Gaddafi killed?

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

Was it not liberals that totally flipped when George Bush removed Saddam Hussein? Did Cindy Sheehan and her Code Pink not camp outside of his ranch in Texas - for several years? Was this "expedition" not paid for by elements of the DNC? Did they not demean this man in every conceivable way? Here keeping a very brutal dictator who had gassed his own people with VX and other nerve agents, in power was accepted as it was a means of attacking George Bush. These same people called G.W. Bush a "mass murderer" and a "war criminal" for bombing supposedly peaceful and innocent Iraq? Perhaps even all those huge "anti-war" demonstrations orchestrated by liberals world-wide did not actually exist. Yet, these very same people are still on their feet, cheering Obama in a wild frenzy, for bombing Libya who has been far more peaceful than Iraq. Are there calls in the press labeling Obama a "war criminal" or "mass murderer"? If there are, I certainly have not heard them. Perhaps I just imagined George Bush being called all of these things. What did Jimmy Carter assert a while back? Was it not that all criticism of Obama is based in racism.

Some excellent points. One needs to keep in mind that from the left's perspective George Bush was not really the President. The hatred engendered by the 2000 election was palpable throughout late 2000 and 2001. The loss of the finely tuned machine, Al Gore, was just too much for the left and they had a breakdown. Finally they could pour out this latent hatred towards GW and the right for "stealing the election" after Iraq became problematic without appearing anti-American in the wake of 911. Leftist protests appeared more like 1979 Iran than typical anti-American position protests. Of course, when the superhero arrived in 2009, all of that anti-war angst went poof and disappeared behind the magician's cape despite the continuation of virtually all the Bush administration policies. Those policies were of such a nefarious nature that Obama retained what heretofore he had railed against.


BTW, keep sticking around. I was enjoying your posts and positions. Now, if flcaltenn would only come back.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Charles

I respectfully disagree.

KG & Ed were engaged in an ongoing argument, Ed had lost his temper, & KG made a somewhat snide remark. There was plenty of emotion present beforehand.

As far as I'm concerned, you took her comments out of context, then used them to create a straw man and then offered a personal insult by referring to her as a troll.

IMHO, both you and Ed have done her a disservice.

Finn, you're a prick, but you managed to come through this with your honor intact!!!

You hung tough, but I never noticed you going personal...an admirable trait.

I realize we're a cliquish lot, and you have to grab the new aspirants by the short hairs just to get their attention...but there ARE limits.

Might I suggest that a couple of PM's might be in order?

Come on, she's a lady whether you agree with her or not...aint' like you're dealing with DJ!!!

I've said my piece,

Chas

Chas, that was a nicely done thoughtful post. I like your diplomacy on this issue. I didn't see any "trolling" behavior. Pop on over to Usenet and view the archived Vi and Emacs groups to see some real trolling.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

My friends,

Eddie and I have decided to bury the hatchet. We had a frank conversation, and in that spirit, there is room in the forum for everyone. Reading some of the postings here in relation to the conflict, especially those of Chas, Painter, Pete, Twodogs, and Whell, and others (such as Fast-Eddie #225), I have realized that there are many people here interested in debate, in fairness, and in honest opinions; that there are a great many good people here. That is an absolute strength.

Some might consider me a troll, like D-Ray, that is his opinion and I will probably never change that. As far as emotional responses, any good debate should solicit them. If it doesn't, if there is no passion, then I submit, what is the point? I am sure that most will agree that debate, political debate especially, should be balanced and open to all viewpoints. In this spirit, can it be fruitful having certain ideas, viewpoints, individuals, or groups, quasi off-limits, while others are thrashed mercilessly?

Not to embarrass myself further, I wanted to say that I am very happy to be here, and that this forum is a worthwhile place.

The D-Man's a good guy. He's just a lawyer, and would argue with a fencepost...as SandyG once put it...only directed at someone else.

Hell, even the Hatfields and McCoys gave it up after they realized they couldn't even remember why they started killing one another in the first place.

Perhaps one of the few advantages of living in a world of assholes. A new one always comes along, causing you to revise your list downwards.

Chas

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

Was it not liberals that totally flipped when George Bush removed Saddam Hussein? Did Cindy Sheehan and her Code Pink not camp outside of his ranch in Texas - for several years? Was this "expedition" not paid for by elements of the DNC? Did they not demean this man in every conceivable way? Here keeping a very brutal dictator who had gassed his own people with VX and other nerve agents, in power was accepted as it was a means of attacking George Bush. These same people called G.W. Bush a "mass murderer" and a "war criminal" for bombing supposedly peaceful and innocent Iraq? Perhaps even all those huge "anti-war" demonstrations orchestrated by liberals world-wide did not actually exist. Yet, these very same people are still on their feet, cheering Obama in a wild frenzy, for bombing Libya who has been far more peaceful than Iraq. Are there calls in the press labeling Obama a "war criminal" or "mass murderer"? If there are, I certainly have not heard them. Perhaps I just imagined George Bush being called all of these things. What did Jimmy Carter assert a while back? Was it not that all criticism of Obama is based in racism.

