archive.stlimc.org : http://archive.stlimc.org
archive.stlimc.org

Re: Re: Re: Re: Boeing ad shows bombed mosques

the wsj op-ed page is not an objective source for information, plus op-ed's don't have to be factual at all. they're only someone's opinion. and the raphael piece predates the actual investigations. obviously you didn't spend any time looking at the links i supplied which discredited these very charges. i understand why there is the need for such resistance to/ignorance of factual data and logical conclusions about this matter. but that has nothing to do w/ reality.

Blaming Saddam and his business partners is hardly racist.

the original comment was:

It was the UN complicit with Saddam that was responsible for the deaths of HIS civilians.

so what is the context of "HIS civilians", or "HIS people" then? how is it possible that m. albright could state on television that the price of half a million iraqi children under 5 years of age was "worth it" if there were not the underlying belief that these iraqis are inherently inferior to and worth less? do you think that 500,000 wasp children could be offered for sacrifice on the alter of security posturing w/o all hell breaking loose? it is racist discourse to toss about epithets like "raghead" and the like.

the only thing suprising about your comments, is that for some reason you didn't blame Israel([search]), or the "zionists" for the tragedy caused by Saddam and his business partners

that's a really weak reach for a red herring to wiggle out of an uncomfortable position you've cast yourself into. it says a lot about you.

the '91 invasion of iraq was an illegal aggression that started a war which has continued up to the present. the sanctions were one front, economic warfare, amidst continued bombings, including the hundred hour desert fox attack. you say that "HIS people" suffered b/c of his doing yet you ignore the obvious. take, for instance, the shia uprising, egged of by ghw after "stormin' norman" was stopped from advancing into baghdad in the first invasion. this was probably the second most agregious act against the people of iraq that saddam ever committed. his heli's just massacred untold numbers of rebels who had been led to believe that the united states wanted them to topple saddam as part of the war. and what did the united states do during this attrocity? supported saddam. as scowcroft and ghw reasoned, it would be a threat to stability if saddam was actually taken out. so they provided some support, monitored the slaughters, and sacrificed the shia, just like the kurds once or twice before. just like the united states supported saddam during the periods where "he gassed his own people." or when he was working w/ the cia in the coups. or after he took over the presidency & the wh was just so happy about his "anti-communist" position when he wiped out not just communists, but labor leaders, intellectuals, fundamentalists, etc... yep, blame saddam. funny how that works.
 

Account Login

Media Centers

Quote-of-the-Moment

An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war.
-- Mark Twain
Source: "Glances at History" (suppressed)
 

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software