Navigation
User login
Quote
Where is the outrage man?
So Bush lied in the state of the union. He now admits it was a mistake and the CIA says the white house knew beforehand it was crapola.
The last few days the administration has claimed it was "one line" and that that one slip was nothing. Ah come on man, it was an accident. Its no big deal, get over it, right?
Hogwash. There was a concerted campaign by the Bush administration to make a "terrorism" and "weapons of mass destruction" link to Iraq in order to snow the American public and attempt to justify an invasion. It wasnt one statement in one speech, thats just another lie. It was countless statements in countless speeches for MONTHS. AND THERE IS NO SOLID EVIDENCE OF EITHER TERRORISM OR WMD.
It was a concerted campaign of misleading and false information.
Bush lied in the aforementioned state of the union AND he lied in the "eve of war" speech. It was NOT just the Iraq-Africa-Uranium statement, but also the aluminum-tubes-centrifuge crap. That was also BS and intelligence insiders say the administration knew that as well. That makes several very specific examples. And of course Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and others made countless such claims about WMD and terrorism in speeches all over the world, even at the UN.
Dont get me wrong, I think Iraq DOES/DID have WMD. Yet, I dont think the people of the United States or the UN or the world are so dumb that they have to be lied to. The US administration should have said "we think they have it based on anecdotal evidence and past history but we dont have any proof". Instead they made crap up and said "we know without a doubt they have it and we even know exactly where" (Rumsfeld made several speeches in which he claimed the US knew exact locations of WMD).
I think its unforgivable and criminal that the President and the administration lied to try to justify an invasion of a sovereign nation. Yet whether or not Iraq actually has/had WMD or they are actually found is IRRELEVANT to the specious efforts to justify the war.
Lies were used by the United States to justify invading a sovereign nation. Think about that. Whether or not you like Bush, whether or not you hate Saddam Hussein, etc.
Where is the outrage man, its totally ridiculous that people just dont give a crap when the president of the US lies to their faces repeatedly and those lies are of this magnitude.
See the linked TomPaine.com article for more specifics on all the BS coming from the Bush adminstration on this matter. The Spin Factory of the Bush Whitehouse
TotSP Search
Community
Chatter
- Extremely annoying
16 hours 49 min ago - Actually, it's worse than I
6 days 23 hours ago - That's the CODEHAUS maven
1 week 22 hours ago - New Error
1 week 1 day ago - Very Nice
1 week 2 days ago - That spider drawing is
1 week 3 days ago - I am a huge Java developer
2 weeks 4 days ago - Its coooooooool.. Java
2 weeks 4 days ago - Perfect!
2 weeks 5 days ago - Necropost about Linux v Mac
3 weeks 1 day ago
Popular content
Today's:
- JFreeChart tutorial (reprinted)
- Lego porn!
- Hacking your PS2?
- It's 106 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses
- Squid whitelist and blacklist (controlled kid browsing)
- Sendmail as SMTP AUTH client for ISP mail server relay
- Go Jackets
Comments
Where is the outrage man?
Deleted thread 3370 on accident. Created new thread to host comments for this post.
I tried to just clean up the thread by deleting a few comments that were not at all related to the story, but on accident (really) the delete cascaded to the entire thread.
The old thread stuff basically said "atrox is a moron because he posted this political crap on this site and clinton lied to, atrox is a left wing liberal jackass" (my own paraphrase of the entire 12 message thread).
no users real names were used or they would have been restored as well.
NOTE, this was the first time, ever, in 6 years, that i decided to moderate a thread here. the comments were all just flame crap and were not relative. i have no problem with criticism of me or my posts as long as they have something to say, plain ole flames dont need to clog things up.
(And as any long time visitor knows I get tons of criticism and I have never removed any of it before, even when I am flat out wrong on stuff.)
Re: Where is the outrage man?
if whomever posted the earlier criticism wants to try again, go ahead but please try to have something to debate.
dont just say i am a left wing moron (which may or may not be accurate but is irrelevant).
facts, the prez and the administration lied. the lied on a magnitude that i dont think has ever happened before (not in my lifetime, not watergate, not blowjobgate, but wargate).
