[Zimphire]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...n-letter_x.htm

He talks out of both sides of his mouth it seems.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...n-letter_x.htm

He talks out of both sides of his mouth it seems.

There was genocide and ethnic cleansing being committed on an ongoing basis in the Balkans. It was rather a different situation to Iraq don't you think?

[Zimphire]

No, no, not really. Not at all. Would you like to take a death toll from each side?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Troll:
There was genocide and ethnic cleansing being committed on an ongoing basis in the Balkans. It was rather a different situation to Iraq don't you think?

Yeah, those people being fed into a meat grinder feet first deserved it...

[Lerkfish]

apparently the word "ongoing" is a stumblingblock to comprehension.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I love the signature. Howard Dean, MD.

He may be entitled, but it still sounds pompous. I notice he didn't address Clinton as The Honorable William J. Clinton, Esq.

[Logic]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Yeah, those people being fed into a meat grinder feet first deserved it...

What part of "ongoing" don't you understand? And who here said that they deserved it? Just to clear that up.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I love the signature. Howard Dean, MD.

He may be entitled, but it still sounds pompous. I notice he didn't address Clinton as The Honorable William J. Clinton, Esq.

He's a doctor, right? If so that is the way they usually sign documents with. It's a way to let other know what "level" of a doctor they are.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Logic:
He's a doctor, right? If so that is the way they usually sign documents with. It's a way to let other know what "level" of a doctor they are.

Yes, he is a medical doctor, just as Clinton is an attorney, hence the "Esq."

[davesimondotcom]

How recent does torture, murder and such have to be to be "ongoing" to you guys?

After all, the very man who pointed inspectors towards Saddam's nuclear program in the late 1990s was coaxed back into the country and killed...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
He's a doctor, right? If so that is the way they usually sign documents with. It's a way to let other know what "level" of a doctor they are.

He's entitled to use it, just as Clinton was entitled to use Esq, after his name (he lost that right after his disbarrment, but that was later). However, in the US, professionals generally do not use such titles except in professional documents relating to the practice of their profession. Using them in other circumstances is pretty pompous.

In any case, if you use your own honorific, you should also use the one of the person you are addressing.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
How recent does torture, murder and such have to be to be "ongoing" to you guys?

After all, the very man who pointed inspectors towards Saddam's nuclear program in the late 1990s was coaxed back into the country and killed...

it has to do with immediacy and justification for invasion.....but, like I said, its apparently a stumbling block.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Er, when did the torture in Iraq end? It seems to me that it ended when Iraq was liberated. Before then it was "ongoing."

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
it has to do with immediacy and justification for invasion.....but, like I said, its apparently a stumbling block.

I think it has more to do with the party affiliation of the President who led us into each conflict.

I see both as the right things to do at the time.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Er, when did the torture in Iraq end? It seems to me that it ended when Iraq was liberated. Before then it was "ongoing."

Another thread here seems to indicate that it hasn't stopped........

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
it has to do with immediacy and justification for invasion.....but, like I said, its apparently a stumbling block.

Watch it, Lerk! daves pulled a bait and switch on you. Serbia was mass murder, torture, and attempted genocide, all ongoing. Iraq, by comparison at the time, was writ small.

BlackGriffen

P.S. looking under my post editing window, it seems I'm too late.

[Troll]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
After all, the very man who pointed inspectors towards Saddam's nuclear program in the late 1990s was coaxed back into the country and killed...

Which man would that be? I think you may be missing the final chapter of that story.

You do realise what genocide and ethnic cleansing are don't you? Killing one scientist doesn't amount to either. Saddam did engage in both of these acts and as far as I know they fall into two major periods. First, the Iran war where Saddam was ruthless with the Kurds who he accused of assisting the Iranians. The Halabja massacre falls into that category although it appears that that incident may well have been a case of the village being on the wrong end of an Iranian shell aimed at Iraqi forces. Still, there definitely was genocide at this time. We don't need to remind you what the relationship between the US and Iraq was while this genocide was being committed. The second period follows the Sunni uprising which the Americans instigated and then stood by and watched as it was crushed. There wasn't any ethnic cleansing or genocide in Iraq since then unless you consider the UN sanctions an act of genocide (which many do).

