Bush's new language and statments

Snowball

Last night I heard a statment my Bush regarding the Iraq situation:

"This looks like re-run of a bad movie and I don't want to see it"


Here are some more I have seen:

"You can't measure progress by which hedge row we've taken."

"We're making the right decisions to bring the solution to an end."

"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."

"Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe -- I believe what I believe is right."


What ones have you seen? Statments, quotes or new "Bush" words

GreenHell

Originally posted by Snowball
Last night I heard a statment my Bush regarding the Iraq situation:



"We're making the right decisions to bring the solution to an end."

"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."

"Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe -- I believe what I believe is right."

lol. What a nut.

Cork

Originally posted by GreenHell
lol. What a nut.

Well that sums a lot up. Saddam uses chemical weapons on his own people. Would you live in either Iraq of the US? This anti - Americanisim is crazy. I think there are many pseudo socialists and latter day hippies they are going on with anti american spiel but are glad enough to enough western freedom.

Snowball

Originally posted by Cork
Well that sums a lot up. Saddam uses chemical weapons on his own people. Would you live in either Iraq of the US? This anti - Americanisim is crazy. I think there are many pseudo socialists and latter day hippies they are going on with anti american spiel but are glad enough to enough western freedom.

america did not create western freedom. America was created by europe.

Anyways, more funny quotes

"No, I know all the war rhetoric, but it's all aimed at achieving peace."

"The benefits of helping somebody is beneficial."

!If I answer questions every time you ask one, expectations would be high. And as you know, I like to keep expectations low."

"You're the kind of guy I like to have in a foxhole with me."

nick_riviera

This anti - Americanisim is crazy. I think there are many pseudo socialists and latter day hippies they are going on with anti american spiel but are glad enough to enough western freedom.

You should have a look at this article on a conservative US website.

Also,Veterans for Common Sense .

And the views of General Anthony Zinni here .

Or are these people pseudo-socialist latter-day hippies?

Gordon

Bushisms

Sand

You know theres two things about Bush

1) He has a way with words that would make even his most ardent supporters cringe.

2) His opponents and detractors *consistently* and *without fail* use this to underestimate his intelligence. These guys are the real idiots imo - Bush has carried out his agenda incredibly successfully and easily despite all the abuse hurled his way - and yet Bush is still dismissed as a moron because of his soundbites.

"And as you know, I like to keep expectations low."

Damn right - Bush was expected to be humiliated by Gore, "the intelligent one" in the televised TV debates - expectation of his performance was so low thanks to the above, the mere fact he surpassed those expectations had people thinking of him far more positively.

When the best the left can come up with to criticise Bush is his speech gaffes (and be honest, this is the best they have come up with ) then its hardly surprising Bush won his election and led the Republicans to victory in the most recent elections again - its not like they had much in the way of intellectual opposition. Hes the moron though.

/me shakes head sadly.

Manach

The man may not be quite the intellectual powerhouse, but he does surround himself with talent in the form of Colin Powell, or C. Rice. At least he recognises his limits and isn't afraid to ask advice. Whether he listens or not ......

bugler

He's pretty thick alright. Could have been the liquor. Then again Boris Yeltsin and others have proven that you don't really need to have an impeccable intellect to lead a large powerful country. When he was a child he stole a grenade and began to hit it with a hammer, hence his missing fingers. He was 14 years old I think. Democracy eh..

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
This anti - Americanisim is crazy.

There are days when I wish moderator's didnt actually have to be reasonable about rules. I am getting fed up to death of this constant bullsh1t being spouted about "anti-Americanism", and would love to start handing out temp (or permanent) bans for those who persist in its use.

I would like to apologise to Cork for quoting him out here and thus appearing to single him out...this applies to all who keep bandying about the term.

First of all, it should be pointed out that some of the posters here who are arguing against military action against Iraq are Americans. So I challenge the next person to use the "Anti-American" term to explain how these people are anti-American. Indeed, I know several Americans who have served in the US army, and who have been deployed in military action who oppose this war. Are they anti-American? Indeed, is every citizen of the US who is not in favour of this war anti-American?

