Why must everything be politically correct/"nice"?

I hate using hindsight, but why not for a moment.

Yes, the US supported Iraq over Iran. Yes the US supported rebel groups in Afghanistan over the Russians. Both very true. In both cases the justification given was "the lesser of two evils." In both cases we got bitten in the ass, hard.

So what to do in a situation like that...

Now comes the hindsight I was talking about. Let's just say for a moment that we sent no one into Iraq. Now, assuming that Hussein would continue his mode of operations and continue to pursue destruction, what would you all be saying if he funded/planned/implemented an attack on the US or UK etc. You'd all scream about the failures of US intelligence etc and how they dropped the ball (precisely the same way you scream about them dropping the ball with 9/11).

Another thing... let's say we hadn't touched the Taliban/Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and they performed another attack the screams would come "how could you not do anything etc etc".

In Haiti we were criticized for sending people in at all, and we were criticized by others for waiting so long to send people in.

Yeah we did some stupid things and supported some nutcases. After getting burned we took some action and got hell for it. But what can you do... the US is in a lose lose situation in that respect. Regardless of what they do, SOME GROUPS will be mad. Period. The only thing to do is go with what you've got. You're gonna catch hell anyways, at least catch hell for what you believe is right.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Put the shoe on the other foot. What if you were Iraqi and had to watch your neighborhood get carpet-bombed and people you KNOW who are innocent getting blown apart or shot up at checkpoints?

Tell me you'd simply lay down your weapons and say "Come on in, we love you and trust you."

___________________________________

Maybe if you were related to, or friends with, one of the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis that were gassed, tortured, raped, or murdered by Saddam, you might.

_____________________________________


If your country was illegally invaded you'd fight just like everyone else, whether they called you a terrorist or a freedom fighter. I know I would. If I have foreign soldiers in MY country telling me what I can and can't do, I could see getting a little frustrated about that. Kill (even accidentally) some of my family and friends and I'm gonna get even more hotheaded. Then have the GALL to tell the world that things are oh so fine and dandy while I wait for my 4 hour daily allotment of electricity and I might start considering resistance.


Now realize that more than half the entire planet identifies more with the Iraqi than they do with the American and you'll start to understand. And watch the BBC, watch CBC Newsworld, watch PBS, watch Al Jazeera. Watch and read every different viewpoint you can before you make sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact.

People sometimes can't help rooting for the underdog.

Personally, I'd like nothing better than to see all US troops out of Iraq, replaced by UN troops. They're more capable and better equipped to deal with re-building, while the US Army is more equipped to country-breaking.

_________________________________

Yeah, now is the time for the UN to move in. They are like a blister...they come around after the work is done. Where were they when innocents were being murdered by Saddam? Doing really effective stuff, like passing seventeen resolutions that Saddam laughed at, or sending in inspectors, whom Saddam kicked out when they got too close to the prize. Oh, and let's not forget Kofi & Sons making money on the food for aid deal..


john

jsobecky: "Yeah, now is the time for the UN to move in. They are like a blister...they come around after the work is done. Where were they when innocents were being murdered by Saddam?"

Hey, where the F was the USA? Nice revisionist history pal. While the UN was flipflopping the USA was busy bombing the crap out of Iraq over the last 12 years! The No Fly Zones were NOT sanctioned by the UN, just by the US and UK.

"Doing really effective stuff, like passing seventeen resolutions that Saddam laughed at, or sending in inspectors, whom Saddam kicked out when they got too close to the prize. Oh, and let's not forget Kofi & Sons making money on the food for aid deal.. "

Learn some history. Saddam never kicked out inspectors, they were pulled out by the USA so they wouldn't get hurt when the US bombed Iraq.

And what, pray tell was the US doing until 2003 about Iraq? Nothing. Doing BUSINESS with them. Turning a blind eye to atrocities. Telling the Kurds to revolt and then hanging them out to dry when Saddam rolled in with attack helicopters.

The UN doesn't claim to be "champions of freedom and democracy" but the US laughably does.

The US asked the UN for it's go-ahead in the illegal war, and when the entire world declined, they said the UN was "irrelevant" and moved in anyway.

Of course, if the UN had supported the attack, everything would be okay with you, right? That's because you don't seem to have a grasp on actual history.

Read something.

Why?



Social conditioning.......... But why would "they" want to do anything like that if they didn't have an agenda?


They tell society that it's only right to be pc no other way is appropriate. Think inside the box, don't talk or question issues that may need to be addressed or else you won't fit in.

Stay sweet and play nice you'll get along just fine.
And if somebody does do it, then jump on them right away and start name calling...


Social conditioning..... Works wonders doesn't it.

Originally posted by Djarums
I hate using hindsight, but why not for a moment.

