"Tell me, honestly, that it was because Saddam was a monster and killed his own people that Bush
decided wage." It was war he decided to wage.----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:14 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: comments the DEMs must defend
Of course it matters that Saddam killed so many, but that fact doesn't make the US the country of choice to reap revenge does it. Tell me, honestly, that it was because Saddam was a monster and killed his own people that Bush decided wage. Can you really say that? If you can't then you can't keep spouting the same stuff in support of the decision to invade."Carnage is carnage. Selective use of carnage is propaganda."Unless you're quoting Eric, these are your words and can be applied to deaths on both sides of the fence. If the selective use - and by this I assume you mean in a rhetorical sense - is propaganda, then it follows (or doesn't depending on Lawrence's whim) that at some point it stops being useful to one side or the other. In other words, tell me when it all ends. When there's nobody left to vaporise, or will there always be more?What's the pay back for 9/11? How many need obliterating?----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric" <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:59 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: comments the DEMs must defend>>Certainly, Bush et al (surely representitive of that politicalfaction) could only get the US to war by deceiving Congress and the people.Clinton signed a Congressionally approved bill for regime change in Iraq in 1998. Yet he couldn't do a thing except missile strikes on Iraqi Intelligence HQ and some beefed up overflight attacks. There was no political will to go to war until the US mainland was attacked on 9/11.>>never reliant upon the UN, never reliant upon the actions of Saddam,but was always the fruit of the Bush administration's desire to wage war in Iraq.It's good we ignored the UN in general because that turned out to be a corrupt house (Oil-for-Food Scandal) driven by France's need for oil contracts and Russia's desire to arm and supply a buffer state.It's bad we ignored Blix, however. >>Just a couple of hundred thousand, maybe even just 30,000, and that amount of innocent Iraqis surely doesn't matter at all.Insurgents, sectarian vendettas, and all those criminals Saddam released from prison at the start of the invasion -- I guess they don't matter at all. And if they do ... what? Leave Saddam in place? He was attributed by Human Rights Watch for at least 300,000 corpses in unmarked graves. But I guess that doesn't matter at all.Carnage is carnage. Selective use of carnage is propaganda. What should we have done? Maybe sent a team in and hoped they could kill Saddam and his psychotic sons? Yeah maybe ... I don't know .... just trying to balance the sides here.------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html