Poor Bush

Yes, I feel sorry for him. Off he goes to Britain to show America how supportful Europe is. A 41-gun salute. Breakfast with the Queen (no, not me,).

And then, Michael Jackson usurps him in the headlines. Again.

Well, what can one expect from a country wherein politics and entertainment are indistinguishable?

Circus Circus.

I must say, however, that the parents of the 200+

American soldiers who've died so far making Iraq safe for Petroleum Interests probably don't feel entertained at all.

I hope there's a special Throne in the Hereafter for soldiers who've been lied to.

La Trix

>Breakfast

>with the Queen (no, not me,).

wait a minute... you're not a woman?

I may not be a Queen, but I'm ALL woman!

And all man, for that matter.

La Belle Trix

>I must say, however, that the parents of the 200+

>American soldiers who've died so far making Iraq safe for

>Petroleum Interests probably don't feel entertained at all.

>

>I hope there's a special Throne in the Hereafter for soldiers

>who've been lied to.

> La Trix

With all due respect La Trix, I think the number of dead is way over 200, more like around 450.

Also, what about the injured? Sunday NYTimes had a front page article covering soldier-amputees of Iraq trying to get their prosthetic hands/arms/legs/feet functioning at Walter Reed.

I wonder what they think of King George grandstanding in London?

RE: 200+

Well, I put "200+" down because it was a number I remember reading, somewhat recently, that had been passed. I didn't dare say more for fear of getting into hot water with the ever detail-minded Doug69!

La Trix

RE: 200+

>I didn't

>dare say more for fear of getting into hot water with the ever

>detail-minded Doug69!

That's a good girl. You don't know how hard it makes me to see you stepping carefully due to fear of the consequences from a misstep. That's HOT!

RE: 200+

And what about the estimated 10,000 Iraqis who died in the fighting?

That's the latest estimate from Medecins San Frontieres released about 2 weeks ago. This was not a low-casualty war.

RE: 200+

>And what about the estimated 10,000 Iraqis who died in the

>fighting?

I'd say it pales in comparisions to the hundreds of thousands who have been killed by the now-dead Saddam regime, as well as the hundreds of thousands who would have been killed, maimed and tortured in the future if you and your friends had your way and Saddam ruled for another 15 years until his death and then passed on the mantle to his lovely sons.

>That's the latest estimate from Medecins San Frontieres

>released about 2 weeks ago. This was not a low-casualty war.

The Saddam regime which was deposed was anything but a "low-casualty" regime.

RE: 200+

Oh dear, here we go again. Doug seems to think that anybody who questions the Iraq war was therefore a friend of Saddam who gloried in his regime.

It never seems to occur to him that the world is not black and white, but has many shades of grey. Saddam was evil, his regime was abhorrent - but that was not the reason we went to war and we all know it. The reason we went to war was to rid the region of WMDs. That reason is now suspect, not because we haven't found any but because there is evidence that our leaders lied to us. And that's a matter of serious concern, even if Iraq will end up a better place for being rid of Saddam Hussein.

Along the way we peddle all kinds of myths about the Iraq war being a low-casualty war. In terms of US dead, it was reasonably low given that the major conflict lasted only a matter of weeks. In terms of overall dead, however, 10,000 deaths in 3 or 4 weeks makes it a much more bloody conflict than we usually are prepared to admit.

All I wanted to point out was that it's wrong to confine our analysis of this war to US dead. We have to consider all dead, including Iraqis. After all, if Doug is right, they were the ones we were trying to save, weren't they?

RE: 200+

You seem to forget that Saddam was an ally of the USA when he did a lot of his killing and he did it with WMDs supplied by the US government. It's chilling to see old film clips of a younger Donald Rumsfeld sucking up to Saddam in the early eighties and to listen to the crap that comes out of his mouth now. Bush and his ilk are no better that the Soviets were in their heyday. Killers all.x(

RE: 200+

>Saddam was evil, his

>regime was abhorrent . . .

Among those who don't really think that getting rid of Saddam's regime is that big of a deal, there's always a "but" which follows this obligatory lip service to Saddam's badness . . .

> - but . . .

Oh, look - there it is.

> that was not the reason we went to

>war and we all know it. The reason we went to war was to rid

>the region of WMDs. That reason is now suspect, not because

>we haven't found any but because there is evidence that our

>leaders lied to us. And that's a matter of serious concern,

>even if Iraq will end up a better place for being rid of

>Saddam Hussein.

So the fuck what? This has nothing to do with what you were just saying. Whenever you run around mouthing stupidity and then get exposed, you just abandon your original point and then retreat to the safe haven of your standard anti-war buzz phrases that have nothing to do with what you were discussing before.

