Originally posted by britt2001bI believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the UN authorized the use of force in Bosnia.
From bbarr:
"what they and the rest of the world see (and we so blithely ignore) is the blood on our own hands. "
Yes, you can say we have blood on our own hands. It's still as fresh as the blood shed in Bosnia under the Clinton administration. Now, answer me honestly did you refuse to support that action or did you protest it as vigorously as you ...[text shortened]... niacle leader bite the dust. I did not refuse support because of my lack of respect of Clinton.
Originally posted by trekkie
[b]Saddam is a "bad" person, fine. Persecute him based on his crimes against humanity. BUT DO NOT use intelligence reports that NO ONE CAN FULLY backup on the ground as an excuse.
Looking through the rhetoric of the worlds leaders, including my own prime minister, Afghanistan was chosen because of its closness to the WTC. Iraq because of the job not fini ...[text shortened]... lestine have never been sanctioned by the UN for the TERROR BOTH SIDES HAVE INFLICTED ON EACH OTHER.
While I agree with your main point, I have to point out that there have been a series of UN resolutions condemning Israel for its actions in the occupied terrotories and for its failure to abide by the nunclear non-proliferation treaty. While all UN resolutions are equal, apparently some are more equal than others.
Incidentally, I'd imagine the UN could not issue a resolution against Palestine as no such state exists.
Originally posted by britt2001bI'd be interested in speaking to the 5% that didn't hear or see Colin Powell's speech, but did think he presented a convincing case...
Two-thirds ( 67% ) said they saw or heard Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation last Wednesday to the United Nations Security Council, and nearly three out of four ( 72% ) said Powell made a convincing case for war with Iraq.
Originally posted by latex bishop
Tony Balir may be one of the most popular men in the US at the moment but unless any way is over quickly and there is minimal bloodshed it will cost him his job in the UK.
Andrew
[/b]
Quite. And I do think that's an incredible result. Even the most unpopular of Margaret Thatcher's policies never got close to less than 10 per cent support.
Originally posted by britt2001bWell, I think Clinton ought to be prosecuted as a war criminal (specifically for the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan), just as Bush Sr. and Reagan ought to be prosecuted for their criminal policies regarding Latin America and Indonesia. The blood you mention is bad, but the blood I was referring to was shed during U.S. sponsored overthrows of democratically elected regimes in Latin America, the propping up of maniacal leaders (Pinoche in Latin America, Suharto in Indonesia, Saddam Hussein in Irag, Khaddafi in Lybia, etc. ad nauseum). To a man these despots were OUR despots, before their nationalistic urges or personal desire for power interfered with our interests in cheap labor, markets, and resources. The United States is a bigger threat to democracy around the world than Irag was, is, or ever will be.
From bbarr:
"what they and the rest of the world see (and we so blithely ignore) is the blood on our own hands. "
Yes, you can say we have blood on our own hands. It's still as fresh as the blood shed in Bosnia under the Clinton administration. Now, answer me honestly did you refuse to support that action or did you protest it as vigorously as you ...[text shortened]... niacle leader bite the dust. I did not refuse support because of my lack of respect of Clinton.
Originally posted by bbarrNot one of your better posts bbarr. Although I agree with most of what you say, you are guilty of one factual error and one rather questionable conclusion.
Well, I think Clinton ought to be prosecuted as a war criminal (specifically for the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan), just as Bush Sr. and Reagan ought to be prosecuted for their criminal policies regarding Latin America and Indonesia. The blood you mention is bad, but the blood I was referring to was shed during U.S. sponsored overthrows of d ...[text shortened]... ited States is a bigger threat to democracy around the world than Irag was, is, or ever will be.
First, although the US has been responsible for installing and propping up many dictators around the world, Libya was not one of them. The US did quickly entend official recognition to Qaddafi's regime after he ousted King Idris in 1969, but relations between the US and Libya quickly soured.
