Why the Left Loves Osama [and Saddam]

[GRUNHERZ]

I think it makes an intersting argument to that end.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I think it makes an intersting argument to that end.

That's because you understand the left half as well as you think you do.

[GRUNHERZ]

I underand the left pretty well as they present themselves. I see them protesting on the streets about the evils of america, I dont see them protesting about the evils of saddam.

Of course thats just a dumb insufficienty nuanced right wing statement lacking in the finer subtelites of left wing intellectual handwringing.

Tell me right now what plan do all these left wing anti war groups have to remove saddam, who (you say) they dont like, without resorting to war.

And since you will not show me a plan,  but by all means go ahead and prove mr wrong on that,  the practical reality of it is that they are acting in a way that keeps saddam hussein in power.

[Sandman]

So "anti-war" is the same thing as "pro-Hussein"?

[GRUNHERZ]

Yes in effect it is, provided of course one does not present a workable real world alternative for his quick removal, and they have not.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes in effect it is, provided of course one does not present a workable real world alternative for his quick removal, and they have not.

And that shows that you don't understand the left.

You are smuggly certain that you do, but that doesn't make it so.

[GRUNHERZ]

How about you just tell me how a left wing anti war person who hates saddam like soooo much is proposing to get rid of him soon.

Cmon Karnak, youra smart guy a genuine SF liberal you must have the answer.

Otherwise you are just happy to see him sit in Baghdad while his people dide in the tens of thousands because he doesnt think its worthwhile to obey the agreement he signed to end the war.

So let me see it.

Right now here is your chance.

Give me your plan!

Tell me something I dont know about the left wing plans for Saddam.

[lord dolf vader]

its the soon i dont understand . the al queda connec is bull****.
weapons of mass destruction found to date "none"

why now ? his boarders were open people who wanted to could flee. why now ? why not 12 years ago when we were there.for peace love and the american way? or the 6 trillion bucks under that sand. according to bush  every country is open to invasion by anyone who feels like it. no need for a war declaration just lie and invade nazi style. i hate the man for it.


 one man wants to do this for his own probably religious reasons. he has a propaganda machine running overtime in say anything mode scareing the hell out of anyone who will listen to their crap. im tired of my wife crying about his lies. can you say terror alert lavender.

 many many posts have pointed out the deficiencys of bushes regime they will be happy to write books on his failings. hes a friggin deserter for gods sake and a coke head. everyone wants rid off saddam hell i was there the first time. you just dont kill your neibor cause you think you have a mission from god. or if you do its called murder.

calling a spade a spade without the propaganda crap and the mans a war criminal. you hollering about the ends justifying the means just says you havent understood the failings of "the prince"

its that simple

[Martlet]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader

calling a spade a spade without the propaganda crap and the mans a war criminal. you hollering about the ends justifying the means just says you havent understood the failings of "the prince"

its that simple

calling a spade a spade without the propaganda crap and you really are illiterate.

It's that simple.

[10Bears]

Congrats Vador, Marlet just called you illiterate.. that means those on the left won this argument by default.

BTW are all these people lefty commie liburals?

1) Norman Schwarzkopf

Yes, Stormin' Norman thinks the Bush administration may be rushing things a bit. "efore I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,'" he told the Washington Post, "I guess I would like to have better information." Unlike his former comrades in the Bush administration, he supports acting with "a bit of prudence" and letting the U.N. weapons inspectors do their jobs. "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive," he said. Though a conservative friend of the Bushes, he was also quite critical of Donald Rumsfeld. "Candidly, I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made," he said, adding, "He almost sometimes seems to be enjoying it," which, in Schwarzkopf's experience, "is a sensation to be avoided when engaged in war."

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52450-2003Jan27.html

2) Nobel Laureates in Science and Economics

Forty-one American Nobel laureates in science and economics, all of whom served as government advisors, issued a declaration opposing unilateral action against Iraq on the grounds that, even if it succeeded, such action would make America less safe in the long run. "The undersigned oppose a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support," the document reads. "Military operations against Iraq may indeed lead to a relatively swift victory in the short term. But war is characterized by surprise, human loss and unintended consequences. Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political and legal consequences of an American preventive attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world."

