Awesome picture

[Denny Crane]

Very good. Bush did it too.

I guess that's a fine excuse.

 

[barfo]

Very good. Bush did it too.

I guess that's a fine excuse.

Every president since Washington has done it. It's part of the job. What's the big deal?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Every president since Washington has done it. It's part of the job. What's the big deal?

barfo

They all promised change we can believe in, right?

 

[barfo]

They all promised change we can believe in, right?

Yes, as a matter of fact they all did, with the possible exception of Bush 41 ("Stay the course. A thousand points of light.").

If you are trying to say that Obama promised not to be photographed with foreign heads of state, I require a link.

barfo

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

LOL OBAMA PROMISED CHANGE AND LOL LOOK HE IS STILL AN INDUSTRIALIST ASSHOLE LOL

ELL TO THE OH TO THE ELL

 

[jlprk]

Almost as good as this picture:

 

[maxiep]

International diplomacy is dirty business. You have to play nice with scumbags you'd rather choke. On the flip side, you also have to make tough decisions in the interest of your country against the interests of the citizens of another. When you have those rare instances where you both do what's right and politically expedient, you jump on it.

It's why I have no problem with Rumsfeld meeting with Hussein; the goal was to contain Iran and weaken the Mullahs. I do have a problem with President Obama sitting and taking a tongue-lashing about our role in the world from tinpot dictators like Castro and Chavez, then smiling afterward. It makes us look weak. Albright meeting with Kim Jong-Il? Ridiculous. He's shown over and over he can't be negotiated with. Our best move is to ignore him, stregthen South Korea, Japan and use China to pressure the North. You don't make a nuclear deal with a madman. In that photo, Condi Rice, conversely was telling Quaddafi what the score was; continue supporting terrorism and you're done. If you play ball, we'll take some pressure off. It's a far cry from what was done with North Korea or what we've taken from Venezuela.

On the flip side, you have to support dictators that keep the peace in their countries, even if you despise them. That means it's a necessary evil to coddle monsters like Mubarak and Musharraf, because as Jeane Kirkpatrick outlined in "Dictatorships & Double Standards", at least there's a chance for real democracy down the road. With totalitarian societies, they have to go through another dictator, revolution or some other massively destabilizing period. And oftentimes the goal of managing foreign policy is that the climate is stable.

 

[jlprk]

Q: It's amazing how all Republicans who meet foreign leaders give them a tonguelashing, and all Democrats who meet them kiss their asses. How has our great nation survived this to be the best in the world at everything?

A: God is on our side.

 

[maxiep]

Q: It's amazing how all Republicans who meet foreign leaders give them a tonguelashing, and all Democrats who meet them kiss their asses. How has our great nation survived this to be the best in the world at everything?

A: God is on our side.

The Democratic Party has drifted a long way from President Kennedy and Scoop Jackson. Fuck, it took a Labour PM to push Bill Clinton into intervening in a genocide. It's a damn shame, too.

 

[jlprk]

If only a few thousand deaths comprise a genocide, what is Bush's (and Obama contributed a little, too) massacre of a million Iraqis, plus half a million before that from sanctions. History books may note this as the 3rd biggest non-war, non-provocation massacre in history, after the 6 million Jews and 4 million Armenians. As the US justification for not obeying the Geneva Conventions admits, this is no war, it's a police action against a civilian population.

President Kennedy was so conservative that the conservative newspapers in Texas were calling for his head the day they killed him. He called off the Bay of Pigs, he was going to smash the CIA into a thousand pieces, and he was planning to wind down in Vietnam.

 

[BrianFromWA]

the sad thing is that there may be one person who reads that and doesn't realize you don't think a single word of that is true (other than the numbers of the Jewish people and Armenians killed). But for some reason you enjoy posting it.

 

[jlprk]

Do I have to drag out the Wikipedia articles again? One estimate says 1.4 million, and the the other says only 600,000...something like those numbers. And they're a couple of years old, so it's higher now. The half-million from sanctions number has been around for a decade, and even the UN uses it.

I'll make you a deal. I'll compromise. Divide those numbers in half, then we'll argue. Okay, I'll let you divide them by 3. Okay, 4. You still lose. They knocked Sadaam out of power after a week. Why keep killing? They captured him after a few months. Why do nation-building? Just abandon the place, let them fight, an anti-American government appears, and warn them that if they make trouble for the US, the same thing will happen to them. So they just give lip service against Israel and the US for backing Israel, like the other Middle East governments do. That would have saved a trillion dollars and a lot of lives.

 

[Ed O]

If only a few thousand deaths comprise a genocide, what is Bush's (and Obama contributed a little, too) massacre of a million Iraqis, plus half a million before that from sanctions. History books may note this as the 3rd biggest non-war, non-provocation massacre in history, after the 6 million Jews and 4 million Armenians. As the US justification for not obeying the Geneva Conventions admits, this is no war, it's a police action against a civilian population.