Secondly, your conclusion that Clinton should be tried as a war criminal for bombing a pharmaceutical plant is just absurd. If that were the threshhold for charging someone with war crimes, then they would be more plentiful than parking tickets. A case could be made against Reagan, with his dismal foreign policy record in the third world. But that was the product of his entire administration, and not one ill advised attack on a pharmaceutical plant.
As I have stated earlier: I agree with most of what you say in your post (as I usually do). But if someone who generally agrees with you can take exception to your post, then imagine how the hawks will perceive it.
Originally posted by britt2001bThat's more like it. I actually wasn't attacking your conclusion about pro-war sentiment in America, just what seemed like spurious evidence in favor of it. (Local perception, letters to the editor, etc.).
Here's a current polling result from Zogby, a well-respected polling service. I can assure you that he doesn't come to Mississippi for his polling results.
Like I said, although polls aren't perfect (considering, for example, how much the phrasing of a question can affect the answers), they're the best we've got, and I think they can give us valuable information about what people think.
From jgvaccaro:
"Well, you happen to live in one of the most conservative regions of the country. (Mississippi went 58% to 41% for Bush in 2000).
So I don't think that your perceptions of the attitudes of those around you tells us that much about the general mood of the nation, do you? "
From me:
Well let's take a look at the general mood of the nation during the 2000 election and see how Mississippi compares with the rest of the nation:
ALABAMA: BUSH 57% GORE 42%
ALASKA BUSH 59% GORE 28%
ARIZONA BUSH 51% GORE 45%
ARKANSAS BUSH 51% GORE 45%
COLORADO BUSH 51% GORE 42%
FLORIDA BUSH 49% GORE 49%
GEORGIA BUSH 55% GORE 43%
IDAHO BUSH 69% GORE 28%
INDIANA BUSH 57% GORE 41%
KANSAS BUSH 58% GORE 37%
KENTUCKY BUSH 57% GORE 41%
LOUISIANABUSH 53% GORE 45%
MISSISSI.BUSH 57% GORE 42%
MISSOURI BUSH 51% GORE 47%
MONTANA BUSH 58% GORE 34%
NEBRASKA BUSH 63% GORE 33%
NEVADA BUSH 49% GORE 46%
NEW HAMP.BUSH 48% GORE 47%
N.CAROLI.BUSH 56% GORE 43%
N DAKOTA BUSH 61% GORE 33%
OHIO BUSH 50% GORE 46%
OKLAHOMA BUSH 60% GORE 38%
S.CAROLI.BUSH 57% GORE 41%
s.DAKOTA BUSH 60% GORE 38%
TENNESSEEBUSH 51% GORE 48%
TEXAS BUSH 59% GORE 38%
UTAH BUSH 67% GORE 26%
VIRGINIA BUSH 52% GORE 45%
W.VIRGIN.BUSH 52% GORE 46%
WYOMING BUSH 69% GORE 28%
30 states out of 50. It appears to me, by your logic, Mississippi has plenty of conservative company!
Originally posted by britt2001bAnd Bob Dole only took 19 out of 50 in 1996. Did 11 states decide to become "conservative" in the following four years? You have to look at a state's voting record over time. It turns out the last time Mississippi voted for a Democrat was in 1976, for Jimmy Carter. In fact Mississippi has the dubious distinction of being only one of five states to vote for George Wallace (1968), and only one of four states to vote for Strom Thurmond (1948). But wait, it seems that 96% of the voters in Mississippi cast their votes for FDR in 1932. Who would have thought?
From jgvaccaro:
"Well, you happen to live in one of the most conservative regions of the country. (Mississippi went 58% to 41% for Bush in 2000).
So I don't think that your perceptions of the attitudes of those around you tells us that much about the general mood of the nation, do you? "
From me:
Well let's take a look at the general mood of th ...[text shortened]... ates out of 50. It appears to me, by your logic, Mississippi has plenty of conservative company!
"The United States is a bigger threat to democracy around the world than Irag was, is, or ever will be." - bbarr
WOW!