Re: Where is the outrage man?
that sucks dude.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
I am shocked at the lack of outrage by the citizens of the United States. Bush lied to us, united Nations and the world. He has potrayed us as a warmonging nation. The President shpuld be impeach for wrong doing. He owes an apology to the parents and families of the soldiers that died in Iragi. Bush is a spoiled rich boy who does not finish the jobs and responsibilities he has undertaken. We need to take care of our own people first and not try to be the worlds police force. I totally agreed with the Dixied Chicks remarks made in England earlier this year. Bush is the war criminal.
Thank You
Robert J. Gurzick
Write your congressmen and women, expose bush for what he is.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
I dont think I would be as harsh as you but I agree with the bottom line, Bush lied. Not only did he lie he lied about the reasons to justify a military invasion.
I also agree he that *IF* (and if is a big keyword) he knew that such information was false or even very flimsy before he used it then he should be impeached (and at this point the evidence is that he, or at least the state department and therefore presumably he, did know).
Re: Where is the outrage man?
Here is a quote from MSNBC where the CIA informed the White House 3 months prior to the state of the union speach that the data was false:
[i]U.S. officials told NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell that Tenet himself advised Rice’s top deputy, Steven Hadley, to remove a reference to the uranium report from a speech Bush delivered Oct. 7 in Cincinnati, establishing that the nation’s top intelligence officials suspected that the allegation was false more than three months before they approved Bush’s repeating it in his nationally televised address on Jan. 28.[/i]
Evidently it doesn't stop with lies and cover ups over Iraq, this policy extends into Bush's economic policy as well = [url=http://slate.msn.com/id/2085481]Slate[/url]
He is making a mockery of our government - and why is Dean the only person speaking out on this? It baffles the mind...
Re: Where is the outrage man?
I am not outraged, nor suprised. There was no outrage for any Lying president... the president is above the law... ask Clinton.... or Regan... if he did not have Alzheimers.
I disagreed with the Dixie chicks...probably because they said it. I hate 'em, they suck so does their music. But if someone else said what they said.... I might think about it.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
Shmooze... I didnt see that one.
Thats sucks that Rice's top deputy did not remove it....
realize this... the president is merely a puppet..been like that for many moons... Bush did not invent the position... he just fits in.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
Question for everyone - With the UN, France and Russia asking for the US to send troops to Liberia, what are your thoughts on this? If you support the action, exactly why Liberia and not Iraq? Just curious.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
For me it's all about scale. Sending two thousand troops over to work with a majority of troups from nations closer to the affected country with international support is completely different than a unilateral occupation of a country without substantial international support. So - should we send troups into Liberia in a supporting position? My vote is yes. Should we send 200,000 troups in to overthrow the government when all the surrounding nations are opposed to that action? My vote then would be no...
Re: Where is the outrage man?
So you support sending troops into a Somalia-style setting, with possibly limited support, as part of a coalition force, when there are no clear US interests in Liberia (besides from the humanitarian aspect), Liberia poses no threat whatsoever to us or any of its neighbors, has never had or used WMD's, to overthrow a bad president/dictator/grand pubah? And a main reason it is OK is because a bunch of other countries who aren't in bed with the current dictator and don't have any national interests in the country say it is OK for us to use put our soldiers in harms way?
Hmmm, but when we have clear national interests in removing a bloodthirsty dictator who has 1. Killed thousands upon thousands of men women and childrn 2. Is known to have possessed and even used WMD's 3. Probably, although not conclusively, supports terrorism, 4. Is a destabilizing influence in an already destabilized area of the world, 5. Is in CLEAR violation of multiple UN resolutions it is not OK? And the reason it is not OK is because certain countries who have strong economic ties to the dictators government don't want to see said dictator removed?
Just wanted to make sure I understood your position clearly.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
speaking on behalf of shmooze, you didnt understand it at all.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
jheinman,I think some very good points were raised here. I highly agree with what you say.
"Killed thousands upon thousands of men women and children" Right there should be enough for one to take massive action against a leader/country, even if there is not a unanamous decision. We all know not everyone supported the removal and destruciton of the Nazi regime... but it was done, like it or not.
The same thing was done this time
Looking back to WWII...just as FDR dished out information (or propaganda depending on who you ask). Our current president did the same. So shall future leaders. This is nothing new.
You can be certain that not All that was said in the past by presidents was backed up information. At the time considered to be lies. No outrage occured then, either.
For the record...I initially did not support actions against Iraq, until I learned about the clear Violation of the Security Council resolutions.