As someone pointed out in a recent thread...if Pakistan invaded India, there would also be a hell of a lot of complaints. Does this make the protestors anti-Pakistani?

Indeed, does me criticising the Irish government's actions re: Shannon make me anti-Irish?

Has it entered anyone's head using that term that maybe some people are anti-war, regardless of who wages it? Has it entered their heads that perhaps the opposition is not based on those who would wage war, but the reasons why that war is being waged?

Personally, I agree that Saddam should not be in power.

However, I do not believe in blindly accepting any nation's justification for war...I dont care if its the US, Ireland, Switzerland, Nepal, or any nation.

I also do not accept the setting of a modern precedent that the end justifies the excuses - that removing Saddam is more important than the reasons why it is being done. This only sets a precedent that it is right and correct for nations to wage war (or otherwise subjugate) other nations who are based on a different ideology.

I'd dearly love for someone to justify their use of the term "anti-American", because to date I can only come up with two possibilities :

1) You havent thought your reasoning through, and should really reconsider your use of language, because the term is not applicable to the discussion in general (and remember that the say to attack the post and not the poster, so be very careful before you accuse an individual of being anti-American)

2) You know damned well that the term is misleading, but choose to use it anyway because you feel that insulting those who do not share your point of view is a good way to strengthen your argument.

If its the former, then I will challenge every individual to justify their use of the term in future. If its the latter, then I'll just ban you for being an insulting troll.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
When the best the left can come up with to criticise Bush is his speech gaffes (and be honest, this is the best they have come up with ) then its hardly surprising Bush won his election and led the Republicans to victory in the most recent elections again - its not like they had much in the way of intellectual opposition. Hes the moron though.

The left (and the right, and the centre) have come up with lots of criticisms far 'better' than this - like on the poor performance of the US economy under his administration, the growing inequality, unemployment and budget deficits, the undermining of environmental and financial watchdogs, the tax breaks for the rich, the toadying to corporate interests, bribing developing states to liberalise trade, and so on and on.

It's just that whenever people point out that Bush talks like an idiot (which he's not, he's just not intellectually gifted), someone also claims that "that's the best you can do". It's not, but it is funny. Anyway, I'm more worried about the news that Bush begins every Cabinet meeting with a prayer.

GavinS

Some sense there from Bonkey - thank you.

As for this argument about Saddam bombing his own people, so what? Hes a bit of a mad autocrat, there was talk of uprising against him so he did what any autocrat does - he put it down.

I am not excusing it, I am just explaining it. That Saddam did that all of nearly 15 years ago is not a valid reason to go to war with the country of Iraq now.

That the US resorts to this invalid reason is a measure of their lack of good reasons to invade at all. And the US does seem to forget its own policy at the time of Saddams attack on his own people - that it lightly condemned it, along with the rest of the world, but then proceeded in continuing to support Saddam.

Lets knock this one on the head.

dahamsta

Bonkey, I can assure you aren't the only one annoyed with the constant kneejerk use of the phrase. It reminds me very much of Bush's constant reminder that if you're "not with America, you're against America". I'd like to find the person that wrote that and kick em in the wotsits. It certainly wasn't Bush anyway.

adam

Sand

The left (and the right, and the centre) have come up with lots of criticisms far 'better' than this - like on the poor performance of the US economy under his administration, the growing inequality, unemployment and budget deficits, the undermining of environmental and financial watchdogs, the tax breaks for the rich, the toadying to corporate interests, bribing developing states to liberalise trade, and so on and on.

And yet the republicans romp home to victory in the recent elections when it would have been taken for granted that disatisfaction with Bush would have been taken out on his Republican Party. The simple fact is all of the above have been wholly ineffective, and the best the left can come up with is ridiculing his speech gaffes with the obvious undertone " Youre gonna vote for a guy who said this????" - the guy even got a resolution out of the UN when that was the last thing everyone expected a few months ago - keep dismissing the guy as a moron, believe me, Ive no interest in seeing the left do well *even* if Bush is the alternative. And Bush loves the fact that expectations are made so low for him that if he spells his name right its considered a heartwarming tale of personal triumph against all the odds, inspired by the lord jesus himself.