Contrast to the Balkans where troops were going village to village lining civilians up and executing them. This was happening on a daily basis.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Er, when did the torture in Iraq end? It seems to me that it ended when Iraq was liberated. Before then it was "ongoing."

Please don't do this again. We are not talking about ongoing TORTURE!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I think it has more to do with the party affiliation of the President who led us into each conflict.

I see both as the right things to do at the time.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Please don't do this again. We are not talking about ongoing TORTURE!

I know you don't want to talk about ongoing torture. Nevertheless, it was ongoing.

[BlackGriffen]

Ok, enough of the bait and switch, Simey, you and your accomplice have already been caught an pointed out.

There's a big fat difference between ethnic cleansing, mass killings, et al and torture of enemies of the state. Both are despicable, but if you can't tell the difference between the magnitude, that's pathetic.

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

You guys can spin this all you want, but there is no mistaking the Democrat Mantra and his hypocrisy:

"Say no to war! Unless a Democrat is President!"

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I know you don't want to talk about ongoing torture. Nevertheless, it was ongoing.

Ah yes, the compulsory snide remark implying support for Saddam Hussein's abuses. I guess you had to slip that one in.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:


Ok, enough of the bait and switch, Simey, you and your accomplice have already been caught an pointed out.

There's a big fat difference between ethnic cleansing, mass killings, et al and torture of enemies of the state. Both are despicable, but if you can't tell the difference between the magnitude, that's pathetic.

BlackGriffen

Do me a favor - go to google, type:

Iraq "mass graves"

Then tell me there was not any ethnic cleansing, mass killings, et al.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Troll:
Ah yes, the compulsory snide remark implying support for Saddam Hussein's abuses. I guess you had to slip that one in.

why not? Simey's arsenal:

1. derail the thread, by introducing irrelevant issues and focusing on them.
2. label anyone he disagrees with by some pernicious label, as if that were an argument
3. intentionally misunderstand a person's point, claim it was some bizarre pernicious point they didn't make, and spend pages forcing them to reiterate their original point over and over and ignoring that while still attacking the point they didn't make.
4. Bore everyone to tears over semantic or rhetorical arguments over irrelevant minutae
5. but no matter what, make sure you accuse anyone you disagree with of absolutely unfounded hyperbole like "yeah, well, I bet you totally support genocide, then!"

all these tactics are chickensh!t ethically, but they do serve as effective weapons to prevent people from talking about things Simey is uncomfortable with.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Do me a favor - go to google, type:

Iraq "mass graves"

Then tell me there was not any ethnic cleansing, mass killings, et al.

How old are they? There are two operative phrases here: "ethnic cleansing/mass murder" and "ongoing."

When the mass graves are ten years old, that's ten years too late.

BlackGriffen

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You guys can spin this all you want, but there is no mistaking the Democrat Mantra and his hypocrisy:

"Say no to war! Unless a Democrat is President!"

Weren't the Republicans against the intervention in the Balkans and against an intervention to help the Sunnis? Does your hypocrisy gun only shoot democrats?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Ah yes, the compulsory snide remark implying support for Saddam Hussein's abuses. I guess you had to slip that one in.

No. I didn't say you were supporting the abuses. Just looking the other way when it suits you.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No. I didn't say you were supporting the abuses. Just looking the other way when it suits you.

QED

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Weren't the Republicans against the intervention in the Balkans and against an intervention to help the Sunnis? Does your hypocrisy gun only shoot democrats?

No. Most Republicans supported the interventions in the Balkans. For example, one of the main voices urging Clinton to act was Senator Bob Dole. Google it.

The failure to support the Shia uprising was a huge mistake. Everyone recognizes that.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No. Most Republicans supported the interventions in the Balkans. For example, one of the main voices urging Clinton to act was Senator Bob Dole. Google it.

The failure to support the Shia uprising was a huge mistake. Everyone recognizes that.

and who made that mistake?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
How old are they? There are two operative phrases here: "ethnic cleansing/mass murder" and "ongoing."

When the mass graves are ten years old, that's ten years too late.

Oh, so Saddam and his sons were REFORMED mass murderers/torturers/rapists?

Should something have been done in 1991? Yes, we shouldn't have stopped, we should have gone right through to Baghdad back then. We should have supported the Shiites.

But I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on mass murder, torture and ethnic cleansing (which, as a term, I find horrific.)

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No. I didn't say you were supporting the abuses. Just looking the other way when it suits you.

Gah ha ha! That was funny!

Let me translate that:
"No. I didn't say you were supporting the abuses. Just supporting them tacitly when it suits you."

BlackGriffen

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No. I didn't say you were supporting the abuses. Just looking the other way when it suits you.

Let's just get this straight. Do you support the US Army invading foreign countries to prevent torture on the scale it was happening in Iraq in 2002?

How bout the US Army invading foreign countries to prevent mass killings, genocide and ethnic cleansing?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Oh, so Saddam and his sons were REFORMED mass murderers/torturers/rapists?

Should something have been done in 1991? Yes, we shouldn't have stopped, we should have gone right through to Baghdad back then. We should have supported the Shiites.

But I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on mass murder, torture and ethnic cleansing (which, as a term, I find horrific.)

The point of stopping them as they're happening is that you can claim to have saved lives even given "collateral damage". Once they've stopped, then the "collateral damage" becomes extremely hard to justify, especially if you've been keeping that particular dictator under the gun over the years.

The moment the bastard tries something again, that is the moment you strike because that is the moment when you can use a simple calculus of lives to say, "Well, we probably came out ahead in the end."

Addressing the next inevitable point: the death rate under Saddam Hussein. How much of that was caused by the sanctions, and how much was caused by Saddam? Or can you not even sort that out?

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Let's just get this straight. Do you support the US Army invading foreign countries to prevent torture on the scale it was happening in Iraq in 2002?

How bout the US Army invading foreign countries to prevent mass killings, genocide and ethnic cleansing?

I supported the Iraq invasion, and also Bosnia and Kosovo. I supported sending troops into Bosnia even when I was an infantryman part of the division that had been earmarked to be the first in had the order been given (as it nearly was in 1993). Is that consistent enough for you?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I supported the Iraq invasion, and also Bosnia and Kosovo. I supported sending troops into Bosnia even when I was an infantryman part of the division that had been earmarked to be the first in had the order been given (as it nearly was in 1993). Is that consistent enough for you?

Extremely consistent. Once again, you didn't address the question!

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No. Most Republicans supported the interventions in the Balkans. For example, one of the main voices urging Clinton to act was Senator Bob Dole. Google it.

You might not want to tell him to Google it. Then he might find out that Congressional Republicans voted against the war, even after it was ongoing.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
When the mass graves are ten years old, that's ten years too late.

BlackGriffen

I agree, Clinton should have finished what Bush Sr started.

Too late for those people.

But non-the less it was on going.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
Weren't the Republicans against the intervention in the Balkans and against an intervention to help the Sunnis? Does your hypocrisy gun only shoot democrats?

Not that I know of. I was all for it. I know most Repubs were too.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You might not want to tell him to Google it. Then he might find out that Congressional Republicans voted against the war, even after it was ongoing.

Some did -- especially over Kosovo. Not so much in the case of Bosnia.

But most Republicans supported both, as I did.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Extremely consistent. Once again, you didn't address the question!