Looking back though, at the actions taken. by us, I think they were carried out poorly. The whole job is unfinished. Militarily Things could have been done different..but we needed to minimize civilian casualties... and yes! we minimized cilian casualties. If we didnt, Iraq would be a mere wasteland as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
Liberia..?
Hmm, I don't support sending troops in there "Somalia Style" I was quite against those operations. 20,000 U.S.soldiers on a Humanitarian mission?? maybe,but we were probably there to protect the passage of Europe's Oil and people okayed that. (thats another issue).
I think we will go into Liberia because probably we feel "we owe it to them". After all, they were modeled after us as an independant republic in the 1800s.
some may say It may be in our interest to make certain that Democracy can survive.
I think this time however,we will have the support that we needed during the Iraq confilict because some countries may feel/know that they failed us as allies.
thanks
Re: Where is the outrage man?
Point out to me what I did not understand? Am I incorrect? Please back up your statement.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
I know, I know! But I'm not going to share, because I have typed it out about 5 times and I can't get the sarcasm down to an acceptable level so as not to offend.
Should atrox post his point by point analysis, I'll point it out. My bet is that is in the first or second point. Maybe the preamble. Stay tuned....
Re: Where is the outrage man?
the fact that iraq is bad, the regime is bad, was/is true, but that has nothing to do with why we purported to invade. thats what has been missed. sure iraq is/was bad, the deal is the bush administration said it was an "imminent" threat to the united states, and thats total bullshit.
it was a threat to its own citizens, it was a threat MAYBE to Israel (or others in the region), but it wasnt a threat to the US and NONE OF THE CRAP ANYONE IS SPOUTING ABOUT IRAQ JUSTIFIES INVASION.
THE POLICY OF CONTAINMENT THAT WAS WORKING FOR THE TEN YEARS PRIOR WAS JUST THAT, WORKING. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WE COULD NOT HAVE GIVEN THE UN INSPECTORS MORE TIME. Let me repeat that, NO _FUCKING_ REASON AT ALL BECAUSE ALL THE IMMINENT CRAP WAS BULLSHIT.
Even "xunil" on this phorum says he agrees with you and that the point was taking out this horrible dictator and comparing it to Hitler/Nazi. Thats a totally invalid analogy and it simply points out how profoundly he misunderstands the arguments AGAINST THE WAR (before the war began, I dont think by any means we should leave now, we need to finish what we started completely).
Come on people, they are many regimes around the world with horrible dictators that commit atrocities against their own citizens (lets just go off the top, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Cuba, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, etc, etc, etc). Some of these countries are OUR SUPPOSED ALLIES. So its bullshit to use the "atrocities against his own people horrible dictator" crap.
The point is arguing about what does justify the invasion AFTER the invasion is bullshit.
BEFORE the invasion the US administration said the reasons to invade were to remove WMDs that the UN inspectors could not find because they were morons and we couldnt give them any more information OR TIME because of security purposes and they sprinkled in terrorism links whenever they could. NEITHER WMDs or TERRORISM LINKS HAVE ANY CREDIBLE PROOF. AND BEFORE YOU INVADE A COUNTRY ITS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE SOLID JUSTIFICATION OF WHY YOU ARE DOING SO.
Its hilarious to me now to see all the hawks backpedaling and changing the reasons we went to war. All of the people that supported the war beforehand are now saying "well we went to war to remove that terrible dictator" and such. Well, in fact, we purported to go to war because of the imminent threat posed by the regime with WMDs (including nuclear) and again, it just turns out that thats all bullshit. Some people recognized BEFOREHAND that the case for war was specious, some didnt. Those that didnt are now changing their stories, bottom line.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
i was typing my response as you posted this i guess.
i dont really get your point here though.
there isnt really a hell of a lot of sarcasm or even anything complicated to follow.
"point by point"
1. us said need to invade iraq because WMDs and terrorism.
2. us said cant wait for the incompetent UN and cant give them even another month of time, its to "imminent" of a threat.
3. us lied about the threat, stated iraq had nuclear materials it never did have (on MORE than one occasion).
4. us invades iraq.
(note that again i will state i think they did/do have WMDs, maybe not nuclear but at least chem and bio, but that still doesnt justify the urgent threat and the invasion, its just not "clear and present danger" as the administation deemed it. whether or not we find any WMDs which iraq surely did have is irrelevant at this point.)