Hes a bit of a mad autocrat, there was talk of uprising against him so he did what any autocrat does - he put it down.

Right back a ya- the US is the hyperpower - Saddam is pissing them off for whatever reason, theyre gonna put him down. Not exscusing it (Why should I, one less dictator? ), just explaining it yadda yadda. Im no having a go at you - just weird how you take a cest la vie attitude to Saddams ( dictator) actions compared to the actions of the US (democracy ) in deposing said dictator where you take a holier than thou attitude.

It's not, but it is funny. Anyway, I'm more worried about the news that Bush begins every Cabinet meeting with a prayer.

Im not religious, and I believe church and state should be seperated etc etc. I dont believe that religious belief disqualifies you from holding public office or that you cant open cabinet meetings with a prayer if you feel that prepares you to make serious decisions better. Intolerance is a worry for me though - of all kinds.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Snowball

What ones have you seen? Statments, quotes or new "Bush" words

Anyways, more funny quotes

In the interest of balance, how about a couple of "funny" Saddam Hussein quotes? Loadsa them (funniest being the Mother of All Battles that turned into the Mother of All Defeats) spring to mind, but, for time and space reasons I'll start with the following..........

1) "Iraq has not, or never has had, any stocks of chemical or biological weapons."
2) "Our Kurdish brothers in the north are as our family."
3) "The evil forces of the Western infidel will commit suicide at the gates of Baghdad (if war breaks out)"

Snowball

Originally posted by Sand
2) His opponents and detractors *consistently* and *without fail* use this to underestimate his intelligence. These guys are the real idiots imo - Bush has carried out his agenda incredibly successfully and easily despite all the abuse hurled his way - and yet Bush is still dismissed as a moron because of his soundbites.



Damn right - Bush was expected to be humiliated by Gore, "the intelligent one" in the televised TV debates - expectation of his performance was so low thanks to the above, the mere fact he surpassed those expectations had people thinking of him far more positively.

When the best the left can come up with to criticise Bush is his speech gaffes (and be honest, this is the best they have come up with ) then its hardly surprising Bush won his election and led the Republicans to victory in the most recent elections again - its not like they had much in the way of intellectual opposition. Hes the moron though.

/me shakes head sadly.

I cringe at the fect that could be very well true.

/me curls up in bed shaking with the though that the two most powerfull and crasy nations are rules by mad men who sound lioke ****ing morans (but may actually not)

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
And yet the republicans romp home to victory in the recent elections when it would have been taken for granted that disatisfaction with Bush would have been taken out on his Republican Party. The simple fact is all of the above have been wholly ineffective

And yet. Polls show that Americans are far more disillusioned with Bush's economic performance (with sixty precent believing he has made 'not much' or 'no' progress in creating new jobs) than with his foreign policy, which has been the foundation of his high support ever since Sept 11. His approval levels were down to 50 in August 2001, but rocketed to the high 80s in the months after it. They've slowly declined ever since, to about 59% in the most recent poll.

All of which tells me, and probably George and pals, two things. In times of national emergency and military action, the country will unite behind their leader. In peacetime, they start to pay more attention to the economy. Since his administration clearly hasn't a clue how to run the economy, the only thing that is likely to boost his ratings is a terrorist attack or a war. Since he's not about to engineer another 9/11, a war will have to do.

Or maybe I'm just cynical. Not as cynical, though, as those in the Republican party (or in your terms, 'on the right') who accuse anyone in the US who points out that the proposed tax cuts will overwhelmingly benefit the rich and do little or nothing to stimulate growth - while reducing funds available to already crisis-ridden state administrations - as being engaged in 'class warfare', and thus just another jealous leftist. As a highly trained economist who has no doubt worked worked out the ramifications of the tax cut, I'm sure you're just as appalled by such deceitful spin as I am.

Snowball

Originally posted by shotamoose
And yet. Polls show that Americans are far more disillusioned with Bush's economic performance (with sixty precent believing he has made 'not much' or 'no' progress in creating new jobs) than with his foreign policy, which has been the foundation of his high support ever since Sept 11. His approval levels were down to 50 in August 2001, but rocketed to the high 80s in the months after it. They've slowly declined ever since, to about 59% in the most recent poll.