Er, yes I did. I did support the US government (not just the Army) when it did the things you said. We stopped the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. We stopped it in Kosovo, and I supported it both times, even when it was my ass on the line.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
why not? Simey's arsenal:

1. derail the thread, by introducing irrelevant issues and focusing on them.
2. label anyone he disagrees with by some pernicious label, as if that were an argument
3. intentionally misunderstand a person's point, claim it was some bizarre pernicious point they didn't make, and spend pages forcing them to reiterate their original point over and over and ignoring that while still attacking the point they didn't make.
4. Bore everyone to tears over semantic or rhetorical arguments over irrelevant minutae
5. but no matter what, make sure you accuse anyone you disagree with of absolutely unfounded hyperbole like "yeah, well, I bet you totally support genocide, then!"

all these tactics are chickensh!t ethically, but they do serve as effective weapons to prevent people from talking about things Simey is uncomfortable with.

my apologies. I've been ordered by Demonhood to stop attacking Simey.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and who made that mistake?

George H.W. Bush, backed/lobbied by General Powell.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
George H.W. Bush, backed/lobbied by General Powell.

Don't forget Brent Scowcroft.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Er, yes I did. I did support the US government (not just the Army) when it did the things you said. We stopped the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. We stopped it in Kosovo, and I supported it both times, even when it was my ass on the line.

No you didn't! The question was:

"Do you support the US Army invading foreign countries to prevent torture on the scale it was happening in Iraq in 2002?" not did you support the US Government's involvement in interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia. A positive answer to my question was the implication of your trying to make the ongoing torture of Iraqis relevant to this debate.

Kosovo in 1999 was a very different kind of place to Iraq in 2002. Surely we can all agree on that?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
No you didn't! The question was:

"Do you support the US Army invading foreign countries to prevent torture on the scale it was happening in Iraq in 2002?" not did you support the US Government's involvement in interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia. A positive answer to my question was the implication of your trying to make the ongoing torture of Iraqis relevant to this debate.

Kosovo in 1999 was a very different kind of place to Iraq in 2002. Surely we can all agree on that?

I said I supported the invasion of Iraq. Partly, it was on the basis of the human rights abuses in that state. I thought you already knew that.

I also supported the intervention into Bosnia, and into Kosovo, which, in my view, were comparable to the level of atrocities being committed in Iraq. I don't distinguish between torture committed by roving gangs of thugs (as in Kosovo and Bosnia) with the more refined techniques of the secret police rounding people up and torturing and executing them in secret as extensively and continually practiced in Iraq. The latter is not any less horrible.

Your question, by the way, was very badly written. Full of unstated assumptions that you should really spell out. Don't ask someone to answer a question if it isn't even clear what you are asking.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Some did -- especially over Kosovo. Not so much in the case of Bosnia.

But most Republicans supported both, as I did.

Not some, the vast majority. Republicans were able to defeat the resolution to support the ongoing air war there.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your question, by the way, was very badly written. Full of unstated assumptions that you should really spell out. Don't ask someone to answer a question if it isn't even clear what you are asking.

Please identify the assumptions in this question:

"Do you support the US Army invading foreign countries to prevent torture on the scale it was happening in Iraq in 2002?"

Edit: I see one - that torture was happening in Iraq in 2002.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Not some, the vast majority. Republicans were able to defeat the resolution to support the ongoing air war there.

I don't recall that, or the vote. However, I often disagreed with house republicans. A lot of them were as mindlessly partisan about Clinton as many Democrats seem to be about Bush. Tom DeLay springs to mind. House Republicans are not all Republicans and I would contrast that with Dole's record as Senate Majority leader with respect to Bosnia.

However, one thing that legitimately annoyed Congress when Clinton went to war in Kosovo was that Clinton went to war without even consulting with Congress. Presidents of both parties have done that, but it always ticks Congress off because, as you know, it is supposed to be Congress that declares war, not the president. That's supposed to come before the bombs start dropping, not afterwards, as Clinton tried to do.

However, I still thought that Clinton was right on the merits, even if he was an oaf on the procedure.