Some people here do not want to think!

I posted a situation on how you would have handled Iraq had you been the President of the US---a question designed to make people think and really analyze rather than simply spout off the same critiscms. I got a barrage of hate in response, all of which basically came to this "How dare you question our left wing dogma!" I never said invasion was the right choice. I am not a Bush supporter. But I do think one must criticze based on real life considerations a President has to deal with rather than monday morning quaterbacking from the sidelines.
It seems since I didn't say "Of course Bush is evil" or " The US is the root cause of all the world's problems" that people seemed to think I was writing apologia for Bushco. Not my point at all. 9/10 of the people responding missed the point entirely and instead just attacked me. All I did was try to get them to think.

Try helping a friend out of the "welfare system" sometime!!!!

I didn't see the post. ;hi:

I have noticed you are an opened minded poster and I have found myself in agreement on many occasions. It is shame that many did not approach serious questions like you do.

I once posted something I was sure would get like over 200 responses, i got like 19

sometimes you have to jazz up the title of the thread to get people to notice.

I got all sad and cried,

Conviently place code words like "random" and "sex" into your headlines.

Works every time. :D

I posted it in the gd

At least, before it gets locked. :D

Iraq had you been the president of the US?

first I would have kept the sanctions we had on Iraq in the 1970sw in place during the Iran-Iraq war.
If Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, I would have gone to the Un and opposed him. I would have gone to the Persian Gulf in 1991, like Bush I because quite frankly the invasion of Kuwait could not stand. One it was dangerous for the region---Saddam would become too powerful and would be in a position to threaten other countries. Second, I would be concerned about his WMD programs. Third, the world's economy could be strangled by one man, Saddam, if he controlled such a large percent of the world's oil supplies. Fourth, If he was able to annex Kuwait like that, it would embolden him to strike out elsewhere, and possibly at Israel which could cause a regional disaster. I would have to oppose it and I would work through the UN.
If it came to a conflict, I would let the military handle the situation there. I would stop with the UN and adhere. But if Saddam;s forces went on a rampage like they did in 1991, I would say no dice and intervene to remove Saddam then and there, unlike Bush I.
If he did not, I would want weapons inspections in place to disarm him. I would not go about it half-assed and without direction like Clinton. If he attempted to interfere with inspections, I would have gone back to the UN and demanded a resolution threatening renewed hostilities if he did not comply. I would give him several weeks to clean up his act.
Whatever I would do, it would always be through the UN and in response to Saddam's non compliance with resolutions. I would not attempt a regime change through harsh sanctions, nor would I invade unilaterally. I would not try to start ill planned rebellions or assasinate. I would be honest and forthright.

Something came up so I am finally getting around to replying. I think some of your ideas are quite sound and glad you responded. Especially like the idea of using the UN to back us up. That is the way it should be if we are to come together as a world community.

Dammit, nobody told me!!! :mad:

Seriously, is there something in the water around here today? Why are we eating our own when there are so many other meatier targets?

wake up and smell the catfood....

n/t

:shrug:

I was in no way referring to Zuni with that statement.

I was responding to a poster who claimed he was leaving DU in an inflammatory thread that is running at the same time as this one. It is highly critical of DUers and when this thread appeared right behind that one, I felt like there was a pattern of bashing emerging that irritated me.

gotten rid of the sanctions and flooded their markets with consumer goods. All the sanctions did was cause human suffering. If this country truly wanted to transform Iraq into a capitalist society, all that needed to be done was create a dependent consumer market. If the populace had been strengthened through international support, Hussein would have been a goner long ago.

just another thought......

that perhaps a way to overthrow Saddam would be to bomb them with food and medicine. Saddam's forces would try to confiscate American supplies which would lead to massive, uncontrollabe unrest by angry citizens. At this point, we could create 'safe zones' under American air cover that refugees and fighters could work out of to save Iraq for themselves.
I would give genuine democratic freedom fighters material support and aid.

I'm thinking that such an analysis was pointless.

Either Bush's own people gave Bush the idea, or Bush wanted to cremate Saddam and Iraq because of something he said 11 years ago. Probably the latter.

There is nothing TO analyze. It was a war of choice, a war of vengeance. Nothing more.

It's a nice idea, but the wrong subject. :-(

That's what I think.

possible to reinforce this.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

Later the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."


Saddam went to Glaspie with hat in hand and on his knees. He grovelled, "mother may I?" and she said "yes you may".

Saddam, like Noriega, was a puppet. He was no more than an employee. He was stabbed in the back, he was still not a threat, and then he got stabbed in the back again.

Karma will pay us back for everything and in spades. I just hope that I won't be alive to see it.

he had much closer relations with the USSR than ther US.
2. Glaspie did not give a green light. She said we were not going to interfere in a simple border dispute. If one reads the facts, Bush and his team were astonished that Saddam actually invaded. They thought he was just going to threaten Kuwait with a manuever.

Saddam was no one's employee. He was a powerful dictator with an entire country at his disposal.

Saddam. I don't know where you got you're information, but doing some of your own research would be a start. I would answer you as an "Anti Iraq War Invasion" protestor who walked with my signs, but I think you would believe more if you did your own search and then came back here and made some points to refute what you think we who were agains Iraq Invasion felt.

Most of us are too tired of living through it to answer you in a way you would be interested in understanding. Which is probably why you didn't get what you wanted to hear on your post, which I read, but did not answer because I felt you needed to do your own work before saying what you did. :-)'s

and the assumptions of superior knowledge displayed, even here, may be off-putting to many.

Remember this photo:



That's Donald Rumsfeld offering the United State's hand in friendship to Iraq.

What's worse is that, even after we learned that Saddam was gassing the Kurds with the chemical weapons we gave him, there are reports that we continued to covertly provide weapons to Iraq.

George Washington University has a detailed report on "Iraqgate."
http://tinyurl.com/3efyf

Many people here were the ones marching a year ago to stop this mess before it ever became a reality. These people's criticisms are the result of a lot of thought and a lot of reading--and so what people probably thought is that their opinions were trivialized.

That's all.

I didn't respond to your post because honestly, I have no idea what I would have done in your hypothetical situation (POTUS/Iraq). I do not have anything approaching the knowledge and skills required.

And I would guess that a few of the critics you encountered have the requisite knowledge and skills either; they just won't admit it. ;)

Don't get me wrong -- I think criticism of the Bush administration's war in Iraq is quite appropriate, but in response to your honest question it was probably inappropriate. It's much easier to say what's wrong than it is to do what's right. :shrug:

However, one must acknowledge that the topic has been repeated ad nauseum at DU for more than a year. Also, one must acknowledge that it has been brought up more than once by new posters who turned out to be Freepers. In other words, there are some reasons for some folks to simply reply ugly. It doesn't make it right, but it does make it more understandable.

often questions before we spend our time going through it all again.

:shrug: