD and failed to account for all it.
    5. Had contact with Al Qaida operatives (see 9-11 report).
    6. Recieved, delayed, and kicked out UNSCUM inspectors when the heat was on.
    7. Shot at jets enforcing no-fly zone activity.

    To me these alone indicate a desire and temperament for sadistic violence and power unique among world leaders in that he is willing to abuse and violate peaceful nations and human beings.

    Now throw in WTC I, two embassy bombings, WTC II, no further inspections claim needed as well, and 20 UN violations and I say, have at 'em.

    Again, I say that regardless of all the WMD issues, I believe invasion based on humanitarian grounds was enough.

    Tell me honestly now, if Gore was in office, would your views be the same?

    Also, who do you think most Muslim extremists would like to see elected?

    There is one thing in general Arabs respect--bravado and strength. I don't know if Kerry would have the presence to enforce UN demands. And frankly, I don't know if Kerry would have an anti-war position altogether if Bush didn't own the matter first. I believe he may have acted similar.
  9. Donkey Rhubarb New Member

    >I appreciate your passion and view in general, but I think this >one issue is the bases for many who argue against the war.

    No, the Basis for my arguement against this specific war is that it was not the right thing to do. We'd destroyed their infastructure with monthly bombings over the past 12 years, and with sanctions that destroyed their clean water, education, medical treatment and acess to food. One of the reasons for my arguemnt that it was not morally right, is that they posed no threat to us.


    Things to consider—
    I have some responces you might want to consider as well.

    1. Invaded a neighboring Arab country unprovoked.


    We were supplying the weapons to them when they did this. They were our "ally" at that point becuase we were fighting Iran. We didn't say no, and it's not like Kuwait, which is and was at the time, led by a fascist Shah, was some haven for democracy that was being invaded. They just supplied us with cheap oil.

    2. Launched SCUD missiles into Saudi Arabia.
    Yeah? They're next door. I also would like to know at what time this happened. It surely wasn't in the last 12 years, or I'd have heard about it. They don't have the capabilities to launch any warhead payload to the USA.


    3. Gassed the Kurds in the north.

    Yeah, and we turned our heads. In fact, there was a massive PR campaign paid for by the Bush White house to make it seem like Saddam was a great guy. I think it's hilarious that GWBush brings this up as a reason for invading when WE were supplying the weapons and giving him the go-ahead for all this stuff.

    3. Behaved like an vicious animal (as dictators commonly do) torturing and murdering thousands of human beings.

    So did the war criminals working for the US armed forces when they buried hundreds of surrendering Iraqi troops alive with bulldozer tanks. So did the scumbags just recently in Abu Ghraib. So did our government during the Japaneese scare during WWII. So did we when we blew up our own SS Maine to get into the Span-AM war. So did we when we overthrew Allende and placed Pinochet in power. So do oil companies that have private mercenaires to kill protesters in underdeveloped african nations when their refining process makes the people sick and their children die. This isn't really a point for me to concider. He was a brutal dictator. So what? There are pleanty out there. We are to blame for his coming to power just as much as he is. We helped him along the whole way up untill he invaded Kuwait.


    4. Saddam possesed WMD and failed to account for all it.

    Uh when was this? Cause I was pretty sure that they UN inspectors didn't find anything. Remember? That's why the UN didn't okay the invading of Iraq, because they WEREN'T IN VIOLATION?

    5. Had contact with Al Qaida operatives (see 9-11 report).

    Oh, geese, let's revise history eh? I remember there being somthing about NO CONNECTION between 9-11 and Iraq being key in that 9-11 report.

    6. Recieved, delayed, and kicked out UNSCUM inspectors when the heat was on.

    When was this? In like 1993? Yeah so what? We went to war then. Doesn't mean a thing now.

    7. Shot at jets enforcing no-fly zone activity.
    saddam himself did that? Really? Crazy! For some reason there's somthing about US and British Jets constantly and consistantly bombing civilian areas like Um Quaser for no reason for 12 years straight.

    To me these alone indicate a desire and temperament for sadistic violence and power unique among world leaders in that he is willing to abuse and violate peaceful nations and human beings.

    yeah no kidding! We totally should NOT have supplied those weapons to him! Darn you Reagan and GHW Bush!