Some of these scientists worked in the Pentagon and on the atomic bomb and are certainly not representative of the traditional anti-war crowd.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/national/28NOBE.html

3) Other Military Experts

In addition to Norman Schwarzkopf, other high-profile military officers have voiced concerns."You don't have license to attack someone else's country just because you don't like the leadership," former National Security Advisor General Brent Scowcroft told the BBC and London Times, later saying that war might unleash "an Armageddon in the Middle East"

See: http://www.ciponline.org/iraq/experts.htm

General Anthony Zinni also scoffed at those who feel a war with Iraq might help stabilize the Middle East. "I don't know what planet they're on," he told the BBC. "Such a war would make the situation between Israel and the Palestinians much worse."

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2245632.stm

4) The World War II Generation

"Of all the generations studied by pollsters, these Americans -- now in their 70s, 80s and 90s -- are showing the most resistance to an invasion in Iraq in surveys of American opinion," the LA Times recently reported. Suspicious of the Bush administration's motives and leery of anything as un-American as preemptive military action, overwhelmingly, the Greatest Generation doesn't think this war's so great.

See: http://www.ppu.org.uk/iraq/whatgood.html

5) Veterans

Anti-war groups are springing up from within veteran's ranks. There are the "Vietnam Veterans Against the War," "Gulf War Veterans For Common Sense" and "Soldiers' for Truth" to name a few. Another group, "Veterans' Call to Conscience," recently issued a statement expressing their opposition to war with Iraq and urging soldiers to question their orders: "Now we see our REAL duty is to encourage you as members of the U.S. armed forces to find out what you are being sent to fight and die for and what the consequences of your actions will be for humanity," they warn. "If you choose to participate in the invasion of Iraq you will be part of an occupying army. Do you know what it is like to look into the eyes of a people that hate you to your core?"

See: http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/CtC/

6) The CIA

Not known for being leftist peaceniks, the CIA nevertheless issued one of the most compelling reasons for not launching an attack: "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." -- CIA October Threat Letter

See: http://www.ciponline.org/iraq/experts.htm

7) Richard Butler

Though certain Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, former chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler is nevertheless stunned by America's 'shocking double-standard' in dealing with Iraq. "The spectacle of the United States, armed with its weapons of mass destruction, acting without Security Council authority to invade a country in the heartland of Arabia and, if necessary, use its weapons of mass destruction to win that battle, is something that will so deeply violate any notion of fairness in this world that I strongly suspect it could set loose forces that we would deeply live to regret," he said.

See: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0128-02.htm

8) Bob Novak

Even Bob Novak, who is often a cheerleader for the Bush administration, questions the agenda behind this war. Critical of any pretext "for a decision that's already been made at high levels of the U.S. government to change the government in Iraq," he spelled out the Bush's administration's real reason for waging war. "They want a war as a manifestation of U.S. power in the world and as a sign that the United States is capable of changing the balance of power and the political map of the Middle East," he said on a recent Capital Gang. Revealing that a senior official had told him, "If we don't hit in Iraq, where are we going to hit?" Novak added, quite bluntly, that "it's a desire that the United States, the superpower, is going to manifest its authority to the rest of the world."

See: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/cg.00.html

9) Conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts

Arguing that the upcoming war on Iraq "is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history," Roberts describes the war's two primary supporters as being neoconservatives who want to impose America's 'exceptionalism' on the rest of the world and foreign policy advisers "who believe that the primary aim of U.S. foreign policy is to make the Middle East safe for Israel."

None of this involves America's national security, of course, and so, like many of us, he questions the dubious reasons we're given for waging war.

See: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20030129.shtml

10): Republican Businessmen

Conservative businessmen ran an ad in the Wall Street Journal entitled, 'A Republican Dissent on Iraq.' "Let's be clear," they stated in an open letter to President Bush and the American people. "We supported the Gulf War. We supported our intervention in Afghanistan. We accept the logic of a just war. But Mr. President, your war on Iraq does not pass the test. It is not a just war." The group pointed out that war should always be the last option and explained that the U.S. would create "a billion enemies," not security for our children. They also invoked the Revolutionary spirit that made this country great: "War with Iraq is not inevitable," they reminded. "Now is the time to stop it. Speak out at your place of worship, at your business, among your friends and relatives. Make your convictions known to your Mayor and Governor and -- above all -- to your elected leaders in Washington."