When I responded to you, you were prattling on about the number of dead Iraqis from the war. I said that citing this statistic as an argument against the war is stupid, since many many more Iraqis would have died in the absence of the war than died from the war. You then retreat to your boring, endlessly repeated claptrap about WMDs - which had nothing whatsoever to do with your first moronic point.

Can't you have just a smidgen of intellectual honesty and either stick to your fucking point and defend it or acknowledge its invalidity and move on?

>All I wanted to point out was that it's wrong to confine our

>analysis of this war to US dead. We have to consider all

>dead, including Iraqis.

OK - we've considered the 10,000 dead Iraqis like you asked. We weighed them against the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who would have died without the war under your friend Saddam and his sons' future regime. Now what?

RE: 200+

>You seem to forget that Saddam was an ally of the USA when he

>did a lot of his killing and he did it with WMDs supplied by

>the US government.

Every country forges alliances with bad people. Foreign policy is about self-interest. If bad people can help protect your country, then countries do business with them. That's true in the United States and it's even true in - cover your ears - France. France was supplying Iraq with all sorts of weapons in the 1990s and 2000s. So what's your fucking point?

It's chilling to see old film clips of a

>younger Donald Rumsfeld sucking up to Saddam in the early

>eighties and to listen to the crap that comes out of his mouth

>now.

Prior to serving in the Bush Administration, Donald Rumsfeld served last in the Gerald Ford Administration, which ended in 1976 - 27 years ago, before Saddam invaded Kuwait, before he gassed the Kurds, before he used chemical weapons on Iran. He was vital to U.S. interests in that region for several reasons.

Since then, he's become a rancid threat to the United States. Donald Rumsfeld's job is to defend the U.S. and to smash and eradicate threats to it. In light of Rumsfeld's obligation, do you think it's a surprise that he condemns Saddam?

>Bush and his ilk are no better that the Soviets were in

>their heyday. Killers all.

I love how the most viruent and hateful rhetoric among those of your ilk is reserved not for the Osama bin Ladens or Fidel Castros or Kim Jong Ils or Saddam Husseins of the world, but is reserved for George Bush. That shows your true colors.

It also illustrates - in case you were wondering - why the political party for which you have the greatest affinity is out of the White House, in the minority in both houses of Congress, and losing Governorships faster than your brain cells are dying.

RE: 200+

>>

>

>Every country forges alliances with bad people. Foreign

>policy is about self-interest. If bad people can help protect

>your country, then countries do business with them. That's

>true in the United States and it's even true in - cover your

>ears - France. France was supplying Iraq with all sorts of

>weapons in the 1990s and 2000s. So what's your fucking

>point?

>But Doug69, don't you realize what a hopeless and cynical statement that is? Yes, it's true now, but we need not settle for it as a given for the future. Perhaps it's time for the US to sart examining it's allies - and the actions it's allies take- more closely. Even if it costs us, economically and politically. Certainly, no nation's government can claim any sort of moral superiority if your above statement is true. And if economics is the reason that our nation makes pacts with "bad people", then why should our government not just say so?

>

>

>>Bush and his ilk are no better that the Soviets were in

>>their heyday. Killers all.

>

>I love how the most viruent and hateful rhetoric among those

>of your ilk is reserved not for the Osama bin Ladens or Fidel

>Castros or Kim Jong Ils or Saddam Husseins of the world, but

>is reserved for George Bush. That shows your true colors.

Noone here, as far as I can remember, has supported or even tried to maintain an argument excusing Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Ils, or even Fidel Castro. Or even Saddam Hussein. Because some of us reserve our right to criticize our own government's behaviour does not imply any sort of approval of those above- mentioned.

Noone needs to go on and on about what a criminally insane person Bin Laden is. I think most everyone gets that.

What we don't get is why our government relies on deceit of the world community and it's own people in order to justify an invasion of a sovereign government. Hussein was indeed nasty, but there are plenty of other nasty despots going about their nasty business about whom we are doing nothing about. So why pretend that this two-bit nation, Iraq, is important for ANY reason, other than it's oil reserves.

>

>It also illustrates - in case you were wondering - why the

>political party for which you have the greatest affinity is

>out of the White House, in the minority in both houses of

>Congress, and losing Governorships faster than your brain

>cells are dying.

>

The White House has been shuffling back and forth between the Republicans and Democrats for the past 100 years for no other reason than a fickle populace, and one also with a short memory. And also a populace frustruated with the two party system, but is ignorant of how to make real change.

I'm sorry, Big Daddy69, I know you want me to be a good girl, but sometimes I just have to be Bad!

Trix

Another British point of view on Bush and the US

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=back&issue=2003-11-22&id=3764

RE: Standards

We expect dictators and fascists to put self interest ahead of principle, because they are unprincipled self interested amoral thugs.