    Furthermore, there are hundreds of nations that are just as bad-- if not worse than Iraq as far as phychotic fascist leaders go. Why don't we invade them ALL?


    Now throw in WTC I

    that was under clinton and the FBI helped to set it up. Look it up. There was a "sting" operation that they had Al-Husseini go through with, "in hopes of getting the bad guys"

    , two embassy bombings

    that saddam was behind?

    WTC II

    how many Iraqi's were on those planes? oh, yeah, zero! How many dollars did Saddam funnel to this operation? Oh yeah! ZERO!

    , no further inspections claim needed as well

    What huh what? I don't know exactly what you're saying here, so forgive me If I have no clue what you actully mean. If you mean that there was no UN inspectors allowed into Iraq, you'd be lying through your teeth.

    , and 20 UN violations and I say, have at 'em.

    Yeah, but the UN didn't, and why should we enforce UN policies that the UN doesn't want to enforce? I say screw the UN. We shouldn't need to what the UN says, global government is a horrible idea. We should be able to do what is RIGHT becuase it's the right thing to do. Invading Iraq was NOT RIGHT.

    Again, I say that regardless of all the WMD issues, I believe invasion based on humanitarian grounds was enough.

    So should we invade Niger? And N Korea? And China? and Somalia? And Ethiopia? and Pakistan? And India? and Tibet? And Jasper Texas? and columbia, and argentina and guatemala and the hundreds of bananna republics that have fascist dictators? We niether have the resources nor the moral authority to play the world policeman.

    Tell me honestly now, if Gore was in office, would your views be the same?

    yeah. They would. I'm not a democrat.

    Also, who do you think most Muslim extremists would like to see elected?

    George W Bush has been Al Quida's greatest recruiting tool ever. He is proof of their fears that the "great satan" of the west is coming to take over the middle east and ... I don't know, have a pork roast or somthing to defile the land. He's invaded and toppled two major middle eastern countries in just three years. LOOK OUT! THE GREAT SATAN IS COMING! yeah, they want to keep bush in office, he's great for their cause.

    There is one thing in general Arabs respect--bravado and strength.

    thanks for speaking for every arab ever.

    I don't know if Kerry would have the presence to enforce UN demands.

    He'd do whatever they tell him to do, unfortunatly. I don't care about enforsing UN demands. I don't like the UN, and I'd rather see it's power diminish, if not it be disbanded.

    And frankly, I don't know if Kerry would have an anti-war position altogether if Bush didn't own the matter first. I believe he may have acted similar.

    He allready voted for war. I don't like kerry, I think he's an out and out corprorate puppet, just the same as Bush. But Bush has screwed up and needs to be punished at the polls.

    Unfortunatly the general populace is too scared or stupid to ditch the major parties (which don't really represent them, they represnt their parties, taking on views that they don't actually hold for party line's sake) to vote libertarian or green or nader this time around.

    But the original post was about why Bush should be impeached.

    I think clinton should have been impeached, and kicked out of office, but for differnt reasons than that petty stupid stained dress. What devisive emotionally driven baloney.

    He should have been impeached for being a war criminal. He should have been impeached for signing way to many executive orders, calling for the collection of blood, DNA, Urine, and fingerprint data on every american citizen to be stored in a centralized database by the year 2005. All this TIAO and Homeland Security nonsence is just an extention of the same unconstitutional and fascist polices of Clinton.

    Bush needs to get out of office, and I'll be the first to call for Kerry's impeachement if he screws up.
  10. Don't blame the US for Saddam's behavior and the consequences he brought upon himself as well as his nation. It seems as though you thouroughly disregard the idea of behavior and consequences; that you like to place as much blame on "society" for what a person creates for himself. Saddam destroyed his own country by disregarding the rule of law and decent human behavior.

    You are well misinformed if you believe sanctions did this. Saddam did this.

    And when were we ever fighting Iran? Again, just because we ally with a nation doesn't give that nation's leader license to abuse, torture, maime, rape and murder their citizens.It was in our interests, as well as the interests of the entire world, to accomplish Desert Storm.

