OT: Eating Crow....

Endlessly debating the issue

See above

See above

See above

My home page:

formatting link

" In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

Reply to
Bill Woodier
Loading thread data ...

You're married to Morgan Fairchild, right?

Kim M

Reply to
Royabulgaf

No, you challenged it. Kim M

Reply to
Royabulgaf

Kuwait was spoils of war also, instigated by Kuwait stealing Iraqi oil. But of course the Emir of Kuwait, that great democracy, was a business partner of the Bush family.> Not likely since Isreal is our sole democratic ally in the Middle

Democracies do not conquer territory and keep people under occupation as stateless nonentities for 37 years. Iraq is a democratic ally? Who elected the current Iraqi government? Kim M

Reply to
Royabulgaf

The thread covered the "possible" sale of non-existant WMDs to rogue nations. Pakistan certainly did this. And if you are so anxious to support this UN resolution, this brings us back to the UN resolutions concerning Gaza and the West Bank. You can't have it both ways Al. Kim M

Reply to
Royabulgaf

Remember, this is a regime that considers the teacher's union terrorists, with an Attorney General that thinks calico cats are witch's familiars. To the Shrubbies, "terrorism" pretty much covers anyone who doesn't think, vote, pray, and screw the way they do.

Bush-Cheney in 2004. The last vote you'll ever need to cast. Kim M

Reply to
Royabulgaf

And that's the best case scenario....

There is a reason Hussein was such a murderous prick. Those people are f---ing nuts! Kim M

Reply to
Royabulgaf
Reply to
Digital Cowboy

"Mark Schynert" wrote

That's not what I think, that's what the US Government has thought since

1949. It has been well documented, if not outright admitted, that the Clinton administration specifically avoided using the word "genocide" in any public utterance as well as denying that it was occurring in order to avoid any obligations for us to stop it.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:gd2cCmnOAg0J:

formatting link
formatting link
And from
formatting link
"A few years [after the Rwandan genocide], in a series in The New Yorker, Philip Gourevitch recounted in horrific detail the story of the genocide and the world's failure to stop it. President Bill Clinton, a famously avid reader, expressed shock. He sent copies of Gourevitch's articles to his second-term national-security adviser, Sandy Berger. The articles bore confused, angry, searching queries in the margins. "Is what he's saying true?" Clinton wrote with a thick black felt-tip pen beside heavily underlined paragraphs. "How did this happen?" he asked, adding, "I want to get to the bottom of this." The President's urgency and outrage were oddly timed. As the terror in Rwanda had unfolded, Clinton had shown virtually no interest in stopping the genocide, and his Administration had stood by as the death toll rose into the hundreds of thousands.

". . . Thanks to the National Security Archive

formatting link
a nonprofit organization that uses the Freedom of Information Act to secure the release of classified U.S. documents, this account also draws on hundreds of pages of newly available government records. This material provides a clearer picture than was previously possible of the interplay among people, motives, and events. It reveals that the U.S. government knew enough about the genocide early on to save lives, but passed up countless opportunities to intervene.

"In March of 1998, on a visit to Rwanda, President Clinton issued what would later be known as the "Clinton apology," which was actually a carefully hedged acknowledgment. He spoke to the crowd assembled on the tarmac at Kigali Airport: "We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred" in Rwanda.

"This implied that the United States had done a good deal but not quite enough. In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective."

". . . The story of U.S. policy during the genocide in Rwanda is not a story of willful complicity with evil. U.S. officials did not sit around and conspire to allow genocide to happen. But whatever their convictions about "never again," many of them did sit around, and they most certainly did allow genocide to happen."

I don't mention this to make a claim that the US should or shouldn't have intervened in Rwanda. I mention it only to refute the idiotic chant "When Clinton lied, nobody died". People most certainly did die as the result of his prevarications, but their deaths didn't matter to him because they would not affect his political goals while the deaths of US soldiers might. Perhaps these nitwits could change their chant to something more correct: "When Clinton lied, only nobodies died."

KL

Reply to
Kurt Laughlin

"When Clinton lied, no white folks died?"

Just saying.

Reply to
Joe Jefferson

"Joe Jefferson" wrote

Well, that's why I mentioned the Bosnians. Even a former KKK kleagle like Sen. Robert Byrd would have to admit that - despite being muslims - Bosnians are, at least nominally, "white".

KL

Reply to
Kurt Laughlin

Well said.

Continental Europeans in general seem to have become adverse to armed conflict, even when it's patently necessary. That's not meant as a moral judgemet - given their history it's understandable if regretable.