See: http://www.anitaroddick.com/weblog/weblogdetail.jsp?title=null&id=371

If those 10 examples don't convince warmongers opposition isn't stemming from a bunch of wild-eyed leftist radicals, the chief ecumenical officer of the United Methodist Church, Melvin Talbert, is being featured in a commercial sponsored by the National Council of Churches -- spreading the message that "Iraq hasn't wronged us," and that the war will "only create more terrorists."

See: http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001/20030129/201349789.htm&sc=1110

In a statement, Talbert criticized the Bush administration's plans to invade Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein, saying, "No nation under God has that right. It violates international law. It violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ."

Although, come to think of it, the pro-war camp would most likely paint Christ as silly, addle-brained peacenik, too.

[Martlet]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/World/iraq_poll030328.html

[blitz]

Originally posted by 10Bears
Congrats Vador, Marlet just called you illiterate.. that means those on the left won this argument by default.

BTW are all these people lefty commie liburals?

1) Norman Schwarzkopf

Yes, Stormin' Norman thinks the Bush administration may be rushing things a bit. "efore I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,'" he told the Washington Post, "I guess I would like to have better information." Unlike his former comrades in the Bush administration, he supports acting with "a bit of prudence" and letting the U.N. weapons inspectors do their jobs. "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive," he said. Though a conservative friend of the Bushes, he was also quite critical of Donald Rumsfeld. "Candidly, I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made," he said, adding, "He almost sometimes seems to be enjoying it," which, in Schwarzkopf's experience, "is a sensation to be avoided when engaged in war."

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52450-2003Jan27.html

2) Nobel Laureates in Science and Economics

Forty-one American Nobel laureates in science and economics, all of whom served as government advisors, issued a declaration opposing unilateral action against Iraq on the grounds that, even if it succeeded, such action would make America less safe in the long run. "The undersigned oppose a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support," the document reads. "Military operations against Iraq may indeed lead to a relatively swift victory in the short term. But war is characterized by surprise, human loss and unintended consequences. Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political and legal consequences of an American preventive attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world."

Some of these scientists worked in the Pentagon and on the atomic bomb and are certainly not representative of the traditional anti-war crowd.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/national/28NOBE.html

3) Other Military Experts

In addition to Norman Schwarzkopf, other high-profile military officers have voiced concerns."You don't have license to attack someone else's country just because you don't like the leadership," former National Security Advisor General Brent Scowcroft told the BBC and London Times, later saying that war might unleash "an Armageddon in the Middle East"

See: http://www.ciponline.org/iraq/experts.htm

General Anthony Zinni also scoffed at those who feel a war with Iraq might help stabilize the Middle East. "I don't know what planet they're on," he told the BBC. "Such a war would make the situation between Israel and the Palestinians much worse."

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2245632.stm

4) The World War II Generation

"Of all the generations studied by pollsters, these Americans -- now in their 70s, 80s and 90s -- are showing the most resistance to an invasion in Iraq in surveys of American opinion," the LA Times recently reported. Suspicious of the Bush administration's motives and leery of anything as un-American as preemptive military action, overwhelmingly, the Greatest Generation doesn't think this war's so great.

See: http://www.ppu.org.uk/iraq/whatgood.html

5) Veterans

Anti-war groups are springing up from within veteran's ranks. There are the "Vietnam Veterans Against the War," "Gulf War Veterans For Common Sense" and "Soldiers' for Truth" to name a few. Another group, "Veterans' Call to Conscience," recently issued a statement expressing their opposition to war with Iraq and urging soldiers to question their orders: "Now we see our REAL duty is to encourage you as members of the U.S. armed forces to find out what you are being sent to fight and die for and what the consequences of your actions will be for humanity," they warn. "If you choose to participate in the invasion of Iraq you will be part of an occupying army. Do you know what it is like to look into the eyes of a people that hate you to your core?"