President Kennedy was so conservative that the conservative newspapers in Texas were calling for his head the day they killed him. He called off the Bay of Pigs, he was going to smash the CIA into a thousand pieces, and he was planning to wind down in Vietnam.

I think a trillion Iraqis were massacred.

You better get your facts straight.

Ed O.

 

[jlprk]

654K in 2006...The Lancet is the leading medical journal in the world, and is in Britain, which fought the war with the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties

1.033M in Jan. 2008...one of the leading British polling companies (similar to Gallup here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

Lesser estimates come from more stringent requirements, usually that the death must have been reported in a newspaper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

This is the first war in which the US has hidden the body count...the behavior of someone who knows what he's doing is wrong...in previous wars, the body count was a bragging point to prove that we were winning...Reading this thread, you'd think the majority of Americans are in favor of this war. Not according to all polls, for many years now.

 

[Denny Crane]

IraqBodyCount.org


Documented civilian deaths from violence
99,901 – 109,143

Latest incidents Latest identified
Feb 16: Female Property Registration Office director shot dead in Wahda, east Mosul Details Khawla al-Sabawi / Khawla Muhammad Salih Adult; Female; Government official Details
Recent events
Sunday 27 February: 1 killed
Baquba: 1 Sahwa by gunfire.
More

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/03/fox-news-poll-americans-value-iraq-involvement/

Despite its contentious history, most American voters appear to have made a positive judgment about the country's efforts in Iraq. Almost six in 10 (58 percent) voters think, overall, the United States "did the right thing" by going to war, according to the latest Fox News poll.

A little over one-third of voters (35 percent) take the opposite view -- that the U.S. "did the wrong thing" by becoming involved militarily in Iraq. From a partisan perspective, there is still division -- as 54 percent of Democrats think the U.S. did the wrong thing in Iraq, while only 14 percent of Republicans feel the same way. A slim majority of independents (52 percent) think the U.S. did the right thing in Iraq.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq

May 2003

A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.[9]

 

[jlprk]

The relevant question would be, "Regardless of whether you think we did the right thing many years ago, are you for or against continuing the war now?"

 

[Denny Crane]

The relevant question would be, "Regardless of whether you think we did the right thing many years ago, are you for or against continuing the war now?"

Post #46.

Realize that of all those ~100K Iraqi deaths, about 90K were Muslims killing Muslims. Remember the Mosque bombings, the drive by shootings of Iraqis standing in line to join the army or police, etc.?

 

[BrianFromWA]

I missed where we unilaterally imposed sanctions on Iraq and killed millions (I'll let YOU double it!). Wait, it wasn't unilateral...it was the UN Security Council unanimously voting for it and continuing it. That's 13 countries (Cuba and Yemen abstained), all part of the organization that tracks genocide around the world! And you think they'd say something about the Bush/Clinton/Bush trifecta of Sanction Genocide if they thought it was happening.

Maybe the sanctions had to do with other things than genocide? From the "Tougher" on, Resolution 687

Regarding sanctions, the Council reiterated international sanctions against Iraq do not apply to foodstuffs or medical aid to the civilian populations of Iraq and Kuwait, as well as removing sanctions placed on Iraq in Resolution 661 (1990) and decided to review these restrictions every 60 days. However, sales of weapons and other related material to Iraq will continue to be prohibited.

This one was 12-1. Cuba voted no. Iraq signed the resolution in April 1991 as a condition of the cease-fire.

How did it work?
From the Washington Post:

Hussein noted that Iran's weapons capabilities had increased dramatically while Iraq's weapons "had been eliminated by the UN sanctions," and that eventually Iraq would have to reconstitute its weapons to deal with that threat if it could not reach a security agreement with the United States.

Holy cow. So sanctions imposed by the UN that meant to prohibit rearmament and arms proliferation, and which specifically did not include food or humanitarian aid, resulted in the elimination of Iraqi weapons. But as you say, at the cost of a bunch of lives. How does that happen?
What does Clinton say about the sanctions?

Before the sanctions, the year before the Gulf War, and you said this ... how much money did Iraq earn from oil? Answer—$16 billion. How much money did Iraq earn last year from oil? How much money did they get, cash on the barrel head, to Saddam Hussein? Answer—$19 billion that he can use exclusively for food, for medicine, to develop his country. He’s got more money now, $3 billion a year more than he had nine years ago. If any child is without food or medicine or a roof over his or her head in Iraq, it’s because he is claiming the sanctions are doing it and sticking it to his own children

Your argument that the US is committing genocide (since I don't know that you'd follow the link to the definition, here you go)

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

doesn't seem to work. Since you are insinuating that we are attempting to do any of the above, I'm going to need a bit more than your opinion to overturn my differing opinion based on things like facts and documents. But I don't see anyone thanking the US for removing forcibly from power someone who would allow millions of his people to die while lining his own pockets, or for the troops that fought (in part) to end the corruption and death, and to rebuild the SWET (Sewer, water, electricity and trash) infrastructure for the populace that had been neglected for 15 years.

Will my evisceration of half of your argument cause you to acknowledge you were just kidding, or is this just a waste of time?

 

[jlprk]

CNN, Pew, CBS, and even the evangelical Christian Gallup have said for many years that most Americans say the war was a mistake.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Wanna see 18 more pages saying the same thing for other polls, like Harris? Go halfway down the page where all the "Iraqs" are.

http://www.pollingreport.com/Contents.htm

You'll probably find one out of a thousand that backs you up and link that one.

 

[jlprk]

I missed where we unilaterally imposed sanctions on Iraq and killed millions (I'll let YOU double it!). Wait, it wasn't unilateral......Your argument that the US is committing genocide

I never said 1) sanctions killed millions (a half-million is the universally accepted number), 2) it was unilateral (you made that up too), or 3) the US committed genocide (I said that killing a few thousand isn't genocide).

 

[BrianFromWA]

Are you wordsmithing now?

I never said 1) sanctions killed millions (a half-million is the universally accepted number)

I know, I doubled it to give you the same courtesy you were giving me). "Sanctions" didn't kill millions. Saddam's starvation of his people killed millions.

I never said 2) it was unilateral (you made that up too)

Bullshit. You said "If only a few thousand deaths comprise a genocide, what is Bush's (and Obama contributed a little, too) massacre of a million Iraqis." You didn't say "the UN's", or "us and the Brits", or even "the Western World", you said Bush and Obama like the sanctions were us Lone-Rangering the planet on our own whimsy. Which is patently false and proven above.

I never said 3) the US committed genocide (I said that killing a few thousand isn't genocide).

You stated "Bush (and Obama contributed a little, too) massacre(d) a million Iraqis. History books may note this as the 3rd biggest non-war, non-provocation massacre in history, after the 6 million Jews and 4 million Armenians."...both of which are acknowledged genocides. I would say that it's keeping with the UN definition I gave you that massacring a million people based on ethnic, national or religious ideals IS a genocide.

You're backpedaling. Which is fine, except that you're not saying you were horribly inaccurate.

 

[barfo]

The Democratic Party has drifted a long way from President Kennedy and Scoop Jackson.

It has been 50 years. Times change. The world is a little bit different. Now if you'll excuse me, the kids and I are going to take the Edsel, stop at the store to get some candy cigarettes, and then head to the drive-in.

barfo

 

[Eastoff]

(reads a little of the newest posts. doesn't want to stick my C*** in this hornets nest)

 

[jlprk]

Brian, Post 53:
The courtesy I gave you wasn't to double your numbers. (That wouldn't be a courtesy.) It was to allow you to halve, third, or quarter my numbers. My point was that they're still very big numbers, and it won't help you....Anyway, arguing about what comprises a "courtesy" won't illuminate anything. Let's get to the definition of..

Genocide: Skipping past whether my wording was understandable to you, let's get to what I meant. Genocide is when you almost wipe out a race. Maxiep said there was genocide going on during the Clinton years, and I said if Yugoslavia was genocide, what about Iraq. Now if I had then agreed with him that Yugoslavia was genocide, it would follow that I was saying that Iraq was, too. But any fool can see that I was saying that Yugoslavia WASN'T genocide. So it doesn't follow that I said that Iraq is genocide.

To make this brief--I don't consider Iraq genocide, because it didn't almost kill off a race, which is the definition of genocide as I understand it.

(reads a little of the newest posts. doesn't want to stick my C*** in this hornets nest)

Yes, I'm surprised at their fury too. It is quite surprising that these guys think they're in the majority or something...You guys are too insulated from everyone else. Too much Fox and Drudge Report.

 

[Denny Crane]

Back on topic.

I didn't post the pictures of Obama to slam him.

I think he's going to bow and smile at dictators, because that's his pay grade. I have no beef with it.

There was a point to the thread - to see how defensive people would be over it.

 

[barfo]

Back on topic.

I didn't post the pictures of Obama to slam him.

I think he's going to bow and smile at dictators, because that's his pay grade. I have no beef with it.

There was a point to the thread - to see how defensive people would be over it.

Oooh, a psychology experiment. So, what's the conclusion, doctor?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Oooh, a psychology experiment. So, what's the conclusion, doctor?

barfo

The conclusion is you should put up the toilet seat after making poo.

The reaction was pretty much what I expected. People were defensive, and dug up similar pictures of Bush or Rumsfeld or whoever.

 

[jlprk]

Oh, okay. If it gets controversial, or if you're losing, you weren't serious. Well I wasn't really arguing about anything I believe, either. I was just playing a game, too, to see how defensive I could make people, too.

You and I are just too cool for school. Let's you and I laugh at all these other bozos, Denny.