Reply to
Al Superczynski

If you can't accept facts that's your problem, not mine. Lots of people died at the hands of al Qaeda on Clinton's watch.

Reply to
Al Superczynski

Kuwait didn't attack Iraq, remember? It was the other way around. And Kuwait didn't seek to destroy another country as a matter of national policy.

Which state were they citizens of before 1967? Seems to me those territories were controlled by Jordan before then...

Obviously not yet but at least the Iraqi people have a choice now.

Who elected Saddam?

Reply to
Al Superczynski

Sure I can. I don't give a flip about the UN except that I wish it would go away. It's you guys on the left that want to subjugate US foreign policy to the UN.....

Reply to
Al Superczynski

Not true not true at all !!

Didnt Clinton say that troops would be in the Balkans for ONLY 1 year ???? Hmmm there still there NOW !!!!

"Only a Gentleman can insult me, and a true Gentleman never will..."

Reply to
Azzz1588

Royabulgaf wrote:

f---ing nuts! Kim M

Kim has hit the nail on the head with that last line. Only someone like Hussein could hold that house of cards together. Essentially Iraq was an empire with Sunni Muslim Arabs dominating Shiite Muslim Arabs, Kurds and I believe some Armenians and a couple of other small minorities. "Iraq" was never a state or nation in the Webster's Dictionary sense of the word. It was a political creation of the victorious European powers cobbled together after W.W.I to serve their basic colonialist policies. Same is true for that sorry racial house of cards called Yugoslavia. And Rwanda for that matter. All are states cobbled together encompassing racially diverse groups with long standing antagonisms that were sure to explode when some political or economic pressures were applied. They were the creations of the Colonialist era and I see no reason why American soldiers should have to go die to try to hold them together. We were avoiding that Yugoslav mess until Silly Willy realized he needed something to take the American People's minds off the fact he couldn't keep his zipper shut in the oval office and suddenly we were involved. Yugoslavia only held together under dictator Josef Broz (Marshal Tito) and Rwanda was sure to melt down once the European powers troops left. Keeping us out of Rwanda was probably one of the few good things Silly Willy did. You think we are losing troops in Iraq? Whaddiya think would happen in Africa with it's huge population and large areas of jungle to hide in. Policing that would be a nightmare and for what? So the old European Colonial powers could see their economic interests continue to function? The modern map of Africa is simply a hodge podge of old colonies with borders drawn to outline colonial economic areas of influence, and was drawn with absolutely no input from the local populations or consideration for tribal and ethnic divisions. There is another "Ethnic Cleansing" going on in the Sudan as we debate this, with the Arabic North in the process of driving out the Black African Southern population. The only way that there will ever be even a chance for some peace and stability in the African Continent would be for the major powers to force everyone to get together, probably under the cover of the U.N. and literally re-draw the map of Africa with new states taking into consideration the tribal and ethnic boundaries. Trying to keep these old constructs of Colonialism together by brute force will only ensure an ongoing state of ethnic conflict and just how long are you expecting the American people to continue to spend blood and treasure to wipe everyone's noses around the world?? Yugoslavia is already essentially de constructed. So much blood has flowed there that no sane person would ever try to put it back together. Only thing remaining is for the U.N. to finally recognize Bosnia-Hertzegovina and Macedonia as new states and work out some arrangement for the Albanians in Kosovo to run their own affairs.

Bill Shuey Retired D.o.D.

Reply to
William H. Shuey
. .

America didnt want to go to the UN being adamant that the second UN Resolution if you recall, was not needed. Going to the UN was a condition of UK support

Each country has its own national interests. When two countries Nation Interests are similar, they become allies, rest of the time they pursue their own interests.

Why should he choose sides?

Their position is similar to the UKs. The transfer of sovereingity on June

30th. Not some or conditional, but full. There is though a stumbling block with the US over who will command of the troops in Iraq. The Iraqi governing body was placed in that position by the US, any complaints take it to State Department.
Reply to
David Amos

No. Why would I want to do that? My wife's much better looking than Morgan Fairchild ever was.

My home page:

formatting link

" In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

Reply to
Bill Woodier

Cooo. What stitherum that was.

Two points

  1. Messopotamia (Iraq) did exist pre WW1.
  2. The break up of the old Empires of Germany, Austria and Turkey was demmanded by Woodrow Wilson (he also wanted the empires of France and Britain dismantling as well but was politely told to get a job with sex and travel)

Reply to
David Amos

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.