All of which tells me, and probably George and pals, two things. In times of national emergency and military action, the country will unite behind their leader. In peacetime, they start to pay more attention to the economy. Since his administration clearly hasn't a clue how to run the economy, the only thing that is likely to boost his ratings is a terrorist attack or a war. Since he's not about to engineer another 9/11, a war will have to do.

Or maybe I'm just cynical. Not as cynical, though, as those in the Republican party (or in your terms, 'on the right') who accuse anyone in the US who points out that the proposed tax cuts will overwhelmingly benefit the rich and do little or nothing to stimulate growth - while reducing funds available to already crisis-ridden state administrations - as being engaged in 'class warfare', and thus just another jealous leftist. As a highly trained economist who has no doubt worked worked out the ramifications of the tax cut, I'm sure you're just as appalled by such deceitful spin as I am.

Good them maybe he will not get voted in again and if this war is to be then it can only go on so far.
I think that there will be war because of the American trend to oppose war at the start but later suport it. This is prob a election campain thing

Canaboid

http://www.brainthink.com/amusements/bush_fooled_again/bushfool-low.mpeg

and,

http://www.asu.net/bsh/union.mov

Also, Cork, You are only the 2nd person I've ever put on ignore. Congratulations. I guess reason and logic just aren't for you.

Snowball

Originally posted by Canaboid
http://www.asu.net/bsh/union.mov

I was scared until I saw on the web site that it was edited and remixed. But I can see the sick **** saying that. Funny though

Originally posted by Canaboid
Also, Cork, You are only the 2nd person I've ever put on ignore. Congratulations. I guess reason and logic just aren't for you.

rolf

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by Cork
Well that sums a lot up. Saddam uses chemical weapons on his own people. Would you live in either Iraq of the US? This anti - Americanisim is crazy. I think there are many pseudo socialists and latter day hippies they are going on with anti american spiel but are glad enough to enough western freedom.

I put it to u that it is possible to be anti-american and still enjoy western freedoms. Racism would not directly affect your judgement of the way u should be governed. Not defending anti-americanism in any way. but I live under Irish freedoms, not american ones. I live under Irish laws which are dictated by irish morals. We shouldnt feel obliged to like a countries policies based on the fact they are a democracy.

However, if I have a problem with the capitalist system then America is seen as the highest power in that system, and I therefore dislike their use of the said system. I would much love to see a socialist system in place.

Alot of what is called "anti-americanism" is anti-american policy, which is different from the racism implied in the 1st phrase. And there's alot to be against. An increase in defence spending when the USA has one of the highest gaps between rich and poor. The plundering of national preserves for oil. Tossing the Kyoto agreement out the window, when kyoto didnt even go far enough in itself. The interference in a civil war, which they cared not for pre sep11. The bombing of a nation for the acts of a few. The killing of innocents during that bombing campaign. Bush's apparent contempt for the UN in striving to go it alone in an unpopular war (worldwide) with the UK as sidekicks.

The fact that we mock Bush isnt anti-american in that u can hate Bush and still love America. Bush isnt intelligent, we all know that. I heard a story from his mouth on discovery which told of how in school he'd gotten a story to rewrite. He thought he'd do great by changing some of the words into fancier words. So he looked up tear in the dictionary and found laceration. He then proceeded to write, a laceration dropped onto my cheek!!

Some people say in relation to this war "would u prefer to live under Bush or Saddam". Well as far as I can see only 1 of them has bipassed the laws of this country with the aid of our taoiseach, directly affecting our neutrality. And that isnt saddam

seán

Snowball

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
I put it to u that it is possible to be anti-american and still enjoy western freedoms. Racism would not directly affect your judgement of the way u should be governed. Not defending anti-americanism in any way. but I live under Irish freedoms, not american ones. I live under Irish laws which are dictated by irish morals. We shouldnt feel obliged to like a countries policies based on the fact they are a democracy.

However, if I have a problem with the capitalist system then America is seen as the highest power in that system, and I therefore dislike their use of the said system. I would much love to see a socialist system in place.

