Mariner
Active Member
questions? They make perfect sense. If you're going to take two different approaches to the same type of problem, then you'd better be able to explain why. Calling the questions "asinine" and "sophomoric" is just a way of avoiding them.
An equally challening question for Republicans--if Hussein's crimes were bad enough to justify the current war, then why didn't we take care of him back when he actually committed the vast bulk of them (killing over 100,000 Kurds)? Reagan had the chance to take him out, but instead considered him an ally.
(Not the first time the U.S. has considered a murderer an ally--consider Pinochet. Other countries seem to notice this about us, but somehow most Americans seem to think we'd never do such an immoral thing. And of course other countries can't help but notice that while we talk about promoting democracy, we've actively opposed democracies when they elected the "wrong" people, preferring dictatorships that we could control. This shameful history ought to make us humble, but somehow that doesn't seem to happen.)
Later, under Bush I, we encouraged the Shi'ites to revolt, then abandoned them to lovely Hussein, who I'm sure treated them very nicely. This little look at our history suggests that the President's current justification for the war--a humanitarian mission--is convenient, but false.
And if Hussein was such a bad guy, then why was he Dick Cheney's business partner all those years? Halliburton spent exactly 4 years out of Iraq, between doing business under Dick Cheney and then cleaning up after the war, with some nice no-bid contracts from a government including... Dick Cheney. It's all very cosy.
Of course LuvRPgirl may have hit the nail on the head when she mentioned that Iraq is an oil depot, and therefore strategically important to us. Many liberals have suspected this was the real reason for the invasion, along with lingering shame that his father had not taken Hussein out when he had the chance. But Bush has denied these issues had anything to do with his invasion.
Mariner.
An equally challening question for Republicans--if Hussein's crimes were bad enough to justify the current war, then why didn't we take care of him back when he actually committed the vast bulk of them (killing over 100,000 Kurds)? Reagan had the chance to take him out, but instead considered him an ally.
(Not the first time the U.S. has considered a murderer an ally--consider Pinochet. Other countries seem to notice this about us, but somehow most Americans seem to think we'd never do such an immoral thing. And of course other countries can't help but notice that while we talk about promoting democracy, we've actively opposed democracies when they elected the "wrong" people, preferring dictatorships that we could control. This shameful history ought to make us humble, but somehow that doesn't seem to happen.)
Later, under Bush I, we encouraged the Shi'ites to revolt, then abandoned them to lovely Hussein, who I'm sure treated them very nicely. This little look at our history suggests that the President's current justification for the war--a humanitarian mission--is convenient, but false.
And if Hussein was such a bad guy, then why was he Dick Cheney's business partner all those years? Halliburton spent exactly 4 years out of Iraq, between doing business under Dick Cheney and then cleaning up after the war, with some nice no-bid contracts from a government including... Dick Cheney. It's all very cosy.
Of course LuvRPgirl may have hit the nail on the head when she mentioned that Iraq is an oil depot, and therefore strategically important to us. Many liberals have suspected this was the real reason for the invasion, along with lingering shame that his father had not taken Hussein out when he had the chance. But Bush has denied these issues had anything to do with his invasion.
Mariner.
Oh, thats a laugh. You participate in the special olympics too?
