1 This begs one question then. Many from the left repeat over and over that we had no right to invade a sovereign country. What they did was their business.

Is not what they're doing now their right as a sovereign nation? Are they not sovereign now that they're doing something that some on the left don't agree with?

Isn't it their business?

Okay, three questions.

2 Whose side do liberals favor and what are their values? Maybe it's better to conclude that they favor sides who oppose the U.S. and their values are whatever it takes to put them into power. Their views on Hussein's sentence make that clear.

Over-generalize much?

3 NYTs: The top Democrat on the House International Relations Committee said the verdict was just. But the Democrat, Representative Tom Lantos of California, said in a statement that the verdict “must not distract Americans from the more pressing issue: the need for a change in the direction of our country’s policy toward Iraq, both the conduct of the war effort and our pathetic, corruption-stained attempt at reconstruction,” according to The Associated Press.


I'm a coward ? You're an idiot. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty on principle. Ramsey Clark represents nothing but a wack group of far leftists. Your "liberal response" angle is bull. In effect, you're a liar - a serial fabricator who's rants grow increasingly unhinged and desperate.

4 Incidentally, Tom Lantos has been one of the most consistent opponents of Saddam Hussein on either side of the aisle. When Lantos recognizes how incompetent the crew responsible for the growing debacle is, it's out of the realm of partisan opinion and has become a clarion call.

The true mark of cowardice is to try to blame "liberal media" or Democrats for the rank failures of this administration. They've hurt our country and, yes, we're paying dearly. Be a man, Woody. Stand for something other than partisan hysterics. Don't whine and try to cop out. It's pathetic and as rats-desert-sinking-rats it's looking increasingly dishonest and stupid.

5 Here's what Amnesty International believes "on principle:" Amnesty International, a self described "non-partisan" human rights group has attacked the Bush administration as "architects of torture", likened the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to the Soviet Gulag, and suggested President Bush and his cabinet be put on trial for war crimes. http://alanwoody.blogs.com/woodys_news_views/2005/06/amnesty_interna.html

BTW, reg, what's wrong with pointing out the truth if the left-wing media sides with liberal Democrats to undermine support for our mission in Iraq? They put their quest for Democratic power above American lives and American policy.

Also, is it possible for you to take a position without calling someone else names?

6 Several people here, including the hosts, have attempted to discuss the points reg raises in the various threads, and ask him to address other issues in turn. He does not enter discussion, choosing instead to use a phrase of others' writing to go on a vaudevillian "rave off."

I don't doubt that reg sees it differently, believing us unable to answer his insightful and impassioned points. I have seen little evidence that he acknowledges even a 1% correctness in his opponents, which leads me to conclude there is no point in discussing matters with him.

7 AVI - if you'll read the recent thread that I first stepped back into this fray on, you might notice that I made a criticism based on a quote from the link cited and noone addressed anything I said in that context - Woody went on a typical crazed rant, others said I brought race into the discussion when it clearly had been joined in the link.

Your dishonesty in characterizing what's gone on in these threads is stunning. But that's par for this particular course.

Woody, you're constantly brimming with vile accusations against Democrats. Don't pee on my shoe and expect me to grin. That said, I really do have better things to do with my time than fuss over your inadequcies.

8 reg wears shoes?

9 "reg wears shoes?"

Of course he does. All the better to step on the heads of those unenlightened enough to seek justice for mass murder.

It always amazes me when people claim protection of proven monsters from their just deserts is a "principled" position. But then, some people can convince themselves of anything. Just once (no, I take that back: every time) I'd like to see these "principled" people take these monsters into their nown homes and support them. Hey, reg, if you or some of your Amnesty International buddies will take Saddam (or any of your fav mass murderers) into your home(s) and be responsible for his (their) behavior, I'll send flowers to your funeral(s). Probably from the cercis siliquastrum

10 Perhaps you'd be better off doing those "better things", reg, whatever they are. Because along with all your indignation over some of us not seeing things your way, you don't seem to understand you're not seeing things our way either. This whole "you're too stupid to see your hypocrisy" thing is really getting tiresome.