Alot of what is called "anti-americanism" is anti-american policy, which is different from the racism implied in the 1st phrase. And there's alot to be against. An increase in defence spending when the USA has one of the highest gaps between rich and poor. The plundering of national preserves for oil. Tossing the Kyoto agreement out the window, when kyoto didnt even go far enough in itself. The interference in a civil war, which they cared not for pre sep11. The bombing of a nation for the acts of a few. The killing of innocents during that bombing campaign. Bush's apparent contempt for the UN in striving to go it alone in an unpopular war (worldwide) with the UK as sidekicks.

The fact that we mock Bush isnt anti-american in that u can hate Bush and still love America. Bush isnt intelligent, we all know that. I heard a story from his mouth on discovery which told of how in school he'd gotten a story to rewrite. He thought he'd do great by changing some of the words into fancier words. So he looked up tear in the dictionary and found laceration. He then proceeded to write, a laceration dropped onto my cheek!!

Some people say in relation to this war "would u prefer to live under Bush or Saddam". Well as far as I can see only 1 of them has bipassed the laws of this country with the aid of our taoiseach, directly affecting our neutrality. And that isnt saddam

seán

Well said.

But I object to the term democracy when it is being referd to Americas system of goverment.

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

---

[French démocratie, from Late Latin dmocratia, from Greek dmokrati : dmos, people; see d- in Indo-European Roots + -krati, -cracy.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Entries found for democracy


I do not belive that the American system is democracy, may even be close but one man rules and he was put in place because of (god knows wtf this is about) university votes. If the vote for presedency was counted in the Irish system Gore would have won. In actual amout of votes he won, more americans votes for Al Gore.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Cork
Well that sums a lot up. Saddam uses chemical weapons on his own people.

I wish people would stop using that argument as well. He used the gas on the Kurds, who he believes are not his own people. In that case Iraq is not the only country to do this (and no I am not saying America, there are a number of countries who have done the same thing).

But, answer this. Who sold him the gas?

Would you live in either Iraq of the US?

On the one hand you have one country ruled by a dictator who kills anyone who gets in his way while the rest of the country is being bled to death by sanctions.

Then you have the other with a president that is p!ssing away it's countries money to make pre-emptive strikes on countries while telling other countries off for wanting to do that same. A country that has removed human rights from all non Americans and POW's, introduced laws which allows it spy (domestic and abroad) and break into a persons home without a warrent. A country which has passed laws recently that allow assasination and tourture and is willing to cause the collapse of world stability in order to line it's own pockets.

Tough choice.

Sand

And yet. Polls show that Americans are far more disillusioned with Bush's economic performance (with sixty precent believing he has made 'not much' or 'no' progress in creating new jobs) than with his foreign policy, which has been the foundation of his high support ever since Sept 11. His approval levels were down to 50 in August 2001, but rocketed to the high 80s in the months after it. They've slowly declined ever since, to about 59% in the most recent poll.

And yet none of this disatisfaction has hurt Bush and Co where it counts - at the ballot box. Either Bush is facing an opposition too stupid to beat a moron when theyve got plenty of ammo, or hes not as stupid as hes been widely portrayed by people taking his soundbites as a IQ test. They havent managed to portray him anywhere near successfuly as a bad economic planner or a bad social planner or even ( not that it matters as much in US domestic elections ) a bad diplomat - imo whilst hes ruffled feathers hes also achieved what he wanted diplomatically when hes wanted to...hardly the sign of a bad diplomat imo. The best theyve come up with ( and have to hand it to them theyve done it well) is Bush=Forrest Gump, and youd vote for this guy?!?!?!

All of which tells me, and probably George and pals, two things. In times of national emergency and military action, the country will unite behind their leader. In peacetime, they start to pay more attention to the economy. Since his administration clearly hasn't a clue how to run the economy, the only thing that is likely to boost his ratings is a terrorist attack or a war. Since he's not about to engineer another 9/11, a war will have to do.