I don't think you will score any points with that one. (I'm not saying you're trying to, it's just an expression.)
But seriously, please elaborate. You won't win me over on that one, but I'm curious how you got there.
Originally posted by rwingettI was too hasty in writing my post. Qadaffi wasn't helped by the U.S. in the colnels revolution. But his administration became the target of U.S. violence and propaganda once he began nationaizing oil production and funneling the profits into the infrastructure of his country, providing health care, education, etc. It was not until Qadaffi gave Exxon the finger that he became "the next Hitler" to adopt a phrase from the Regan admin.
Not one of your better posts bbarr. Although I agree with most of what you say, you are guilty of one factual error and one rather questionable conclusion.
First, although the US has been responsible for installing and propping up many dictators around the world, Libya was not one of them. The US did quickly entend official recognition to Qaddafi's reg ...[text shortened]... y agrees with you can take exception to your post, then imagine how the hawks will perceive it.
But I stand by my claim that Clinton has commited a war crime, and ought to be prosecuted as a war criminal. I think we ought to take international law seriously, and the leaders of states ought to fear war-crimes tribunals.
Thanks for keeping me honest.
Originally posted by britt2001bThe evidence is extensive, especially in regard to Latin America. Check out the meticulously documented 'Turning the Tide" by Noam Chomsky.
"The United States is a bigger threat to democracy around the world than Irag was, is, or ever will be." - bbarr
WOW!
I don't think you will score any points with that one. (I'm not saying you're trying to, it's just an expression.)
But seriously, please elaborate. You won't win me over on that one, but I'm curious how you got there.
Another two cents from me (we can trade it in for a dime soon). It is imbedded in the history of the US to question the actions of your leaders and to take a stand for what you believe is right for the people. It is the civic DUTY of every citizen in the US to question the actions taken by the administration. That is what our country is supposed to be about.
I would like to take a second to point out that larger part of the media in our country (i.e. nationwide networks) are greatly controlled by political agendas. The same can go for any public source of information. These agencies with political agendas cannot be trusted to accurately show unbaised information. Baybe they only questioned republicans. Who knows unless they explain? I do know that I have spoken to many people about this issue in my own community, and very VERY few are in any way in agreement with the current US position.
I would also like to point out that in most studies even these sites show, only a little over half the populace would be in agreement. In our governmental structure it would usually take a 2/3 vote by the senate to allow an act of war. It is only through the so-called patriot acts passed since 9/11 that our president does not need consent from our representatives. I felt then, and I feel now, that these acts were only able to pass through by the great push of "to question the govenment is un-patriotic" propaganda. It is my firm belief that the US people are slowly (or not so slowly) being raped of their God given rights from which this country was founded to hold sacred. The war on Iraq is just the next level of our govenments defiance of the people. May God have mercy on us all.
Originally posted by bbarrNoam Chomsky is highly criticized for not getting his facts straight. I refer you to an example that connects with your pharmaceutical bombing post:
The evidence is extensive, especially in regard to Latin America. Check out the meticulously documented 'Turning the Tide" by Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky Needs a Fact Checker
By Brian Carnell
Thursday, January 24, 2002
In discussing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Noam Chomsky has made a lot of hay over the Clinton administration's attack on a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. In a recent interview published in Salon.Com, for example, Chomsky told Suzy Hansen,
That one bombing, according to the estimates made by the German Embassy in Sudan and Human Rights Watch, probably led to tens of thousands of deaths.
The only problem with this claim is that Human Rights Watch has not conducted any sort of study related to this incident. Carroll Bogert, Communications Director, Human Rights Watch, wrote a letter to Salon.Com saying,
In fact, Human Rights Watch has conducted no research into civilian deaths as the result of U.S. bombing in Sudan and would not make such an assessment without a careful and thorough research mission on the ground.
We have conducted research missions and issued such estimates for Iraq and Yugoslavia, after U.S. bombing campaigns there. In our experience, trenchant and effective criticism of U.S. military action requires factual investigation.