Stepping onto someone's front porch and calling them specifically a hypocrite, idiot, unhinged, etc. over and over never did elicit kind sentiment and favorable responses. You've never changed that tactic and you still get the same response. Is that so shocking?

Capice?

You don't have to keep trying to prove your superior intelligence it by calling Woody or GM's integrity into question everytime you get offended. By acting the way you do here, you're merely proving their point. I mean who died and left you in charge of everyone else's moral conscience? How many times does someone have to voice a disclaimer that not every liberal is unreasonable before you stop getting offended?

If I were to judge you simply by your responses on another's blog I would say you're a very sour-like fellow. But I know that's not true. You're probably quite personable, but one would never know it by the way you charge in here all the time telling everyone what fools and incompetents they are.

11 So "David" can't understand that anyone would have a principled position against the death penalty. Wow. That's a stunning admission of blindered self-absorption.

I, in fact, am not against the death penalty for Saddam. I'm wondering why it's taken so long. I would have had no problem with shooting him in his spider hole and sparing everyone the charade of a trial on charges of killing less than 1% of his victims. I WAS against giving him helicopters and military intelligence so he could commit war crimes Iranian conscripts more efficiently back in the '80s and turn around and kill Kurds inside his own borders, etc. etc. The GOP enabled Saddam's war crimes. I also was against telling the Shiites to rise up against him in '91 and then letting Saddam's helicopters fly so they could be massacred.

None of this has anything to do with a rational casus belli as regards Iraq based on U.S. national security in 2003 or putting toppling Saddam at the top of our priorities in responding to 9/11 with strategic effectiveness.

You can shove your tired straw men down there where they belong. What a motley crew...the random noise that passes for discussion here is ridiculous. Now that you're clearly a bunch of isolated losers who's fantasies are blowing up in your faces, you'll probably just get even more mean, hysterical and stupid.

12 "[M]ean, hysterical and stupid indeed. Reg, you're turning into a broken record of name calling and sundry insults.

"This is the way I see it and if you don't, well, you're an idiot!"

That about sum it up, reg?

13 reg, used "straw man" just as I predicted.
I expect you to resort to other avoidance tactics from the left such as the trite and non-applicable retorts of "that's a straw man" or "that was long ago." I've been around for a while and have seen them all come from your side--which tries to divert uncomfortable questions and conceal the real agenda of Democrats. http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/202177.php#comments

reg, our objectives in the 1980's are not the same as they ae today. Do I bring up that Roosevelt became an ally with Josef Stalin? There was a reason for it.

But, the Democrats have had plenty of opportunities to make things right. Of the last two Democratic presidents, one botched our relationship with Iran and the other avoided taking necessary actions forcing future presidents to deal with them in the future. One was inept and the other was too cautious or lazy.

Maybe it's you who is out of the mainstream of rational thought rather than everyone else.

14 I'm trying hard to remember what Democratic President was in office when the Iran/Iraq war started and who quietly encouraged it partly because of the turn that the Iran hostage crisis had taken. I'm also having trouble remembering what Democratic President marked the beginning of involvement in Vietnam and what Democratic controlled Congress cut them off when the troops were brought home which resulted in the demise of millions of people.

But all reg remembers is how evil the GOPers are. He remembers that the US sent military supplies to Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion which ended up being used against us later, but he doesn't remember who began sending supplies to them before the Soviets even invaded.

But as Woody said, things were different in different times and we can't apply what we know now to decisions made then.

Nope. The GOP is the cause of all our ills. Use a little of that intellectual honesty you so demand of others, will you reg? I promise you there's enough to be spread around.

15 Do you want me to criticize those apsects of Carter's foreign policy and the "realpolitik" of Zbigniew Brezinski ? Fine. I think they were totally wrong on those counts. But Reagan was the guy who oversaw the aid to Saddam. Shameful, at best. One guy was involved in this for a matter of months. The other - years. It was also known when Reagan was involved in aiding Saddam that he was committing war crimes.