See: http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/CtC/

6) The CIA

Not known for being leftist peaceniks, the CIA nevertheless issued one of the most compelling reasons for not launching an attack: "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." -- CIA October Threat Letter

See: http://www.ciponline.org/iraq/experts.htm

7) Richard Butler

Though certain Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, former chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler is nevertheless stunned by America's 'shocking double-standard' in dealing with Iraq. "The spectacle of the United States, armed with its weapons of mass destruction, acting without Security Council authority to invade a country in the heartland of Arabia and, if necessary, use its weapons of mass destruction to win that battle, is something that will so deeply violate any notion of fairness in this world that I strongly suspect it could set loose forces that we would deeply live to regret," he said.

See: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0128-02.htm

8) Bob Novak

Even Bob Novak, who is often a cheerleader for the Bush administration, questions the agenda behind this war. Critical of any pretext "for a decision that's already been made at high levels of the U.S. government to change the government in Iraq," he spelled out the Bush's administration's real reason for waging war. "They want a war as a manifestation of U.S. power in the world and as a sign that the United States is capable of changing the balance of power and the political map of the Middle East," he said on a recent Capital Gang. Revealing that a senior official had told him, "If we don't hit in Iraq, where are we going to hit?" Novak added, quite bluntly, that "it's a desire that the United States, the superpower, is going to manifest its authority to the rest of the world."

See: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/cg.00.html

9) Conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts

Arguing that the upcoming war on Iraq "is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history," Roberts describes the war's two primary supporters as being neoconservatives who want to impose America's 'exceptionalism' on the rest of the world and foreign policy advisers "who believe that the primary aim of U.S. foreign policy is to make the Middle East safe for Israel."

None of this involves America's national security, of course, and so, like many of us, he questions the dubious reasons we're given for waging war.

See: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20030129.shtml

10): Republican Businessmen

Conservative businessmen ran an ad in the Wall Street Journal entitled, 'A Republican Dissent on Iraq.' "Let's be clear," they stated in an open letter to President Bush and the American people. "We supported the Gulf War. We supported our intervention in Afghanistan. We accept the logic of a just war. But Mr. President, your war on Iraq does not pass the test. It is not a just war." The group pointed out that war should always be the last option and explained that the U.S. would create "a billion enemies," not security for our children. They also invoked the Revolutionary spirit that made this country great: "War with Iraq is not inevitable," they reminded. "Now is the time to stop it. Speak out at your place of worship, at your business, among your friends and relatives. Make your convictions known to your Mayor and Governor and -- above all -- to your elected leaders in Washington."

See: http://www.anitaroddick.com/weblog/weblogdetail.jsp?title=null&id=371

If those 10 examples don't convince warmongers opposition isn't stemming from a bunch of wild-eyed leftist radicals, the chief ecumenical officer of the United Methodist Church, Melvin Talbert, is being featured in a commercial sponsored by the National Council of Churches -- spreading the message that "Iraq hasn't wronged us," and that the war will "only create more terrorists."

See: http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001/20030129/201349789.htm&sc=1110

In a statement, Talbert criticized the Bush administration's plans to invade Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein, saying, "No nation under God has that right. It violates international law. It violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ."

Although, come to think of it, the pro-war camp would most likely paint Christ as silly, addle-brained peacenik, too.

10 Bears, please stop posting your mindless communist propaganda crap link-show immediately or i will get on the next Air France flight to NY and hit my shoe right in ya face, you Golly-geen anti-american, gay, Saddam prettythang-lickin school boy!!!!!  


(No regards this time) i hate you !!!!


Hitler never died, you moron, he escaped with U- 651 and tries to rebuild his evil regime in Bagdad now. We need to get him now because our military had some sparetime lately, can't you see that????

Wonder how many operations was nessasary to change his face, most likely he uses same doctor as "Cher".

Only important question left right now: Where is "Blondi", his "Schäferhund??? Tell ya what: Our CIA guys will find out soon!!!!