Now we get to the blame game:) The economy was on its way down in the latter stages of the Clinton presidency and indeed an aspect of the election was how the candidates would revive it - this was also the apparent aim of Bushes tax cuts package. And 9/11 dealt a blow to confidence in the US which has never really turned around.

Not as cynical, though, as those in the Republican party (or in your terms, 'on the right') who accuse anyone in the US who points out that the proposed tax cuts will overwhelmingly benefit the rich and do little or nothing to stimulate growth

Republicans have a tendency to believing in "trickle down" economics - which basically says the rich have the knack of making money by investing their wealth and they are rich because they know best how to invest their own money - better than the government would, which does make some sense when decisions are made by civil servants whove never been clever enough to invest well enough to become rich and quit their lousy jobs:| Reduce taxes on the rich, more investment so the rich become richer - and as a side effect more factories and jobs etc etc and thus all boats rise or somesuch.

Im not really a fan of it because its never really been proven to work ( it is a *long* term thing imo ), beyond the general rule of thumb that tax cuts are good in times of economic downswing, but neither am I a fan of heavier taxation based on a higher income - Im a bit of a flat tax advocate myself. Would probably save the government enough money in administrative costs to invest in a few hospitals or such. Mind you, my view of the flat tax is not shared by everybody.

I do not belive that the American system is democracy, may even be close but one man rules and he was put in place because of (god knows wtf this is about) university votes. If the vote for presedency was counted in the Irish system Gore would have won. In actual amout of votes he won, more americans votes for Al Gore.

The voting system used in the US presidential elections came has come about because the US is exactly what it says on the tin, a group "United States", an alliance of colonies/states that over time grew so close that people find it hard to accept its not directly one man, one vote. Each state basically has a certain number of votes in deciding the presidency. The voters in each state simply decide which way their states electors *should* (the electors arent actually obliged to vote the way theyre told, but they always have afaik ) vote. Each state also has two senators which isnt "fair" as it means some states get a much better population to representation ratio in the senate. All this is apparently intended to provide some balance between smaller and bigger states - much like the current EU model. God? Aw, you say the sweetest things:x

I would much love to see a socialist system in place.

Give us a shout when you actually find a successful socialist system:)

Some people say in relation to this war "would u prefer to live under Bush or Saddam". Well as far as I can see only 1 of them has bipassed the laws of this country with the aid of our taoiseach, directly affecting our neutrality. And that isnt saddam

So youre saying if there was a whip around to pay for your flights to either the US or Iraq, and a job and a place to stay could be arranged in either location youd go to Iraq? Now the weather is probably great there, and theres a new culture and all to explore. So I can understand that. I dont think its useless rhetoric and sad. I mean theres a certain so and so whose always threatening to leave the country and hes yet to make the nation a better place despite threatening to do so for as long as Ive read his posts.

I wish people would stop using that argument as well. He used the gas on the Kurds, who he believes are not his own people.

Hitler didnt believe the jews were his people either. Didnt go down well as a defence at the war crimes courts after WW2 so I hear.

But, answer this. Who sold him the gas?

That would depend on what you meant by gas?

Tough choice.

Not really.

festivala

Originally posted by bonkey

First of all, it should be pointed out that some of the posters here who are arguing against military action against Iraq are Americans. So I challenge the next person to use the "Anti-American" term to explain how these people are anti-American. Indeed, I know several Americans who have served in the US army, and who have been deployed in military action who oppose this war. Are they anti-American? Indeed, is every citizen of the US who is not in favour of this war anti-American?

As someone pointed out in a recent thread...if Pakistan invaded India, there would also be a hell of a lot of complaints. Does this make the protestors anti-Pakistani?

Indeed, does me criticising the Irish government's actions re: Shannon make me anti-Irish?

Lovely. This is excellent and true.

Why are Americans so paranoid that they invented the concept of anti-Americanism?

What does it mean to be American? To be free, to have a democratic right to express your beliefs?

And then you're labelled anti-American. The irony is stunning.

Thomas Jefferson would weep bitter tears if he were alive today.

Hobbes

Hitler didnt believe the jews were his people either. Didnt go down well as a defence at the war crimes courts after WW2 so I hear.