Re: Where is the outrage man?
Damn. I was wrong. Didn't mention it in either post. I woulda happily bet a shiny new quarter that "UN sanctioned" woulda come up in there somewhere. There was a little nod, but no where near what I thought.
The sarcasm was, probably obvious, now, reserved for the U.N.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
well man honestly, i still like the UN. i know that makes me a pariah in the US and amongst my "friends" but i still believe in it.
i mean its another discussion of course, but its not all bad. the UN does have some serious debacles in its history, but its also done tons and tons of good (and not just militarily).
Re: Where is the outrage man?
I understand that this is not a discussion of the pros or cons of the U.N. Hell, I can agree that some good happens in the name of the U.N. and I'll leave it at that.
I was just sure that the act of sanctioning the actions would have figured in your posts. I was wrong.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
I really don't get it. I now hear constant arguements justifying the Iraq invasion based upon the 'evil dictator' arguement, but that still seems like a slippery slope to be going down. While the U.S. is unarguably the most powerful nation in the world does that commit us to defeating every dictator that comes along? Evidently not, because the same people that use that arguement are opposed to helping Liberia. I guess the difference is the UN. If the UN is for something then we should be opposed to it? I still don't understand this venom directed at the UN. Sure it is a flawed body, but can't we work with it to improve it? It serves a purpose to give smaller countries who feel powerless (and rightfully so) compared to the worlds super powers a measure of confidence that things are as they appear. Everyone who was so pissed of at the UN pre-war when they were voicing caution should pay attention. We should play back Colin Powell's speach to the UN. (WMD are everywhere, it's easy to see them, our intelligence has spotted quite a few locations etc...) It now turns out the worlds superpower fabricated evidence (or at a minimum accepted obviously fabricated evidence) to justify an invasion on faulty grounds - with the end result to the world appearing that we just decided to occupy Iraq (probably for oil). The no fly zone and economic sanctions were at least marginally effective in keeping Sadam under thumb, and there is always the arguement 'better the devil you know...'
Maybe my logic is skewed because I was raised primarily in third world countries but it seems the value of the UN is to validate actions - to help protect the little guys from the whims of the big guys. When the UN and Liberia's neighboring countries saying - 'Please Help Us' that is an endorsement to the world that we are acting in the Global self interest. No-one will disagree that Somolia was a disater, so why don't we just learn from that and do better the next time, not just keep using it as an excuse to do nothing with the UN. (Lessons learned: have a clear chain of command, don't just pick one warlord over another and not expect conflicts) God knows by the time this Iraq thing is over there are going to be a ton of lessons learned on what to do differently.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
I don't always pick the anti-U.N. line. I just see problems inherent to the system, problems that are not just going to go away.
And I am pretty sure that I've personally never uttered the "evil dictator" argument as justification for going into Iraq. I buy this just about as much as I buy the weapons inspectors doing any good whatsoever.
I'll have to go and try to read up on my old posts, but I am pretty sure that I have not changed my stance on anything. Mainly because I've pretty much stopped talking about it.
I'll admit that I instinctively question any actions and their motives of large scale movements by the U.N. I just don't see it as an effective body. I'd like to think that I am willing to change my mind, but I just don't see it happening. I'm not aware of a single military success of the U.N. (I'd guess that there are some, I just don't know of them. I just started paying attention to the world around me a few years ago.)
As shmooze points out in his post, there were very distinct problems with the chain of comamnd in Somalia. I see this as being indicative of the U.N. Sure as a political system, you want to share the power and responsibility. When it comes to the military, however, one person is in charge. Period. I have to assume that it is done this way for a reason. A committee simply can not come to the decisions quick enough not get people killed unnecessarily. (not saying that an 'evil dictator' or even 'dumbass president' can't kill off the same amount of people needlessly.) Hell a committee can't decide whether or not they want to eat chinese or mexican at lunch.
