The United States of America has gone mad [Emetic!]

The Times of London ^ | January 15, 2003 | John le Carré

[skeeter]

Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: ?Peace is also Patriotic?. It was gone by the time he?d finished shopping.

Yep, we Californians are just a bunch of warmongers.

[steve-b]

An attempt on a US President's life is overwhelming justification for taking any b*st*rd out. If Klintoon had any core principles and moral values whatsoever, we would've taken care of this problem (Saddam) 8 years when the attempt occurred.

It's too bad Clowntoon didn't feel a pressing need to get his crimes and pecadilloes off the front page at that time. Then, he would have done the right thing (albeit for the wrong reason).

[dead]

So basically, you're saying that we shouldn't take out Hussein because we failed to do it once.

You're a cop. Does the same go for murderers who get away with one due to poor policing? Do they then have a license to kill anyone they please, because we let them get away with it once?

[Cap'n Crunch]

Truth be told, I was against the first Gulf War. And after we did go to war, we had the "murderer" in our hands and let him go.

And not only did he go, he went and murdered people we told we would protect and support. Meaning the Kurds.

Is that right about the Kurds? I have yet to read anything on my own or have anyone show me that we did not abandon them.

And if it's true that we abandon the Kurds, after we told them we'd protect them, then shame on us.

Also, while we're having a discussion, what about all the veterans of the Gulf War who are trying to draw attention to the government on the medical problems they are having since the war? There have been a few posts on FR about this and I didn't hear anybody calling them 'sorry peaceniks' etc.

[Burkeman1]

Puerile.

[dead]

You completely ignored my point that your "we let him go once" excuse is nonsensical.

And yes, we did abandon the Kurds and it was wrong.

But that has nothing to with the current situation. We also didn't treat the Indians very nice, but that has nothing to do with the price of tea.

[John Jorsett]

I'm dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam’s downfall — just not on Bush’s terms and not by his methods.

I love how these people always say they'd like Saddam to be gone, just not that way. Well, what way, then? Give us your plan there, John. You can write excruciatingly convoluted novels, so you presumably can knock out a downfall-of-Saddam operation in an afternoon.

[carton253]

And, how 'bout them Kurds?

That was a travesty, but is not the issue of today.

I don’t think this ouster of Sadaam is for oil so much as it is for revenge for the attack on George I.

Proof please!

If we would have taken Sadaam our the first time, there would have been no attempt on the President.

You are correct, but again, that is not the issue for January 15, 2003.

The difference between 1991 and 2003 is that there are l3,000 dead at the WTC and the Pentagon. Iraq is a state sponsor of terror directed at the West. I believe there is a link between Iraq and Al Queda – the least being the meeting in Prague between Muhammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence. That is what this war is about.! About stopping terrorism in its track, before a madman can arm terrorists to do more harm in the US, Israel, and the West.

Now, we can debate this issue until the cows come home because this is the issue. (IMO)

[carton253]

l3,000 dead = 3,000 dead

[vbmoneyspender]

And lastly, I've had some discussions with people here about the Kurds, whom if I remember correctly, we promised to defend in Gulf War I. It seems to me we didn't and I haven't seen or heard anyone explain why we didn't. If Sadaam was such a 'Hitler' why didn't we do it right the first time?

What do you call the Northern Fly Zone? That was setup specifically to protect the Kurds. And by the way, because of that no-fly zone, Kurdish controlled Northern Iraq is one of the few places in the Middle East where they have a functioning rule of law. If one were objective about what is taking place in Northern Iraq, one could even say that it provides a model for how Iraq should be governed as a whole once the United States destroys Hussein's thugocracy.

[Cap'n Crunch]

No, I didn't ignore your comment. Maybe I didn't answer it in the best manner. If I remember correctly, the first time around, President Bush I said Sadaam was a Hitler and had to be done away with. We even got to hear the stories of babies being dumped out of incubators, seen Kuwaiti's hanging throughout their country, Sadaam gassing his own people, etc.

Sadaam was 'public enemy number 1.'

Then we had him. We had him defeated and we let him go and Sadaam killed the Kurds. Why didn't we go back THEN?

Now, you say that we abandoned the Kurds and it was wrong. Then you say we didn't treat the Indians very nice either.

And I'm the bad guy in this????

More and more people here will make good police officers.

[John Jorsett]

Why don't you take your sorry peacnik-ass to DU.

I disagree with the Cap'n, but exiling people that we disagree with is exactly what DU does, and avoiding debate is a silly way to try to advance the conservative agenda. Let the DU homogenize their discussions so that they never have to articulate why they hold the positions they do. I don't want to see that here.

[vbmoneyspender]

it really is not correct to say that we abandoned the Kurds. They have a slice of Northern Iraq right now where they are able to live in comparative freedom. However, if Cap'n'Crunch has his way, we really will be abandoning them. Finally, I find Cap'n'Crunch's position in regard to the Kurds particularly ironic because he is in effect saying that because we abandoned then once we should prove our consistency by abandoning them twice.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Thank you for your response.

I'm sorry but it's not that easy for me to say "that was a travesty but it's not the issue of today."

Well, excuse me if I'm a bit miffed that we abandoned a people we said we would protect. Especially when they were going to do some of the dirtywork for us and oust Sadaam.

Frankly, that infurates me.

Proof about revenge and oil? I saw current President Bush on TV say: "He (Sadaam) tried to kill my daddy." Saw it with my own eyes.

Yes, I am correct as I have seen and learned up till now. That is why I am very skeptical about our reasons for Gulf 2.