First of all, welcome back, KG.

Speaking for myself (and not for all of those who disliked Dubya), I think a lot of what bothered me about Iraq were the false pretenses (perhaps retrospectively) under which this war was instigated. Taking a nation to war is the most serious thing the leader of a sovereign nation can do. Doing it under false pretenses (or charitably, as the result of faulty intelligence) should always be subject to intense criticism IMHO.

When we invaded Iraq, I was very hopeful we would find WMD's to help settle the discomfort of many in this nation and abroad about being sold a bill of goods with regard to the threat of Saddam. No such luck.

For the record, I voted for Dubya in 2000 (but not again in 2004).

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by finnbow

First of all, welcome back, KG.

Speaking for myself (and not for all of those who disliked Dubya), I think a lot of what bothered me about Iraq were the false pretenses (perhaps retrospectively) under which this war was instigated. Taking a nation to war is the most serious thing the leader of a sovereign nation can do. Doing it under false pretenses (or charitably, as the result of faulty intelligence) should always be subject to intense criticism IMHO.

When we invaded Iraq, I was very hopeful we would find WMD's to help settle the discomfort of many in this nation and abroad about being sold a bill of goods with regard to the threat of Saddam. No such luck.

For the record, I voted for Dubya in 2000 (but not again in 2004).

My goodness, I agree. But concerning the WMD. What happened to them? Iraq had them in the 80s, because both Iran and Iraq used them against each other in the war. Large quantities were recovered during the 1st Gulf War. Saddam Hussein gassed his own people with VX in 1994/95. There was an accident at an Iraqi Army base in 2002, which killed scores of soldiers - gassed by VX. Intelligence services from around the world said that Iraq had them.... There were weapons recovered containing various gases (don't know if that is the correct term), but they were manufactured before 1991.

There was something I saw on Russia Today a while back in which they talk about the stockpile of munition found, empty, but with traces of the agents. They talked about how it was a failure of national intelligence services, except that of Russia of course!

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

My goodness, I agree. But concerning the WMD. What happened to them?

From several reports I read, he destroyed his stockpiles out of fear of us using their existence as a pretext for war (imagine that). However, Saddam was caught between a rock and a hard place. Destroy the weapons or we would attack, but in the process leave himself more vulnerable to attack by Iran. Keep the weapons to deter Iran and expose himself to attack by us. What's a paranoid despot to do?

Solution? Destroy the weapons but play coy to keep the Iranians at bay. It seems he outsmarted himself (and our intelligence agencies, BTW).

[piece-itpete]

I watch RT occasionally too, I like Crossfire particularly, but they really are FOS.

I remember a comment by a wise old member of AK, that you've got to have elephant hide to talk online. And he was talking about stereos!

Which is why the right will always have an advantage

I think we can all agree completely that Obama is the worst President we've ever had or will have

Pete

[merrylander]

Have to go some to catch up with Hobart Heever (to quote Harry VonSell)

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Speaking for myself (and not for all of those who disliked Dubya), I think a lot of what bothered me about Iraq were the false pretenses (perhaps retrospectively) under which this war was instigated. Taking a nation to war is the most serious thing the leader of a sovereign nation can do. Doing it under false pretenses (or charitably, as the result of faulty intelligence) should always be subject to intense criticism IMHO.

That's it exactly. It felt a lot like we were being strung along when it was happening. When it turned out we really were, it was hard not to think the guy was up to something. When you know he's not really shooting straight then you hear all the rhetoric it's hard not to get your blood boiling.

And for the record, I didn't vote for Bush in 2000. I thought Gore was a much better choice. Things had been going well and taking something as close to what we had as possible seemed like a good idea to me. When people said they wanted a change, I used to ask them "which don't you like, the roaring economy or the relative peace in the world?" Unfortunately, that question turned out to be far more prophetic that I could have imagined.

But I get why people liked him. Shoot, I like him. He seems like a good guy. The guys who vaccum my office are good guys too, I just don't want them to be President.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I think we can all agree completely that Obama is the worst President we've ever had or will have

Pete

In the last three years anyway. Dubya blows him away in the worst President sweepstakes, however.