Okay this isn't in huge quanties. But have you noticed that some people seem to trustsaddam more then thier own western goverments.
Some people's reflexive DISTRUST of the US has caused them to side with Saddam by default. Others simply hate Israel (many on college campuses today). It's one thing to be critical of US policy, but quite another to see conspiracy after conspiracy in everything the US does. Saddam is a maniacal dictator who gasses, tortures & executes his own people. He has never abided by numerous UN resolutions and is currently playing hide & seek with weapons inspectors. There's no defending anything this man has done. But enough people will try. Just wait for the anti-US responses on BS.
I strongly oppose a war with Iraq. Therefore I am pro-Saddam, anti-American, an Isreal hater, a socialist, etc. You guys are embarrassing the sane Republicans here.
I was referring to the conspiracy nuts who think the goal of US foreign policy is world domination at any cost. I understand that people on all sides might oppose this war. But there are some wackos out there (like the sponsors of the anti-war demonstrations) who would support a corrupt regime like Hussein's over the US. These people are twisted.
No kidding, over here those nutbags are now circulating some unbelievable essay linking the Bush family to Hitler pre-WWII. What next, the US invented Mosquitos and humidity just to annoy people? And they wonder why we don't take them seriously...
This question is SO disingenuous. People who reduce this to a question of trusting Saddam v. trusting Bush are indulging in intellectual dishonesty and moral relativism of the WORST sort. We're sending Americans to die in Iraq. Why is it a crime to ask for proof that this is necessary? 3/4 of the world is lined up against us in this matter. Why is it treason to request that we at least disarm their objections before proceeding? We have major problems in al Qaeda and in North Korea and in Iran and in Palestine. Why is it unpatriotic to look for a reason to set these problems aside completely? That's all I ask. Give me a reason for ignoring the war on terrorism, North Korea's nuclear posturing, Iran's threat and the Israeli dispute with the Palestinians. Pardon me for suggesting that "Because I said so" isn't good enough.
Dominate? Of course. The FEAR of having another fill the "vacuum" is enuf... Since I know you won't likely read the document itself ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf ), I offer the following: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2003/02/ma_205_01.html excerpt: "The Bush manifesto displays bluster, romance, and illogic in equal measure. Premise: America is fundamentally righteous. "In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage." This will be news to much of the world, but never mind. An imperial strategy is justified because there is in the world but "a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise" -- a model that, surprise, the United States embodies. (As for success without freedom or democracy or free enterprise, what about China? As for free enterprise and democracy of a sort without success, what about Argentina?) Conclusion: Whatever America does will be right -- pursuing terrorists, preemptive war, free trade, whatever. Nuance be damned. For all the boilerplate about national differences, the doctrine's key concern is clear: If all the world speaks American values (though sometimes in funny local accents), why shouldn't everyone dance to our tune?" You know what, read the document (prepared by Wolfowitz and other sycophants, and endorsed by Cheney and Bush), and then reconsider your above statement.
Actually, the historical links themselves are an uncontroversial matter of record. President Franklin Roosevelt's Alien Property Custodian, Leo T. Crowley, signed Vesting Order Number 248 seizing the property of Prescott Bush, including "all of the capital stock of Union Banking Corporation, a New York corporation" under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Through Union Banking Corporation and several other business interests, including the Hamgurg-Amerika Line and Brown Brothers Harriman, Prescott Bush and his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker, along with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, did help finance Adolf Hitler before World War II. What is debatable is how much Bush and Walker knew about who they were supporting. When you put the facts in the context of the early to mid 1930s, this becomes much more understandable. Many business elites in America and Europe figured Hitler was the best bet for anti-communism. It's not as if other American business or social elites didn't more or less openly admire the man with the little mustache: see "Lindburgh, Charles" and "Ford, Henry". I doubt they took the rest of the Nazi social program, including the anti-semitic aspects of it, seriously. They probably just thought they were protecting their German assets from the very real spectre of communist revolution while making lucrative deals on German rearmament at the same time. They almost certainly did not know that Hitler planned death camps or world war. That said, saying that the fact that the Bush family was one of the Hitler's early backers means that Dumbya is therefore a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party who wants death camps for Jews would be going way, way, WAY too far. If anyone says that, they're an idiot. At the same time, let's not rewrite history here just because you think it somehow makes your hero look bad. ------------------------ As for "trusting Saddam over Bush", this is ridiculous. If "cruicky" had said "trusting the UN weapons inspectors over Bush", then he might have had a case.