Yes, the US supported Iraq over Iran. Yes the US supported rebel groups in Afghanistan over the Russians. Both very true. In both cases the justification given was "the lesser of two evils." In both cases we got bitten in the ass, hard.

So what to do in a situation like that...

Now comes the hindsight I was talking about. Let's just say for a moment that we sent no one into Iraq. Now, assuming that Hussein would continue his mode of operations and continue to pursue destruction, what would you all be saying if he funded/planned/implemented an attack on the US or UK etc. You'd all scream about the failures of US intelligence etc and how they dropped the ball (precisely the same way you scream about them dropping the ball with 9/11).

Another thing... let's say we hadn't touched the Taliban/Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and they performed another attack the screams would come "how could you not do anything etc etc".

In Haiti we were criticized for sending people in at all, and we were criticized by others for waiting so long to send people in.

Yeah we did some stupid things and supported some nutcases. After getting burned we took some action and got hell for it. But what can you do... the US is in a lose lose situation in that respect. Regardless of what they do, SOME GROUPS will be mad. Period. The only thing to do is go with what you've got. You're gonna catch hell anyways, at least catch hell for what you believe is right.

You got it wrong. I'd rather see no action taken at all, than to see a wrong, knee jerk action implemented. Sure, someone will always bitch about something, but in the grand scope of things, not killing a bunch of people is usually better than going off half cocked and paranoid. Ya know? All we've done is complicate matters even more than they already were. Iraq was no urgent matter, especially not when we should've been focused on those who attacked us.

Originally posted by Jakomo
jsobecky: "Yeah, now is the time for the UN to move in. They are like a blister...they come around after the work is done. Where were they when innocents were being murdered by Saddam?"

Hey, where the F was the USA? Nice revisionist history pal. While the UN was flipflopping the USA was busy bombing the crap out of Iraq over the last 12 years! The No Fly Zones were NOT sanctioned by the UN, just by the US and UK.

"Doing really effective stuff, like passing seventeen resolutions that Saddam laughed at, or sending in inspectors, whom Saddam kicked out when they got too close to the prize. Oh, and let's not forget Kofi & Sons making money on the food for aid deal.. "

Learn some history. Saddam never kicked out inspectors, they were pulled out by the USA so they wouldn't get hurt when the US bombed Iraq.

And what, pray tell was the US doing until 2003 about Iraq? Nothing. Doing BUSINESS with them. Turning a blind eye to atrocities. Telling the Kurds to revolt and then hanging them out to dry when Saddam rolled in with attack helicopters.

The UN doesn't claim to be "champions of freedom and democracy" but the US laughably does.

The US asked the UN for it's go-ahead in the illegal war, and when the entire world declined, they said the UN was "irrelevant" and moved in anyway.

Of course, if the UN had supported the attack, everything would be okay with you, right? That's because you don't seem to have a grasp on actual history.

Read something.

______________________________

Go here and read this and then come back and talk about weapons inspectors:

www.fair.org...

After you admit that you were wrong on this very basic point then maybe you can begin to learn.

Your viewpoint is biased because of your hatred of the US and your sympathy for Saddam Hussein.

john

Go here and read this and then come back and talk about weapons inspectors:

www.fair.org...

After you admit that you were wrong on this very basic point then maybe you can begin to learn.

Your viewpoint is biased because of your hatred of the US and your sympathy for Saddam Hussein.

john

Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.

--Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98


The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes.

--Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98

This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain.

--Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98

The article gives excerpts from both points of view, though it seems that the majority of the inspectors were either "pulled out" by the US or UN...this is strange...seeing how the compilation says

"Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.

--USA Today, 9/4/02"

yet 4 years ago, in 1998, another excerpt says:
"The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq "

Interesting eh?

This compilation of excerpts proves nothing other than several different news sources reported that same thing...several times.

So what is the basic point we are supposed to be attaining from this compilation? I'm not quite getting it.

[Edited on 3-22-04 by Scat]

This digression has nothing to do with the original post...I was merely responding to Jakomo's incorrect assertion that Saddam never ordered inspectors to leave Iraq.

Sorry for the tangent.

john

He never did order them to leave. They were ordered to leave by the UN when they weren't getting full cooperation. I think you have some details confused. It probably depends more on what you'd rather believe, than what's true, eh?

www.fair.org...

[Edited on 3-22-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by Satyr
He never did order them to leave. They were ordered to leave by the UN when they weren't getting full cooperation. I think you have some details confused. It probably depends more on what you'd rather believe, than what's true, eh?

www.fair.org...

[Edited on 3-22-2004 by Satyr]

____________________________________

I have details confused? I only believe what I want to instead of what is true?

To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.

--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02



As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago.

--Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02


Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.

--AP, 9/7/02


If he has secret weapons, he's had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them.

--Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02


How many more examples do you need?

john

Maybe you should read the headline on that page.

