Rumsfeld: Saddam may have destroyed WMDs

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Evil is a buzzword invented by spinmasters to denegrate their opponents and promote their way as ""good."" America is evil. Bin Ladin is evil. Jacques Chireac is evil. Don Rumsfeld is evil. Natalie Maines is evil. The term is bandied about so much these days that it has lost all meaning.

And I''m getting sick and tired of the right saying that if you do not support an illegitimate, illegal, and ill-conceived attack against a 5th world army with NO PROVEN LINKS TO 9-11 and NO FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, we are automatically weak and spineless. Where''s the right taking a stand against the genocide in the Congo? Oh, that''s right, the French want to do the right thing there and now the US wants to punish them by stonewalling any attempt to send peacekeepers to stop the massacres. So, now the people of the Congo will suffer while the US squabbles with the French in the UN. A very mature and enlightened approach, don''t you think?

"Yomm" wrote:

Hitler, offered them a better way of life through moral supremecy over others only for THEIR OWN SAKE. We haven''t done anysuch thing. The US''s point (whether you agree or not) is one of maintaining peace, not only for US (though of course, we would be foolish not to make that a priority) but for the world at large.

Circular argument. You''re saying that the Administration isn''t in it for themselves because they''re not in it for themselves. He''s arguing that they used 9/11 as a pretext to gain power for themselves. You simply said ""they couldnt cause theyre not in it for themselves"", which like I said, is a circular argument. IMO, no matter what politician we''re talking about, if you think they''re not in it for themselves you''re at best naive.

I also like how you shifted the argument from ""Bush"" to ""US"" without skipping a beat. We don''t all agree with him.

Hitler''s solution was the murder of millions b/c they lacked the german sense of humanity. The US''s solution is to overthrow an evil dictator in hopes to promote a better life for those people. Hitler intended to shape the world in his vision. The US wants others to shape their own vision so long as it includes peace and prosperity for themselves! Not for the US, but themselves.

Again, you''re not making a rational argument. The Administration isn''t in it for themselves because they''re out to promote a better life for the people of Iraq, because they''re not in it for themselves. They never said they were doing this for humanitarian reasons, they were doing it to protect the US against a percieved threat, which now looks to be fabricated. I know you and Ulairi think the war is justified on a humanitarian front, and that''s fine. However, they administration is making no such claims, so it''s not the ""US"" solution, but your own.

Hitler''s foreign aid came in the form of death camps. The US spends billions each year to feed, clothe, and heal others. In return, sure, the US asks not to bite the hand that feeds, thats just common sense. No other country in the world is as supportive of foreign soil as we are.

Very true, and I don''t think anyone will argue this. However, neither did Rat Boy. His comparison to Hitler was to Bush, not the US. And even then, it was to the power grab after 9/11, not the death camps. As bad as it is to keep someone locked up without trial, nobody can compare it to the Holocaust. And nobody tried to, at least here.

To even try to make a comparison between an evil dictator and an elected offical of a political free society (or policy) is ignorant and insulting.

Then you get insulted pretty easily. He didn''t say the man is a Jew burner, simply that the way he came to power was analogous to the way Hitler came to power. I''ll admit, the way Bush has handled the power is nowhere near the atrocious way Hitler handled it.

Germany began one of the cruelest moments in history to better themselves only. The US is trying to make the world as a whole, a better place to live. Thank God someone is making a stand against this sort of evil, seems if ya''ll had your way, you''d just wait for the next few million murders before deciding to take action. Hitler deserves to rot in hell for what he did, I don''t think anyone in their right mind would say Saddam doesn''t deserve the same, and I''m proud as hell to be able to say my own blood (family), and blood of my countrymen were there to do it.