But we expect democratic governments to apply high principle rather more often, and we have the right to criticise them strongly when they fall short.

RE: Standards

So you woould accept amoral behavior from dictators and non-representative governments with no complaints and would criticize all representative governments who did things you don't like? Sounds like a recipe for the growth of dictatorial governments. Why not criticize both?????

We're one hell of an example.

We should do what we say: criticize, embargo, and encourage regime change, for all non-representative governments.

Unfortunately, what we usually do is quite the opposite, actively arming the most brutal of dictators, working to keep them in power, and replacing democratically elected governments with puppet dictators.

I am surprised that even this abominable practice has right-wing apologists. The cold war is over, now it's even clearer that we do it for Halliburton, Exxon and other corporate profits. Especially now that half these corporations aren't even American anymore! (Avoiding the bills for their wars by basing themselves in Jamaica and the like!)

RE: We're one hell of an example.

Interesting that it is only right wing apologists now. Guess that is because the only leftwing we had lately was Bill Clinton and no one is supposed to say anything about him because "he is not longer president." If only he would keep quiet. He certainly did not do much about the horrible genocide in Africa except take his buddies there on a party at taxpayer expense.

Guess if the left wing could get someone else elected we could see how they treat horrible non-representational regimes. Bet it would not be any different - in fact would probably be worse because they would take their cue from Europe and Europe is more open to their former colonies and will take anything from them no matter how bad the government is.

RE: We're one hell of an example.

I don't remember saying anywhere that we shouldn't criticise dictators and fascists.

I do remember saying that we should criticise our own leaders if they fall short of the high standards expected of democratic leaders.

The second statement doesn't preclude the first.

RE: We're one hell of an example.

OK, I didn't write that very well, did I?

We can criticise dictators and fascists.

We can also criticise our own leaders when they fall short of the high standards we expect.

The second statement does not preclude the first.

RE: We're one hell of an example.

>Interesting that it is only right wing apologists now. Guess

>that is because the only leftwing we had lately was Bill

>Clinton and no one is supposed to say anything about him

>because "he is not longer president." If only he would keep

>quiet. He certainly did not do much about the horrible

>genocide in Africa except take his buddies there on a party at

>taxpayer expense.

I'm sure there were UN embargos and a lot of other international pressure, but more should have been done, I fully agree.

Though it must be remembered that at the time there were people screaming wag the dog every time he even launched a fucking missile (at Bin Laden and Saddam, BTW!), and impeaching him for lying about questions that should never have been asked.

Curiously, these same people now say it's treason to even question the current president...

RE: We're one hell of an example.

dude, ann coulter doesn't speak for all conservatives or all republicans any more than she speaks for all americans!

i don't even particularly like her. i despise her debating style. but, i do admit it is sometimes fun to watch her get under liberals' skins.

RE: We're one hell of an example.

Yes! Currently, in Sudan a genocide is occuring. The Arab north is literally erasing the non-Arab south part of the country, murdering the men and selling the women and children into slavery. (Some of these slaves end up in our good friend Saudi Arabia). The Nuba Tribe is on the verge of extinction. The Nuer and other tribal groups are

spilling into other neighboring coutries, who have no means of caring for them.

Meanwhile, in Indonesia, another moslem country, and another economic, if not political ally, a war rages in the northern part of Sumatra. And in Malaka and Papua the non-muslim continue to fight for autonomy, with almost no help from the outside world. This is because the muslim javanese government plays ball with the West. Timber, oil, metals all are sucked up by western interests while ethnic minorities, who might get in the way of business defending their land, are quietly squashed.

So why are we not fighting against these regimes?

Trix

RE: We're one hell of an example.

well, probably for much the same reason clinton allowed 800,000 rwandans to be killed in 100 days. i am NOT trying a "but clinton did it!" argument. i'm just saying that the reasons are the same. basically, most americans couldn't find those places on a map and don't know anyone from there. selling the possibility of US servicemen & women dying there would be difficult to say the least--particularly when we have nothing to gain (except saving lives) by going there. there are other perspectives, some of which may be correct. i don't see anything INCORRECT in the perspective i've just mentioned, though.

(please note: i'm not making a judgement on whether we should intervene in the places you mentioned or not. i'm merely giving a possible explanation for why we haven't done so.)

RE: We're one hell of an example.

Nutjob Ann was not the only person implying treason, far from it! Quite revisionist of you, and totally failing to address the purely partisan bullshit that hobbled Clinton as he went after Bin Laden.

Then Catherine Harris rigs the vote, Bush gets selected, and Halliburton’s desire to build a pipeline becomes far more important then the state sponsored terrorism and horrendous human rights atrocities in Afghanistan.