What a Difference Four Years Makes

In 1998, they weren't claimed to have been "kicked out" by Saddam. That BS started after 9/11.
How many more examples do you need? Observe the dates on each, please. Also look at the dates on your post above. The ones from actual '98 reports all mention that they were withdrawn from Iraq, not "kicked out".
It appears that you've made the mistake of trusting rewritten history. History can't be changed, but it can be skewed by future reports, apparently. Try to find some reports that were written in 1998 that say Saddam "kicked them out". Good luck. I don't think any of them were written that way, originally.

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by Satyr
Maybe you should read the headline on that page.

What a Difference Four Years Makes

In 1998, they weren't claimed to have been "kicked out" by Saddam. That BS started after 9/11.

_________________________________________

Incorrect. Look at this link. The year 1999 comes before the year 2001, according to the calendar that is used in the US.

www.fair.org...

And before you say that the link proves your point, all the arguments that deny Iraq kicked out the inspectors come from Letters to the Editor.

john

Yes, and 1998 comes before 1999, so what's your point? Man, you have one thick skull! You don't seem to get the fact that the original reports are the only ones that matter, and they all say that they were withdrawn. Why are you trying to bring up 1999?

Didn't you read your own link? Didn't you read my post above? Maybe I was wrong about when it started, but the point is still that the original 1998 reports were correct, and they have not changed. Anything reported after the original reports is moot.

But in the 14 months since then, the Washington Post has again and again tried to rewrite history--claiming that Saddam Hussein expelled the U.N. inspectors from Iraq. Despite repeated attempts by its readers to set the record straight in letters to the editor, the Post has persisted in reporting this fiction.

Not only did Saddam Hussein not order the inspectors' retreat, but Butler's decision to withdraw them was--to say the least--highly controversial. The Washington Post (12/17/98) reported that as Butler was drafting his report on Iraqi cooperation, U.S. officials were secretly consulting with him about how to frame his conclusions.

Iraq announced it would bar UN inspectors from visiting suspected weapons production sites unless the United Nations Security Council moved to end trade sanctions against the country. Of course, this didn't happen, so the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN said they would not be given any access to any of their installations from then on. After the UN realized there was no reason to be there unless they could actually inspect something, they pulled them out. They were standing around with their thumbs up their asses. Why leave them there? Nobody was expelled. Sorry, but it's total fabricated BS. Actually, I remember it quite clearly when it happened. They were withdrawn because the US was going to attack, since they would no longer cooperate with the inspectors.

www.cnn.com...

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by Satyr]

I say just tell the world what you feel. If your afraid to tell the world,then the government wins!!!

Satyr I know what all the reports say but I think what you are missing is the fact the Hussein publicly said he would not continue to allow UNSCOM to do its work. After the threat of force Saddam relented, but still did not allow unfettered access. If they were not allowed to do their work, it can be argued that is why he was bombed (along with the BJ fiasco). The weapons inspectors could not do their job, per Saddams' orders. They were pulled out of the country because of the bombing. If they had stayed they would still not be able to do the job. Saddam, it could logically be said to be responsible for their departure because they were not allowed inspections.

I know the left wing media is writing web sites critiquing the word kicked out, but if Hussein had let them do their job they wouldn't have been taken out right? You're arguing semantics. That's why the Post changed its verbiage because they were in essence "kicked out" by Saddam, by his refusal to cooperate; which provoked bombing; which caused them to be pulled out ;so they wouldn't be taken as hostages. He has done that type of thing before you know. If I was an inpsector I wouldn't ahve wnated to hang around while they got bombed... You can look at it either way imho. It's all in how many conspiricy theories you believe in ;p
If you believe the official reports it all fits. If you believe it was all a sham then you believe whatever it is you think "really" happened.


www.un.org...

www.un.org...

www.cnn.com...

Originally posted by Variable
Satyr I know what all the reports say but I think what you are missing is the fact the Hussein publicly said he would not continue to allow UNSCOM to do its work. After the threat of force Saddam relented, but still did not allow unfettered access. If they were not allowed to do their work, it can be argued that is why he was bombed (along with the BJ fiasco). The weapons inspectors could not do their job, per Saddams' orders. They were pulled out of the country because of the bombing. If they had stayed they would still not be able to do the job. Saddam, it could logically be said to be responsible for their departure because they were not allowed inspections.

I know the left wing media is writing web sites critiquing the word kicked out, but if Hussein had let them do their job they wouldn't have been taken out right? You're arguing semantics. That's why the Post changed its verbiage because they were in essence "kicked out" by Saddam, by his refusal to cooperate; which provoked bombing; which caused them to be pulled out ;so they wouldn't be taken as hostages. He has done that type of thing before you know. If I was an inpsector I wouldn't ahve wnated to hang around while they got bombed... You can look at it either way imho. It's all in how many conspiricy theories you believe in ;p
If you believe the official reports it all fits. If you believe it was all a sham then you believe whatever it is you think "really" happened.