Again, we were arguing against Bush, or as I like to call it, the Administration, since it''s more than just Bush, but it''s far from the entire US.
Let me say this one more time, nobody is arguing that killing Saddam was bad. Nobody. You keep arguing with phantoms. I don''t know where you get this stuff, but nobody in this thread suggested that Saddam should have been left alone indefinately. That''s not even what this thread is about. This thread is about whether or not the Administration lied to us. Will you still be as proud of your countrymen if they were lied to and there was no threat at all? They simply died because someone in the Administration wanted them to? I will be, a soldier that will die for his country, even without proof, is something to be proud of. I''ll want the head of the bastards that ordered them to die, as well.

I''m f*cking tired of being a day late, and dollar short as this sort of evil runs rampant over our world. Yeah, let''s also work on changing the culture of hate, but lets not forget those that are beyond changing, and get rid of them before they take out multitudes of innocents.

As I said earlier, you can''t simply blow people up and expect to destroy thier culture. Yes, people will need to be shot, but we can''t shoot everyone, we need proof to determine who to kill. And, as we come back to the point of this thread, there was no proof. Weve only got so many bullets, we can''t waste them on people who were no threat to begin with. So how do you think killing Saddam has made us safer? There has never been any link proven between him and AlQuaeda, he had no WMDs, where was the threat? Threat to his own people, yeah, but to the US?

Hmmm, I just can''t get behind the Hitler thing. I''m no fan of Bush, but it''s just not analogous to me. In fact, I think the analogies to World War on both sides of the argument are pretty faulty. 9/11, for example, was not anything like Pearl Harobr. The conflicts we are experiencing today are often not organized under national banners, and when they are they aren''t organized by world powers with considerable resources and military. I mean, let''s be honest for a second. Iraq, as a military force has never threatened the United States.

For as frustrated as I am with the current political situation in the US, and I think it''s clear that I am frustrated, it just doesn''t strike me as Nazi-esque.

Thank God someone is making a stand against this sort of evil, seems if ya''ll had your way, you''d just wait for the next few million murders before deciding to take action.

With that said, this was party-line rhetoric. First, I agree with what was previously stated, that by not mindlessly agreeing with Bush''s policies on Iraq and the Middle East we are not somehow peacenik sheep unwilling to lift a finger to even save our own grandmothers from the ravenous bug-blattered beast of Traal! Ah, did you see that. I attempted a moment of levity. Something in dire need around here the past day or so.

Seriously though, Bush doesn''t have all the answers. I don''t think he''s got many of the answers, personally, but just because we don''t agree with your plan doesn''t mean we don''t want to stop death. In fact, many of our arguments have been that the actions we are taking will cause more, not less deaths. So, if for example, our interventions lead to further destabilization, a rash of new terrorist activity in a variety of places, sparks furhter wars both including and excluding the US, and leads to the deaths of vast number of civilians and people forced into military service by dictatorial regime (we somehow assume that everyone fighting in the Iraqi military had a choice), then precisely how have we gone about saving lives? No, at that point the best we''ve done is get our military rocks off.

If it makes you feel better, Elysium, Hitler wasn''t the first nor last world leader to use his people''s fears and frustrations as a tool for power.

Oh, I absolutely agree. But it really isn''t his defining characteristic. It really isn''t even all that uncommon.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Evil is a buzzword invented by spinmasters to denegrate their opponents and promote their way as ""good."" America is evil. Bin Ladin is evil. Jacques Chireac is evil. Don Rumsfeld is evil. Natalie Maines is evil. The term is bandied about so much these days that it has lost all meaning.

And I''m getting sick and tired of the right saying that if you do not support an illegitimate, illegal, and ill-conceived attack against a 5th world army with NO PROVEN LINKS TO 9-11 and NO FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, we are automatically weak and spineless. Where''s the right taking a stand against the genocide in the Congo? Oh, that''s right, the French want to do the right thing there and now the US wants to punish them by stonewalling any attempt to send peacekeepers to stop the massacres. So, now the people of the Congo will suffer while the US squabbles with the French in the UN. A very mature and enlightened approach, don''t you think?

God I hate to paraphase Jesse Helms (whom I''ve always despised, mind you) but: ""I can''t define evil, I just know it when I see it.""