    "Yeah, and we turned our heads. In fact, there was a massive PR campaign paid for by the Bush White house to make it seem like Saddam was a great guy. I think it's hilarious that GWBush brings this up as a reason for invading when WE were supplying the weapons and giving him the go-ahead for all this stuff."

    I have no clue to what PR campaign your talking about. Could you source?

    "So did the war criminals working for the US armed forces when they buried hundreds of surrendering Iraqi troops alive with bulldozer tanks. So did the scumbags just recently in Abu Ghraib. So did our government during the Japaneese scare during WWII. So did we when we blew up our own SS Maine to get into the Span-AM war. So did we when we overthrew Allende and placed Pinochet in power. So do oil companies that have private mercenaires to kill protesters in underdeveloped african nations when their refining process makes the people sick and their children die. This isn't really a point for me to concider. He was a brutal dictator. So what? There are pleanty out there. We are to blame for his coming to power just as much as he is. We helped him along the whole way up untill he invaded Kuwait."

    Again, your off on a tangent with this strawman completely off point. I mention his behavior together with other factors to consider justification for invasion. And there you go again, seemingly backing up his behavior blaiming the US for his abuse of power. By the way, he already came to power years before we arrived on scene.

    "Uh when was this? Cause I was pretty sure that they UN inspectors didn't find anything. Remember? That's why the UN didn't okay the invading of Iraq, because they WEREN'T IN VIOLATION?"

    No, your spinning perception into facts once again. UNSCUM did NOT acoount for all weapons on record. And the UN did authorize consequences for the lack of compliance with the resolutions. I see the US as simply giving them meaning.

    "Oh, geese, let's revise history eh? I remember there being somthing about NO CONNECTION between 9-11 and Iraq being key in that 9-11 report."

    What are you talking about? Iraqi's met with Al Qaida operatives. That IS in the report. I'll source the report page if you like.

    "When was this? In like 1993? Yeah so what? We went to war then. Doesn't mean a thing now."

    Check your dates v. resolution count.

    "Shot at jets enforcing no-fly zone activity.
    saddam himself did that? Really? Crazy! For some reason there's somthing about US and British Jets constantly and consistantly bombing civilian areas like Um Quaser for no reason for 12 years straight."


    Again, your justifying Saddam amidst enforcement of UN resolution.

    It seems clear to me that you are so seething mad that you have abandoned reason and logic to sarcastic bias. Why so angry?

    I notice this among many whose values are adopted by convenience--situational ethics when it serves their needs.

    Was there any US war or invasion justified in your mind?
  11. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    He had contact but didn't anything with them past that. I believe that's also in the report.
  12. Okay, but given that fact alone, 9-11, and Saddam's compliance and inspection games in complying with inspections and resolutions, do you think it enough for preemptive posture?

    Have we been in a preemptive posture throughout 20th century?

    How can preemptive strikes be contained from a slippery-slope of abuse?

    I would really like to hear a few positions on this issue alone.
  13. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Actually, no and no. Meeting with Al-Quaeda reps and then rejecting them indicates to me that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 so that reason for invading is invalid right there. I bet Al-Quaeda met with tons (well, lots) of leaders from countries opposing the US and you don't see the US invading them (although in some cases maybe they should with the current policy... look at North Korea, a country providing a threat greater than Iraq offered). Perhaps they met with Iran and look at their stance on inspections today. At least inspector got to go inside Iraq at least a couple times (don't know the specific number).

    And through the 20th century, the US has had a premptive posture really starting in the 80's when we invaded Grenada. Not quite "throughout" the century...
  14. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Sure weren't preemptive in WWII...
  15. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Heh, no, it was those other Asian guys ;)
  16. Oversoul The Tentacled One

  17. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Hmm, a misspeak. Take out "other" (I was going to mention those preemptive Europeans I think, but just stuck with the Asians)

    :)
  18. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Ah, okay. Gotcha...
  19. train The Wildcard!!!...

    What I liked about Pearl Harbor, is that it really shows how much a super-power we were...

    They had to attack us, it was a mistake they had to make...

    but we also should have been able to prevent some of the damage...:rolleyes:
  20. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    But we weren't a superpower then. That came after WWII. We just a middlin' country trying to get out of the Depression...

Share This Page