You need to reread my last post, then. I didn't miss anything. I know he wouldn't cooperate, and I also know the reasons he wouldn't cooperate. Semantics are important, in some of these issues. They seem to sway peoples' opinions wildly. Those who really want to hate, are going to find reasons to hate, whether true or not. Is it really so difficult to stick to the original truth?

An Iraqi official let only four inspectors in and UNSCOM withdrew its team, saying a "credible, effective inspection" would be impossible. Butler said Iraq had attempted to impose conditions on other UNSCOM teams. In one case Iraqi officials tried to stop inspectors photocopying documents and filming an inspection, he said.

www.pbs.org...
www.cnn.com...
www.cnn.com...

Once again, no one was expelled. I get sick and tired of the facts being skewed to satisfy those that are still trying to justify attacking Iraq.

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by Satyr]

I don't think it needs justifying. If the president says go, off we go. You don't like it vote him out! Don't get caught up in a couple words. Your arguing about phrases, if the columns would have said " Saddam denied full unfettered access therefore we pulled out UNSCOM and bombed the hell out of him" then what would your point be? Are you arguing the words or the actions? If Saddam had done what the UN and cease fire agreement said he was to do, it (bombing) wouldn't have happened. It was his fault. He caused it.
How about this quote ..."Saddam caused the inspectors to be pulled out by his denial of unfettered access for UNSCOM which precipitated a cruise missile attack, prior to the missile attack the UNSCOM inspectors were pulled out so they would not be in any danger from reprisals from Saddam." Then would everything be hunky-dory?


Variable

It's just that simple little "phrases", as you put it, seem to sway public opinion greatly. Take, for instance, the Kurds gassing. Iran was just as much part of that as Saddam, yet it's been reported over and over again with bias, and people start believing the lies. You put enough of these things together, and suddenly you have 46% of America believing that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. I was actually quite shocked at how many people I've met who actually thought Saddam was directly responsible. It's sad how easily people are programmed. This is why I say semantics are very important. There's no reason to bend the truth, is there? Don't we want the real story? Or are we trying to make a case by making offenses seem that they have absolutely no reasoning behind them? As we all know, this is never the case, although you'd think so, the way it's been twisted.

So, we have:

Saddam gassed his own people.
Saddam kicked out the inspectors.
Saddam had WMD, and was making nukes.
Iraq was an imminent threat to the US.

How many twisted facts does it take to make a truth? Unfortunately, two half truths do not equal a whole truth. They equal one big lie.
(Hey! I like that. Is that my own quote? I don't think I've heard it before.)

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by Satyr]

Pretty sure Saddam gassed his people and kicked the inspectors out a few times. Lets not get all "Saddam was just misunderstood." Let's get a few things straight. If given the choice between Kerry and Bush this election I will vote Bush. But, I think 8 years of Kerry and the Senate and Congress stalemating each other on new laws and such ain't such a bad deal for the People either. The more time they are up there pissing on each other the less time they have to make more laws and take more of our money.

I think the overall impression most Americans have of Saddam is that he was an evil guy that didn't like us very much and that if Saddam thought he could get away with it he would do just about anything he could to stick it to the US. Whether that was give some comfort to known terrorists, pay suicide bombers, or invade his neighbors again. The guy was just plain bad. We have no way of knowing what he may or may not have done in the future. That was/is what preemption is all about; cutting off the heads of snakes before they can bite us. It's too bad we didn't continue on into Iran and Syria and Bekah valley. We will never know if Saddam or his Sons (let's not forget those shining examples of humanity) might have done in the years to come. They are no longer a threat. You don't need to argue about words brother, argue about actions. Clinton would say one thing do another, arguing about his words was missing the point, (which may have been his point ;p )

I understand what you mean when you say the words lead to things, but "they" can say whatever they want, they can obfuscate, lie or tell the truth. You really cannot tell from their words alone whether they are right or wrong. But, you can judge their actions. What people do is infinitely more important than what they say. Words are cheap. That's all I am saying.


Variable

Well, Satyr, I brought out the date because you said all this BS started after 9/11. The point is, it is verifiable - and you must admit this - that Saddam refused to cooperate with UNSCOM in 1998 (10-31-98, to be exact) and several times before that. Dates are as important as semantics, if not more so.

Did he kick them out? Or did he just make their job impossible to do? Does it make a difference? No, not in the final outcome. All the apologists in the world cannot change that fact.

You say that you cannot believe that there are many people that believe that Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11. He was not, at least not directly. But how many people have you met that believe that a) GWB was responsible for 9/11, or b) Bin Laden was not responsible? There are way too many of those types out there, also.

john