I'm also infuriated that our Government has not, to the best of my knowledge, taken care of our Veterans, not only from the Gulf, but from Vietnam and Korea also.

And I'm less than thrilled that people on this forum who have directed so much venom at me for being a police officer, "falling in line" to crush the Constitution and "go along blindly" with my leaders, refer to me insultingly and go along blindly with the President. And can't come up with anything other than insults.

But hey, that's what makes America great.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Why isn't it right to say we didn't abandon them? I saw them being killed on the nightly news and asking: "where is the United States?"

Because we did something after the fact makes everything we didn't do OK?

Why didn't we get rid of Sadaam the first time?

Thank you for civil responses.

[johnb838]

The argument has been made so many times that it becomes a waste of breath to continue to explain it. But, one more time...

Saddam Hussein destabilizes the whole region. He gassed his own people and invaded two of his neighbors. He would like nothing better than to get his hands on nukes so he could severely punish the US which kicked him in the crotch but left him standing 12 years ago. He is definitely mean enough to do it. He runs an evil, soviet style police state. His family are just as bad as he is. He has diverted shipments of food and aid to his own purposes rather than feeding the people as they were intended. There is a lot of evidence that he was behind the Murra Federal Building, which the Govt doesn't confirm or deny -- I think to protect intelligence sources.

Looking back leaving him in power was a mistake. But hindsight is 20/20. Leaving him there at the time when there was no mandate to march to Baghdad left a bad taste in peoples mouths, but it was understandable -- even the right thing to do based on the mission parameters. What happened to the Kurds was a flat out shame. I have no idea what was behind that snafu.

That is no reason to go wobbly now. He thinks he is smarter than the rest of the world. HE thinks he has hid his shit well enough that we won't be able to find it. If he remains in power under so-called 'containment' he will be able to continue to launch adventures against us and the Israelis, like paying families to blow up their children. It is his time. It will be time for the N. Koreans and the Iranians soon enough. Right now, it is Baghdad time.

It is amazing how much the non-leftist american public understands. They understand that islam equals evil, that Saddam is a menace, and that weakness in international affairs is deadly. We will carry on and do what needs to be done for an ungrateful left and ignorant public. As a cop you should understand that feeling very well.

[carton253]

Well, excuse me if I'm a bit miffed that we abandoned a people we said we would protect. Especially when they were going to do some of the dirtywork for us and oust Sadaam.

And I am giving you plenty of room to be angry. It was betrayal... but, should that betrayal prevent us from going after Saddam today?

Frankly, that infurates me.

Be infuriated! I don't have a problem with that.

Proof about revenge and oil? I saw current President Bush on TV say: "He (Sadaam) tried to kill my daddy." Saw it with my own eyes.

Two problems with the above. Saddam did try to kill President Bush. That is a fact not in debate today. So, GWB is correct when he says that. You said that revenge was the reason we are going into Iraq today. I am asking for proof on that.

I'm also infuriated that our Government has not, to the best of my knowledge, taken care of our Veterans, not only from the Gulf, but from Vietnam and Korea also.

This is a national shame. Yet, it does not have anything to do with the war on terror. Everything should be done to treasure and care for the men and women who fought for us.

And I'm less than thrilled that people on this forum who have directed so much venom at me for being a police officer, "falling in line" to crush the Constitution and "go along blindly" with my leaders, refer to me insultingly and go along blindly with the President. And can't come up with anything other than insults.

Well... that's not right either. But, I haven't done that (at least I don't think I have).

[johnb838]

The argument has been made so many times that it becomes a waste of breath to continue to explain it. But, one more time...

Saddam Hussein destabilizes the whole region. He gassed his own people and invaded two of his neighbors. He would like nothing better than to get his hands on nukes so he could severely punish the US which kicked him in the crotch but left him standing 12 years ago. He is definitely mean enough to do it. He runs an evil, soviet style police state. His family are just as bad as he is. He has diverted shipments of food and aid to his own purposes rather than feeding the people as they were intended. There is a lot of evidence that he was behind the Murra Federal Building, which the Govt doesn't confirm or deny -- I think to protect intelligence sources.

Looking back leaving him in power was a mistake. But hindsight is 20/20. Leaving him there at the time when there was no mandate to march to Baghdad left a bad taste in peoples mouths, but it was understandable -- even the right thing to do based on the mission parameters. What happened to the Kurds was a flat out shame. I have no idea what was behind that snafu.

That is no reason to go wobbly now. He thinks he is smarter than the rest of the world. HE thinks he has hid his shit well enough that we won't be able to find it. If he remains in power under so-called 'containment' he will be able to continue to launch adventures against us and the Israelis, like paying families to blow up their children. It is his time. It will be time for the N. Koreans and the Iranians soon enough. Right now, it is Baghdad time.

It is amazing how much the non-leftist american public understands. They understand that islam equals evil, that Saddam is a menace, and that weakness in international affairs is deadly. We will carry on and do what needs to be done for an ungrateful left and ignorant public. As a cop you should understand how that feels very well.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Wait a minute? "If Cap'n Crunch has his way" isn't that presuming that you know "what my way" is?

Well, that post dropped my opinion of your last post a few notches. (not that you might care)

[vbmoneyspender]

I don't think you are being intellectually honest. We enforced the no-fly zone and prevented Hussein from killing thousands of Kurds, just like he had done before the Gulf War started. Under any definition of the word, that doesn't constitute abandoning people. And if I am wrong, tell me what is going on in the Northern Fly Zone. People are living there in comparative freedom. Those people are called Kurds. They are living that way because of the United States military. How do we get blamed for that?