Apparently.......

[Phil the anorak]

Saddam's capture is bad news for liberals.

http://www.newsfilter.org/forum/show...&threadid=9114

[The One and Only...]

Why haven't I-Mock and Newsfilter formed a single board yet?

[derrida]

KARL MARX CAPTURED!

[derrida]

Oops, I meant Jerry Garcia.

Truly a sad day for liberals.

[mburbank]

Do you need to read further than the first sentence?

"The guy that liberals think should still be in power was captured early this morning:"

Third rate Sophistry. Find me any liberal who agrees with that statement. To say that being against the war means you actively favor Sadam being in power is like saying that being for the war means you actively wanted our soldiers to die.

I don't think there are any pro Sadaam liberals. I think there are lots of people who feel that removing Sadaam from Power was in no way a justification for the lies. loss of life, and change in who we are as a nation (I.E. a move to active military preemption).

[Phil the anorak]

No you don't.
I thought I'd pop in there just to see what bollox was posted with yestedays news and that was the top story/article and is utter bollox.

I asked why it was bad news for liberals and surprise surprise there was none forthcoming.

Got myself banned 3 times there yesterday. I'm soooooo proud!

[ranxer]

banned for asking questions? lol
sounds like right wing radio call ins.

this liberal bashing tool is a practice of the A or B only reasoning theory

the right wing nuts that scream at me almost always stick with the two answer question..

they scream "there IS NO middle.. either your for saddam or your against him!!" here i try to say 'but, what about..' .. "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! Get out of the Country you comie terrorist loving bastards!!" that's when i just raise up my sign for them to read since they can't listen.

i love how some of them yell 'commie'.. dating thier demonization training back to the cold war propoganda.. really cracks me up. yea street protesting can be fun

oh and the right wingers that don't stick to the A. or B. only reasoning, arent usually screaming.. yes, there are a few that can actually have a conversation.

[Emu]

It's fun to talk to those people who still think the USSR never broke up.

[The One and Only...]

I answered your question about why this is bad news for liberals.

They won't win the election.

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by mburbank

I don't think there are any pro Sadaam liberals. I think there are lots of people who feel that removing Sadaam from Power was in no way a justification for the lies.

What would justify removing Saddam from power? Mass graves? Genocide against Kurds? Invasion of other countries? Hanging Jews in the town square? Openly funding hate crimes? Crimes against humanity while torturing hundreds of thousands of his own people? I'm just wondering.

Wouldn't the Worker World Party constitute liberals who are pro-Saddam? They exist.

[CastroMotorOil]

I'm just happy they caught the bastard, at least now the world is a better place after this fiasco, hopefully a stable and democratic ally in the middle east, and all of the people in that country may be able to live without fear of their own government. I fell thats enough justification for the war in my book.

[Big Papa Goat]

I don't know much about American history, but did you invade Cambodia when Pol Pot was in charge? Are you bombing Chinese forces in Tibet to get them out of there? I don't know if I recall much action taken to stop the genocide in Rwanda a few years back, although I of course could be wrong. Despite their gross mistreatment of women, the states still support the undemocratic regime in Saudi Arabia, although I suppose their not as bad as Iraq.
Anyway, my point is that you don't really consistently enforce human rights around the world, so maybe you should consider the possibility that there were other reasons behind this paticular war.

[CastroMotorOil]

I'm sure there were other reasons, motivated by ecomomics, greed, and stupidity. All im saying is that at least this exercise in greed had a positive outcome, bewing the removal of Saddam from power and hopefully increasing peace in the region eventually.

[Abcdxxxx]

Goat - Maybe all those things you mention should have been prevented? Or at least looked at a little bit closer...like say, maybe a quarter of the attention the palestinian conflict gets. It's no secret why we have so much interest in the Middle East, and the motives are pretty sneaky, and double standard-ish. With that all said, I don't recall people making snide cryptic remarks about taking Milosevic. I don't know why we shouldn't try and do something to change Rwanda for example. I mean, if we put a leader in power who is bad news, then isn't it our responsibility to remove him? The whole idea that we're playing police officer of the world kinda stops short when we remember how intertwined we were with Saddam's rise to power. This particular dictatorship is more our business then ...well Milosevic.