Moral equivalence has to be...you know...equivalent.

16 Woody, the comparison between alliance with Stalin in WWII and aiding Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war is absurd. Think about it.

Oh, I forgot. You don't do that.

17 No, it isn't, reg. Sometimes, the enemy of our enemy is our friend. You just have to hold your nose until you no longer have to do business with them. Maybe you just don't see strategic reasons for our actions in one case or the other. It's too bad that Carter let the Ayatolla take over in Iran and remove our influence in that country.

18 Nevermind reg. There's no debating with someone like you as long as you can throw in some nasty assumption about the other person which you believe disqualifies their intellect. That and you think there's some sort of point system where demonizing your opponent adds to your credibility.

Moral equivalency? You've got a lot of nerve.

19 Okay - one more thing.

Oyster - you're a cry baby. Woody and GMR routinely demonize their opponents. I refuse to debate anyone "fairly" who engages in repeated vile assertions rather than reasoned argument. You'll find damned little reasoned argument here and lot's of what I presume is supposed to be "hyberbole". I'm not Alan Colmes, who'll let a bully run amok and respond with "excuse me." That's for losers...

More to the point - Iraq was the agressor in the Iran/Iraq war and the war was a disaster for both peoples. It likely strengthened the mullahs in Iran by rallying the country around an external enemy and allowed Saddam to consolidate the brutalization of his own country. War is inevitably destructive of any impulses toward strengthening even the nascent elements of civil society or internal political opposition. That's a no brainer. Really. I'm not a political scientist, but I can see that as a fact very clearly with decades, if not centuries of empirical evidence. There was no possibility of Iraq's invading Iran helping us in any concievable way, other than spite. Any notion that we intervened - be it Reagan's guys or Carter/Brezsinski (who were far from being my heroes) - as somehow parallel to a formal military alliance with a nation defend itself against a common enemy with whom we and other democratic allies were facing off in total war, despite misgivings about the head of state or political system in the USSR, is bull. The hostage crisis was not WWII. If it was, we were the ones who should have been invading Iran. Short of that, using Saddam as a surrogate was cheap, tawdry, amoral at best and produced no result other than prolonging the regional agony and allowing grotesque actors to consolidate power. In Saddam's case, it also contributed to his assumption that we would tolerate damned near any regional antic on his part, for which our soldiers first paid in blood in 1991. Saddam has told his jailers he "misses Reagan". No doubt. The only justification for aiding Saddam would be that, literally, anything goes. The fact that we've played that game in too many parts of the world for two long has contributed to some of the problems we're facing today. If that's what you believe, fine. I don't. Never have. But the glib stuff tossed out here is near-nonsensical and betrays serious inattention to any fine points of either common decency or effective long-term strategy.

I expect you guys to respond to these comments with some heavy breathing about my nastiness or how Democrats believe this, that or the other and are rotten to the core. Whatever. I've made my case and the rest of this thread is for you guys to either rant or whine. I just thought I'd try to break through the self-satisfaction and glib retorts on a point that is of some historical significance and that defines a rather wide gulf between myself and rabidly partisan GOPers who'll rationalize anything that one of their fearless leaders does in the name of "America", no matter how crazy, heinous or counterproductive.

One more thing - I refuse to be lectured about my supposed contempt, as a liberal Democrat, for "the baby Jesus" by some alleged "Christian" who shrugs off material military aid to war criminals as no problem.

20 Woody, nil carborundum illegitimi.

Cancer can not be negotiated with, it must be cut out of the body. The cancer must die so the rest of the body can live. Saddam was a cancer cell. -cp

21 Braccae tuae hiant!

Site Administrator's Response: Hunc tu caveto.

22 Do you acquire clean money from this diary or are you doing it righteous for fun?

north york movers


compare mortgage rates