[hazed-]

this thread is so full of crap its bursting at the seams.

what an utter load of drivel!

why dont you guys just state your own views instead of trying to second guess 90% of the populations political leaning by asking if they want war or not.
If you advocate the war on Saddam it doesnt make you right wing just as if you would rather it didnt happen makes you a leftwing type.Come on people! its so much more complex than that , you all sound like school children, hell maybe you are?


heres my veiw irrespective of whether Im being fooled by propaganda or not.


I approve of Saddams removal, although i suspect the Iraqi people will be far LESS thankfull for it than we might imagine.
I DO NOT APPROVE OF ANY WARS. However I suspect that people like Saddam and Osama and the 1000's of others waiting to fill their shoes have to be constantly tackled in order to keep them from becoming powerfull enough to threaten our society as we know it.This unfortunately means action HAS to be taken.
I doubt Saddam had or has the power to mount any kind of threat other than the funding and arming of terrorist organisations who are prepared to even suicide themselves in attacking us.If we leave him in power he will most assuredly kill many many more civilians, fund/train/give haven to many terrorist organisations if it means he can hurt the US/Western economies etc.
So faced with the choice of #1 waiting to see what new diabolical terrorist plot Saddam will fund next OR #2 go in and kill the bastard
 I choose #2. Im from the UK and I have worries like the rest of the world over the power the US has but lets face it, those fundamentalists who attacked the US on sept11 began this.On that day they changed my whole veiw on the human race and damaged part of our collective human psyche.I do not want to see that happen again and I truelly believe we are acting in the interests of our families and countries safety. Im more appreciative now than ever before at the tollerance of a world power that, lets face it, if it was based on the fundamentalist ideals would have ruled the planet or destroyed it trying. Im thankfull the American people are the way they are.

If you denounce the war on Iraq, you must be at least prepared to accept responsibility for the 'next' sept 11th style attrocity.Do nothing now and they will CONTINUE to hate and attack us.If you believe we are causing hate by our actions and that if we did nothing the hate will stop then you live in a f*cking dream world.
excuse my language

As terrible as the war is I believe it necessary.I dont like saying it, I wish there was some other way, but there just isnt.
Now its started theres no going back.no half measure will suffice.
Remove Saddam, try to stabalise the region as best we can.Hopefully the next power in Iraq will be voted for in a democratic way and will not desire anything but the improvement of living conditions for their fellow countrymen.They have the financial wealth to be the most modern of civilisations on the planet yet they seem to be living in the stone age.Its about time the Arab leagues did something to improve the way they treat their own people.Dont look to the US as the causes of the terrible living conditions in most of those countries, look to the leaders of those countries sitting on their thrones like medievil kings of old.They dont give a crap for their own people and people who advocate no action expect these people to live in peace? Its time to start the change like it or not i say.

[lord dolf vader]

"If you denounce the war on Iraq, you must be at least prepared to accept responsibility for the 'next' sept 11th style attrocity.Do nothing now and they will CONTINUE to hate and attack us.If you believe we are causing hate by our actions and that if we did nothing the hate will stop then you live in a f*cking dream world.
excuse my language"

hazed

 
so after we take over the oil rich state we are gonna go after all the murdeous dictatioships in the world. ya know the ones without 6 trillion in oil reserves.


and the notion that if you are against the war on iriq on the idea that international vigilantiism is wrong. you say i must accept responsibility for he next attack of a soudi from afganastan?

it has been said befor ill say it again  - nonsequitor

 i refute, that you can say speaking for law and order is weakness. here in texas we used to lynch people when the law was to weak it was wrong and we are still paying for it. am i responsible for the actions of thos we have not lynched? on the idea that if we had killed them they would not have commited a crime. sorry that idea is a no go.


the world would have given permission but by the time it happend bush would have been a memory politicaly. that is one of the reasons why he attacked against the law. or blair was about to get sacked and the english would have pulled out. it was now or never for him to play chosen by god. ill have not truck with it and only bad will come of it.

to break established laws to get your way is childish and stupid this isnot a john wayne movie its life. if they think im gonna send my son on bushes "crusade" (his word not mine) they are mad. it will be war time on another front. and osama will be the least of their worrys.


tree of liberty and all.

[Moloch]

just bring peace to cuba and see the raging rutabagas!