I am not saying what he did is anyway correct. I am pointing out that to Saddam he doesn't see the Kurds as his people so saying he "Gassed his own people" is factually incorrect.

The thing is it helps in demonising him more to others, because if people said "He gassed people!" then it's harder to show that he's not the only country who has done the same at one time now or present to others.

Of course a better way to demonise him would be to point people to his political training video, which shows him dragging people randomly from the government and having them shot on the basis they didn't agree with him.

As for who sold him the gas. You know full well the US supplied him with WoMD. Why else would the US steal the report from the UN and only release censored versions. Because they would be made out to be total hypocrites.

Snowball

Originally posted by Hobbes
I am not saying what he did is anyway correct. I am pointing out that to Saddam he doesn't see the Kurds as his people so saying he "Gassed his own people" is factually incorrect.

The thing is it helps in demonising him more to others, because if people said "He gassed people!" then it's harder to show that he's not the only country who has done the same at one time now or present to others.

http://www.rense.com/general/innoc.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2002-May/020401.html

Originally posted by Hobbes
Of course a better way to demonise him would be to point people to his political training video, which shows him dragging people randomly from the government and having them shot on the basis they didn't agree with him.

That was when he took over the goverment from hin uncle. They were people who he though could cause a threat to his stay in his position, mos were killed and all were jailed first and tourtured. He released some to pass the word around of what he is capable to anyone who opposes him. He was making a point.
Oh, and before anyone starts thinking I condone or think he was right to do that, I DON'T!.

Originally posted by Hobbes
As for who sold him the gas. You know full well the US supplied him with WoMD. Why else would the US steal the report from the UN and only release censored versions. Because they would be made out to be total hypocrites.

Way to lazy to look for links, will later but they did as far as I know.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Snowball

That was when he took over the goverment from hin uncle. [snip]

That might of been earlier.

The video in question had Saddam sitting down in front of the government smoking cigar saying that he found traitors in the government. He then named one guy who is escorted out by two guards and shot outside. Then he named another, some left crying others dragged out but after a few were removed the rest started getting up and chanting Saddam is cool (or whatever the translation was).

Make no mistake, SH is one evil Mofo. But the US wanting to remove him has nothing whatsoever to do with that, as they were quite happy to deal with him during the Iran war when a lot of the crap that people whine about he was doing.

rien_du_tout

I've seen that video on discovery , then turned over to "Hello., Saddam" on channel 4!!! U can see the fear in the parliaments eyes.

Look, the ex-mayor of New York (cant spell it so I wont bother trying) was about to go down in a blaze of political scandal yet became extremely popular post sep11. Bush has capitalised on the nation joining together and is keeping it going longer than I would have imagined possible. Lets just look at the facts

* inspectors have found NO WMD and have recieved a certain amount of Iraqi cooperation
* No links between the Iraqi government and Bin Landens (sp?) group have been proven, only accusations.

So what reason is there to start a war when the world obviously doesnt want it. And I believe the UN mirrors world opinion, so why go against the majority. Although the majority may be wrong, it's the only stable system there.

seán

gurramok

This whole war thing has striking similarities to the film 'Wag The Dog'.
When economy/domestic issues are causing trouble for bush, war sounds like a united front for americans to back him for the next election !
And just in that movie the media over there was not exactly explaining the facts either

Sand

I am not saying what he did is anyway correct. I am pointing out that to Saddam he doesn't see the Kurds as his people so saying he "Gassed his own people" is factually incorrect.

In Saddams opinion maybe, but seeing as the kurds he deployed it against are Iraqi citizens in much the same way the most ardent republican born and raised in Derry is a UK citizen it is factually correct to say he gassed his own people.

As for who sold him the gas. You know full well the US supplied him with WoMD. Why else would the US steal the report from the UN and only release censored versions. Because they would be made out to be total hypocrites.

Actually the US did not sell WMD to Saddam at any time afaik. What they did do was provide what could *potentially* have been used as a starting point for making WMDs to Saddam - the exscuse given was that the cultures were to be used to help cure diseases in Iraq or some such, who knows - however even a UN weapons inspector could only say that the US were incredibly stupid to do this, which it was - not that they provided WMD to Saddam. Was disccussed at lenth in a previous thread.