So people are allowed to oppose the war, as long as they don't say so in public? Thanks a pantload, Chet.
Of course, I did see you out there protesting against the corrupt regimes of Hussein (when he was our bestest buddy), Suharto, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, the house of Saud, Marcos, Noriega, Lee Kuan Yew, various corrupt Korean regimes, etc., etc., etc. Right?
how can anyone who lived through or has studied the Vietnam war ever totally trust the american government???? that's one of the great things about our country.... you can criticize it. critizing the government is a very patriotic act
I'd take the Shah over fundamentalist ayatollahs any day. His corruption was more benign & predictable than the Hezbollah-supporting, anti-American zealots who have been running that country into the ground for the last 20+ yrs. Liberals support crazed fundamentalists now? Interesting bedfellows.
Google Wolfowitz. Look, I don't think Bush is buying this vision hook, line, and sinker. But it's out there, and influential people are pushing it, so you're not a conspiracy nut to think that. It just means you're a) paying attention and (the AND is very important) you thinkg Bush is gonna go all the way with it.
He didn't say the people attending anti-war rallies are twisted, pro-Saddam, anti-American whackos, he said the people organizing them are, which is largely true. The group that has sponsored most of the large anti-war rallies (both against the Iraqi and Afghan campaigns), International ANSWER (or something like that), is a sister organization of the Workers World Party, a group that in recent years has supported and defended Slobodan Milosevic's war crimes, the Chinese massacre in Tiananmen Square in 1989, and the North Korean government. So yes, these people certainly are twisted whackos. And if I was a rational person who happened to be against a campaign in Iraq, nothing would upset me more than my cause being hijacked by a bunch of radical extremists. Even if many of the people attending these rallies are normal, well-adjusted, moderate people, whackjob groups like the WPP and International ANSWER use them as "proof" of support for their lunatic ideas. The best way to get support and mainstream legitimacy for the anti-war cause would be for normal, mainstream people to divorce themselves from the lunatic nutjobs and organize their own rallies (which has happened on the small scale, but not on the large scale). Fortunately for those of us who believe that it is likely neccesary to carry the War on Terrorism into Iraq, this doesn't look like happening anytime soon. Alex
Re: Dominate? Of course. The FEAR of having another fill the "vacuum" is enuf... Look, Universal, many in the national security policy community have concerns about this version of the national security strategy (esp. preemptive attacks and the criteria used to make these judgements) but MotherJones' extremely biased "analysis" won't shed much light on the issue. If you want a list of the numerous issues and events over the last five decades in which the US did not use its strength to gain a "unilateral" advantage, it'll have to wait for the weekend because I don't have time to even begin to list all of the times in even one policy area such as trade policy. Anyone familiar with trade, currency, or security policy should be able to generate such a list. You obviously don't know much about any of these issues... Did you read the NSS or just the MotherJones "analysis"? You may want to think through the issue of how much of the NSS really gets implemented in real programs. In many cases, parts of the NSS are simply ignored and then replaced when the next iteration is issued. You also ignore the fact that states nearly always try to act in a manner that best supports their interests (although often with unintended consequences). Obviously, the US does the same in pushing policies that benefit us (or more specifically the "us" that runs the country). However, this isn't some zero-sum game where every benefit to the US means a loss for the rest of the world. You really seem to ignore the actions that the US has taken to enhance the standing of competitors such as Europe and Japan and our more limited success at helping some developing countries. Not exactly the actions of a state bent on "world domination". Are the policies perfect? Of course not. Do they unfairly benefit the wealthy and most developed states? Certainly, but that is another issue than US hegemony (which does not exist in case your confused about that as well). Take you paranoid delusions to a place where they'll be better appreciated. Isn't there a message board on CrazyConspiracies.com where your type can babble to eachother? I guess you have more in common with the right-wing "fear the black helicopters of the one world government" groups than I'd realized...