Anyway, at the end of the day, I just don't see how the political mishmash of the U.N. can ever effectively translate into a coherent military force capable of actually solving problems. From what (admittedly little) I've seen, the politics that take place in the General Assembly trickle down to the battlefield, and that's just inneffective.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
Yeah...The thing that I always wondered about with these operations is 'If you are a Lt in the Ghanaian army how easy is it for you to just start taking orders from an American Colonel and fighting side by side with a Nigerian soldier? Militaries are so nationalistic by their makeup it seems like a difficult task. Nevertheless how else can we coexist in the world? - face it, countries don't trust each other - that may be the ultimate bone of contention in this Iraq thing... the average American thinks we are over there for a nobel cause and the average Arab guy (not to mention the rest of the world) thinks we are occuping/oppressing their land and culture. The only way around that is for a bunch of different countries to all get together and say - 'yes - this is for the global good' - currently that is the ideal goal of UN but it could take many forms. I believe if the same size coallition that was behind the first Gulf war got behind this last war it would not really matter what position the UN took. You just need enough consensus to rule out the sense of one country occupying another at will.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
1. us said need to invade iraq because WMDs and terrorism.
- Actually, this was one of the many reasons. And although you and other nay-sayers won't admit it, there has been some evidence of WMD weapons programs that are in clear violation of UN santions. You know, missles, documents, buried trucks that would make perfect mobile bioweapons labs, etc. But true, the 'big smoking gun' hasn't really been found yet.
2. us said cant wait for the incompetent UN and cant give them even another month of time, its to "imminent" of a threat.
And who is to say that it wasn't an iminent threat? Maybe, in fact, we were too late and the WMD's were transferred elsewhere. And hey - the UN had 12 years and 15 or so failed resolutions. Maybe it was time to act.
3. us lied about the threat, stated iraq had nuclear materials it never did have (on MORE than one occasion).
-Whether this is a lie or not is still debateable. First off, in the state of the Union, Bush said that British Intelligence had proof yada yada yada. The CIA cleared this. Now, this could all be bullshit, granted. But, the Brits STILL insist that they have proof of Niger yellow cake uranium transactions. However, they are not free to release it - possibly because the Nigerian uranium mines are actually owned by a French company and perhaps the sources are French Intelligence. It is still early in the game to say that it was an outright lie. I believe there is ALOT of info that isn't being released to the public because they don't necessarily need to know.
4. us invades iraq.
And millions of people are set free from a murderous dictator. Good for us!!!!
My point was, so why now support sending troops to Liberia???
Re: Where is the outrage man?
'but it wasnt a threat to the US and NONE OF THE CRAP ANYONE IS SPOUTING ABOUT IRAQ JUSTIFIES INVASION'
-Um, bullcrap. Fact - the US depends on oil. You may not like that fact and want alternative energy, but this is the present reality. Fact - the Middle East is the largest source of crude in the world. Fact - any instability in this area is BAD for the US. So was the war about oil, terrorists, WMD's, humanitarian, etc etc? I say all of the above.
'Come on people, they are many regimes around the world with horrible dictators that commit atrocities against their own citizens '
-Exactly, and I would like to see all of them gone. I don't think the US can do it alone, though. Is a 'Pax Americana' a good idea? Maybe. Might be the burden of being the world's only superpower.
'Some people recognized BEFOREHAND that the case for war was specious, some didnt. Those that didnt are now changing their stories, bottom line.'
-Agreed. The extremists and the idealists on both sides are guilty of this, especially the politicians. Almost all of the Democratic Presidential candidates (except for Dean) VOTED FOR the war, now they are saying that we shouldn't have done it. Hmmm, sounds like backpedaling. Do I believe Bush and the uberconservatives? No. I don't believe any politician as far as I can throw them. However, I believe that the many different reasons to justify removing Saddam Hussein are all STILL valid reasons, and that's why I'm glad it happened.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
Actually, I think that Iraq is the direct results of lessons learned from Somalia, Desert Storm, etc. First, we learned that depending on the UN is bad. In Desert Storm we could have taken out Saddam but instead the UN said no (it was not Bush Sr's fault, like many people say). Second, in Somalia, we had a very limited action with only minor capabilities put in play, per UN agreements. This is why people got killed. So in Iraq, we don't wait for the UN to pussyfoot around the issue like they had done for 12 years, we form a 'coalition of the willing' and do what needs to be done, and we do it with overwhelming force. Remember when it was projected 1000's of US soldiers would die? Well, that didn't happen because we went in prepared. And since we don't have to listen to the UN in this deal we no longer have to worry about 3rd world countries - who don't have much to risk - voting us down and dictating how our soldiers should fight and die.
