Barack Apppeases his Base

What Bradical and many others dont get is that a BIG reason the "intelligent and informed" of Europe 'hate' us, is that the perception of US unilaterism, especially on Iraq, was brought about by their own corruption and willingness to take payoffs from Saddam's oil production allowances.

It's as much guilt as anything. The French knew Chirac was on the take. All Europe knew that Saddam was a Russian arms client... who knows what Schroeder got out of it... A double blind trust in the oil kickback?

 

And let me add I ESPECIALLY dont give a flyin' ____ what the French think of us.

BESIDES the laughable student demonstrators in Paris carrying signs: "No Blood for Oil" when they MEAN "Hands off OUR OIL!"....

Anyone whose government media would stage an Israeli 'atrocity', then cover it up and put the whistleblower on trial for defamation and libel is beneath whaleshit!

 

Why did you edit your post? Since I dont like to use profanity, I was going to thank you for doing it for me.

 

It's not so much about making foreign policy decisions that seek the approval of Europe or the larger world... it's about being in good world standing, demanding respect and dignity, and being able to affect change globally. When trying to ascertain the state of affairs, I pay great attention to the attitudes of others - especially non-Americans - because we have an amazing ability to rationalize just about anything when we're tied to American nationalism, patriotism, and/or American partisan politics. I know countless Republicans who defended Bush's policies for years until recently, and I don't even think they knew why they were doing it, they just felt obligated to out of party alignment. Kind of like when PettyFog says that Europeans hate the US's invasion and occupation of Iraq because of their own guilt for corruption... not because, well, its an unprokoved invasion and occupation. They're just calling it like they see it - a disaster. And Americans, by extension, are apathetic enablers for not challenging the policy or removing the administration.

 

Well the truth is is that no American should ever be ashamed of having gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. His regime was an abomination to mankind. If the Iraqis can build anything better than what they had under Saddam Hussein, then it won't have been quite a disaster.

The occupation could have been run better from the get go, but the Bush administration learned its lesson and has finally gotten things right in Iraq. There really is hope for a better Iraq now. I for one think that is wonderful and something every American should be proud of.

Otherwise Saddam Hussein would still be the dictator of Iraq and committing human rights atrocities on a daily basis. Not exactly a good thing.

 

I don't think it was a national tragedy at all and I never will probably.

Preventing Saddam Hussein from ever having WMD again was a good enough reason to invade Iraq, imo. Personally, I supported the invasion for moral reasons beyond Bush's arguments for invasion. We supported Saddam Hussein in the past, so therefore the mess that was Iraq was in part our responsibility. When you spill milk, you just don't leave it sitting there... you clean it up. So getting rid of Saddam Hussein so that the Iraqi people might have the opportunity for something better than what they had under Saddam is a good enough reason for me.

Now, if I was President I wouldn't have invaded Iraq because the invasion of Iraq didn't have the international support it needed... but I don't think that makes it a tragedy. It will be a tragedy if nothing good comes from it, and we aren't able to determine that yet.

I don't care if anybody disagrees with me and I certainly don't feel the need to name call anybody. Either you agree with me or you don't. It's not my problem if what I say bothers you (not you Don, per se, but anybody out there who thinks I'm wrong). It's okay for people to think I'm wrong, just like it's okay for me to think they're wrong. The world would be an awful place if we all agreed on everything.

Also, the Bush administration didn't lie about Saddam's wmd. Our intelligence agencies, along with other countries' intelligence agencies, thought Saddam hadn't destroyed all his WMD. The 9/11 commission also makes it clear that even if Saddam Hussein didn't have wmd, he was going to try and get them as soon as he could (again, cause he had them before).

This Der Spiegel article gets into the details about how Saddam duped the world into thinking he had WMD. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 40,00.html)

So it wasn't a lie at all for the administration to argue Saddam illegally had wmd. The NY Times even published an article entitled: "Bush Didn't Lie, He Exaggerated".

Here is a Washington Post article talking about the same thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01687.html

 

Again, what Lyle said.

Also, how many times do I have to point out that the Clinton administration bombed Bagdad for four days over WMD which everyone worried still existed. Why is it a surprise that the Bush administration decided to deal with it head on after 911? When your number one responsibility as President is national security, why is it any surprise that the administration acted on the worst case senario - which Saddam and his WMD's represented. Bush did his duty in terms of national security and it was Congress's failure to check and balance that led to what was most likely an unnecessary war.

Hatter, this lie you talk about. Why did the UN and the Media and numerous nations spend countless hours investigating and failing to unprove this lie prior to 911?

You dont think Gore painted the worst case senario on global warming in order to get the public to pay attention? Please apply some logic and consistency to your thinking.

Ah . . . and the French realizing it was not within a country mile of their national security to commit troops. Well that means a boat load doesnt it. Just like WWII when they sunbathed on the Riveria as England and the US (and Canada, Scotland and I'm sure many other nations besides France) fought for them. If Nazi Germany wasnt worth their national security how could we possibly expect Iraq to be. The French and France are wonderful for many reasons, but paleeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaase!

 

And do those facts include the French fighting against the US and Britain in Africa?

Yeah, I dont have the French casaulty numbers at the ready because it would be too confusing.

I do believe it is fact that the Vichy government proclaimed a death sentence on DeGaulle for escaping to England to carry on the fight. It is a fact that over half a million French soldiers escaped France and fought with other country's units because their own government gave up.

Exactly how much vacationing the French did on the unoccupied Riviera during WWII, I dont know and I'm sure I'll never know. What I do know is that my first boss fought in France during that war and he told me about seeing pictures of the French sunbathing and smoking on the Riviera while he fought. He said the image didnt help his will to fight and stomach the death. Since he is a nice and unresentful type of guy, I believed him.

 

I was going to mention the fighting in North Africa as well. I think U.S. soldiers or allied soldiers may have also fought some Vichy soldiers in southern France. Maybe it was just French vs. French though.

The Holocaust deaths in France were probably all on the Vichy govnerment as well.

Some French were righteous, others were Fascists... ce la vis.