[mburbank]

I don't know any workers world party members. I have no idea if they were actively pro-sadaam or not. If they were, they are certainly not liberal, since dictatorship is not a liberal virtue. Get wiith the program. The Red Scare is over. We've moved on to the terrorist scare. You can see it in the very Bush add about people attacking W for attacking terrorists.

Here's something I think might have justified War with Iraq. Actual Weapons of Mass Destruction he actually had and was actually ready to use.

I'm curious, what is the exact scale of monstrosity you're using to gauge which countries we should invade on purely humanitarian grounds? I agree that Sadaam was a monster. Africa is full of Monsters. So is North Korea. Saudi Arabia is fairly nasty as are Syria and Iran. If I thought for an instant that the overthrow of the Baath party in Iraq had more to do with democracy, freedom and humn rights and less to do with arrogance, muscle flexing and domination, I might even be for it.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

Goat - Maybe all those things you mention should have been prevented? Or at least looked at a little bit closer...like say, maybe a quarter of the attention the palestinian conflict gets. It's no secret why we have so much interest in the Middle East, and the motives are pretty sneaky, and double standard-ish. With that all said, I don't recall people making snide cryptic remarks about taking Milosevic. I don't know why we shouldn't try and do something to change Rwanda for example. I mean, if we put a leader in power who is bad news, then isn't it our responsibility to remove him? The whole idea that we're playing police officer of the world kinda stops short when we remember how intertwined we were with Saddam's rise to power. This particular dictatorship is more our business then ...well Milosevic.

While I agree that we do create our own problems (Failing to clean up our messes in our earlier support of both Iraq against Iran AND Afghanistan against the, then, USSR), I hardly think that guilt is a strong enough motivation for our current actions and that you only seem to be making Papa Goat's financial angle stronger. The jury's still out for me on this one because there are too many factors involved but somehow guilt doesn't ring true for me. Time will tell, I guess.

[Big Papa Goat]

I didn't really say anything about financial angles. :/

[Abcdxxxx]

Hey some of us are motivated by guilt... but I'm talking about responsibility. It really is to early to tell what's what, but on the surface, I think removing Sadddam is an amazing thing. Assuming we don't put a bigger butcher in charge. Some Baathists are actually getting promotions back into the new government... so we'll see.

Burbank - I don't think we should be going in and removing every dictator in power. Leave Cuba alone as long as he's not about to shoot missiles at us. The other nations you mentioned wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for our assistance in the first place. To turn a blind eye, and pretend it's now the worlds problem, and not our own, when we created it, is wrong. It's the double standard of wanting to put blame on us for making the problem, and then also wanting to put blame to trying to alleviate the problem. How mature. See, you think we put in a puppet government, and the US is evil for it, but then we took him out so we can have control over the oil, and the US is evil for it....and even if there's truth to that, it just means the US played a game and always had control, or the ability to take back control over that oil anyway.... and I'm sitting here saying, a lot more people should be concerned with the innocent victims of brutality....the death toll from the war is still piling up, but it's far from the number they found in mass graves, or the projected numbers had we left him in power. What would have been a better answer? Turning a blind eye? Saying it's not our problem? Too bad you can't suggest some UN sanctions would do the trick.

So the only liberals who exist in your minds definition are the ones who don't support Saddam? That's like me saying the only true patriotic Americans that exist are the ones who agree with me. It's dumb to hold up your ignorance as proof over some mindsets existance or not.

[Zhukov]

Fidel is not a dictator.

I would hope that most people would still be against war even if saddam did have WMDs.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

I didn't really say anything about financial angles. :/

Whoops! Maybe that was my subconscious thoughts coming to the surface. You did seem to have alluded to the fact that the U.S. efforts in occupying Iraq seem to have some ulterior motive other than altruism. I threw guilt and, possibly, responsibility as a motive but then why would you give Saddam chances from the Reagan era up until now to decide to remove him? Giving him enough rope, perhaps? That aside, if they did take action due to a sense of altruism as the they now claim (since they couldn't find the WMDs that they originally sold the action on in the first place), then why not help a host of other countries with similiar human rights violations going on? After sifting out altruism and guilt as motives, I'm hard pressed to find a more feasible ulterior motive other than than financial gain. I'm not saying I'm right at this point but I'm finding it harder and harder to find faith in a government whose lies seem to be uncovered or creatively altered on a weekly basis.