To help spread the blame around you might want to look into how an Italian bank bankrolled Saddams milatary machine for years. Should see some Italian protests soon, I dont think.

Snowball

Originally posted by Hobbes
That might of been earlier.

The video in question had Saddam sitting down in front of the government smoking cigar saying that he found traitors in the government. He then named one guy who is escorted out by two guards and shot outside. Then he named another, some left crying others dragged out but after a few were removed the rest started getting up and chanting Saddam is cool (or whatever the translation was).

Make no mistake, SH is one evil Mofo. But the US wanting to remove him has nothing whatsoever to do with that, as they were quite happy to deal with him during the Iran war when a lot of the crap that people whine about he was doing.

nope thats the one, and yes he is one ****ed up little puppy but I belive that that was a very calculated move and thats what worries most.

Make no mistake, SH is one evil Mofo. But the US wanting to remove him has nothing whatsoever to do with that, as they were quite happy to deal with him during the Iran war when a lot of the crap that people whine about he was doing.

Being an evil mofo, has never been a reason to invade a country, nor his gasing of the Kurds. Lets face it, if he had shot them, then there wouldn't have been as much outcry, compared to his use of gas. Stalin, at the height of his power, was one of the most feared leaders in europe, with the killing of hundreds of thousands under his belt, and we never saw America invading Russia to replace him...

My opinion is this:
1) Bush needs a victory to get the american people behind him for re-election.
2) The American army get a short war to try gadgets, and get a plus promotion to their reputation. (and they get to justify their budget)
3) It keeps america's "War against Terror" moving, (even if Iraq can't afford to support terrorists.)
4) The occupation of the oilfields would be a nice bonus to american economy & Bush's ties to the oil industry.
5) It continues America's self-image as the protector of the world against any would-be aggressors (not including themselves, of course).

The Saint

I find it amusing too when people say he gassed his own people and also used gas against Iran. The three little words that they always leave out is "with their support". Before during and after these attrocities the US, UK and other western countries continued, quite happily, to send him arms. He was seen as the darling of the middle east. How attitudes change when necessary.

sceptre

Originally posted by klaz
1) Bush needs a victory to get the american people behind him for re-election.

You're right. Thing is, we've already been there just before the 1992 election. Poppy got voted out because the Americans realised that while they'd had a hell of a season out in Kuwait and brought home the pennant the economy was going down the drain at home. Moving forward to now, everyone see those federal budget deficit projections for the next five years?

Wook

I am reading a book from Michael Moore called 'stupid white man'
Highly recomended literature !! If you want to know how deep the rabidhole goes and who is Bush and Co.
It;s shocking!

btw Bush is constantly bitching about weapons of mass destruction while the USA.. did not sign the Anti Germ warfare pact that dates from 1972. (renewal)

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
In Saddams opinion maybe, but seeing as the kurds he deployed it against are Iraqi citizens in much the same way the most ardent republican born and raised in Derry is a UK citizen it is factually correct to say he gassed his own people.

And only just recently there was MI5 files released to the public that showed during the height of the troubles the UK was considering removing all Catholics from NI and relocating them to the republic (Not carried out as they thought it would be too much work). So treating them as a UK citizen may be factually correct, but if the person who owns the country doesn't think so then it's not really correct is it?

Actually the US did not sell WMD to Saddam at any time afaik.

Might want to go check up on it then as they did. As did the UK, France and Germany.

To help spread the blame around you might want to look into how an Italian bank bankrolled Saddams milatary machine for years. Should see some Italian protests soon, I dont think.

Ahh, spread the blame. I'm not wrong if they are wrong? I'm not saying the US is the only one to blame, but the US is the only one who's willing to upset world stability to suit itself.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Might want to go check up on it then as they did. As did the UK, France and Germany.

I'm not sure that "sold" is the correct term. "Gave" might be more accurate.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm not sure that "sold" is the correct term. "Gave" might be more accurate.

It may have been correct at the time, it's just, well, Saddam's been slow paying up.

Did we ever get paid for that beef?