Yes, the UN helps the smaller countries get a voice. But if they don't have the ability to back up the voice, then should they speak at all? Sorry, I'm a realist, not an idealist.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
There is no such thing as a 'Global Good'. Every country has their own definition of what good is to them. For many, the destruction of the US, Israel, etc would be considered for the Global Good. For others, the total annihalation of the Islamic religion would be good. Communism is bad. Capitalism is bad.
Good is so entirely subjective, that is why the UN is worthless for matters other than food distribution and humanitarian aid.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
Oh, BTW, the President did happen to mention the genocide/humanitarian aspect in his state of the union address. It wasn't always just about the WMD's.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
i dont buy that for a second. that analogy is flawed.
if thats the case there is no such thing as the country good, or the state good, or the neighborhood good, or the race good.
sure its not easy and their have to be compromises and rules and such, but just saying _fuck_ it we are gonna do what we want is not the answer.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
dude i guess we are never going to get our respective points across. we just fundamentally disagree, thats all, there is nothing else to say.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
oh, and i DONT agree with sending troops to liberia.
i agree we should help in some capacity, but not because Liberia is our responisbility, or because liberia is a threat to us. and saying we should help does not mean we should invade and take it over.
we should help because we are compassionate and caring and can see that its a debacle.
we did help found liberia for freed slaves, but lets face it we have not been involved since and its not our fault or responsibility that there is unrest there.
there the people WANT help with dealing with the horrible dictator.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
does anybody else thing this damn forum sucks ass, man this layout is ugly. i need to throw out this "phorum" stuff and write this entirely over myself because this is just bad.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
you are correct, after the UN would not buy the presidents bullshit (which has nothing to do with the purported "economic" ties you like to bring up, which we also had with Iraq, hmmmm) the rhetoric from the president and the entire administration did change BEFORE the invasion to lean towards "liberation from the terrible dictator".
that however was not an imminent threat, not a reason for an invasion, it was just an example of an administration that is the king of spin backpedaling to do and say whatever they could to TRY to justify an invasion that they had already decided was going to happen BEFORE they had any evidence of anything.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
It kind of works till you get a multi tree thread like this one - then it's like 'Dude..which one of these things have I read before?'
Re: Where is the outrage man?
That's my bad man... I've guess I've been reading to many science fiction books lately. Screw everyone else - you know I bet we could turn that whole area to glass and send in oil men in protective gear to get the rest of the oil out. You know there are large deposits off the coast from West Africa by the way - when I was growing up in Ghana my dad used to go out to the oil rigs to repair their radio equipment.
All those countries are full of dictators and humanitarian disasters (but we'll have to use a slightly different arguement there because they modeled their entire govt on ours so we can't use the 'Let's bring Democracy' cry) - lets just go take over those countries as well, and well you know Venezuala is all screwed up politically too you know - that's a major source of oil. I'm sure those citizens could use 'liberating'.
Before I completely come over to this side of every country for itself - how is this different than what Japan did in World War II? That was about natural resources as well right?
On a tangent...are there any countries in the Middle East that don't treat their population badly? Iran... no... Saudi Arabia... no.... Syria.... no... hell even Israel is just as guilty in ways as the rest of them. With that in mind how are we going to fix Iraq again? Oh wait...I fogot... I don't have to give a **** about that because it's the US against the world...if they don't get it right this time we'll just go over there again and bomb em some more... You know, you might be onto something here, life is a lot simpler without a conscience. Of course now we have to reconcile this 'screw everyone else' thing with Christianity. Perhaps George could get that Alabama Supreme Court judge to re-write the 10 Commandments, or maybe get Mel Brook to drop another one of those tablets. Thou Shall Not Kill, and don't covet your neighbors **** kind of put us in a sticky position.
Re: Where is the outrage man?
toss this ****! ;)
Re: Where is the outrage man?
good points sir.
the israel thing especially. (if i recall israel has violated more UN resolutions that anybody, including iraq, there goes that pesky "they violated UN resolutions" argument, which i find it highly ironic that people that purport the UN is useless and we should not participate seem to somehow always spout).
also what people here seem to always totally fail to realize is that its a different culture being "treated badly" is from our perspective. dont get me wrong, murder, torture, etc should be unacceptable anywhere, but whos right is it to tell people how to behave or govern? why is the US always just accepted as being correct? its correct for us, but as it turns out, total democracy might not work in that region of the world today.
and that doesnt mean its "bad" per se, its different yes but that doesnt always have to equate to bad.