Killing massive innocents is evil. Yes, the US should take a stance in the Congo, but the sh*t we''re getting worldwide for Iraq is hardly going to be very helpful in telling the world we want to rid evil elsewhere.

By your own words, I agree the US should ignore world sentiment and focus on eliminating the evil (those that kill and prevent basic political and economic freedoms for their people) that exists. The UN (as you pointed out) is making things worse there. F the UN and F world opinion. The US *should* take the lead to wipe out oppression everywhere in the world. I would love nothing more then Bush to state that we are going to take action against a harmful dictator that posses zero threat to the US, I want him to make a stand for freedom, and issue a threat to those who would deny it, that their days are numbered.

""Pyroman[FO wrote:

] They never said they were doing this for humanitarian reasons, they were doing it to protect the US against a percieved threat, which now looks to be fabricated. I know you and Ulairi think the war is justified on a humanitarian front, and that''s fine. However, they administration is making no such claims, so it''s not the ""US"" solution, but your own.
==========================================
Actually, if you remember the adminstration backed off the WMD threat and did stress the humanitarian aspect quite strongly. Frankly, the US''s reasons behind the attack don''t concern me as much. We went after an obivous madman and, though doing a piss poor attempt at making things better for Iraq as of now, I have to believe that life will be better for them soon.
==========================================

To even try to make a comparison between an evil dictator and an elected offical of a political free society (or policy) is ignorant and insulting.

Then you get insulted pretty easily. He didn''t say the man is a Jew burner, simply that the way he came to power was analogous to the way Hitler came to power. I''ll admit, the way Bush has handled the power is nowhere near the atrocious way Hitler handled it.
===========================================
Again, Bush didn''t start making war plans until *after* the US was attacked. And btw, don''t you think ""Jew burner"" is a bit over the top?
===========================================

Germany began one of the cruelest moments in history to better themselves only. The US is trying to make the world as a whole, a better place to live. Thank God someone is making a stand against this sort of evil, seems if ya''ll had your way, you''d just wait for the next few million murders before deciding to take action. Hitler deserves to rot in hell for what he did, I don''t think anyone in their right mind would say Saddam doesn''t deserve the same, and I''m proud as hell to be able to say my own blood (family), and blood of my countrymen were there to do it.

Again, we were arguing against Bush, or as I like to call it, the Administration, since it''s more than just Bush, but it''s far from the entire US.
Let me say this one more time, nobody is arguing that killing Saddam was bad. Nobody. You keep arguing with phantoms. I don''t know where you get this stuff, but nobody in this thread suggested that Saddam should have been left alone indefinately. That''s not even what this thread is about. This thread is about whether or not the Administration lied to us. Will you still be as proud of your countrymen if they were lied to and there was no threat at all? They simply died because someone in the Administration wanted them to? I will be, a soldier that will die for his country, even without proof, is something to be proud of. I''ll want the head of the bastards that ordered them to die, as well.
==============================================
The one point I was adressing was likening Hitler''s rise to power and Bush''s. And there was a threat, be it today or later, the threat was there. It kills me to think that some of you would consider Bush sending men to die as nothing more then an ego trip. Please point out just one example where US men and women were sent to die for no reason other then an adminstration''s desire to flex their muscle. Not for politcal freedom, just sent to die for no reason.
=======================================

I''m f*cking tired of being a day late, and dollar short as this sort of evil runs rampant over our world. Yeah, let''s also work on changing the culture of hate, but lets not forget those that are beyond changing, and get rid of them before they take out multitudes of innocents.

As I said earlier, you can''t simply blow people up and expect to destroy thier culture. Yes, people will need to be shot, but we can''t shoot everyone, we need proof to determine who to kill. And, as we come back to the point of this thread, there was no proof. Weve only got so many bullets, we can''t waste them on people who were no threat to begin with. So how do you think killing Saddam has made us safer? There has never been any link proven between him and AlQuaeda, he had no WMDs, where was the threat? Threat to his own people, yeah, but to the US?

=============================================

And I''m stating that threat to his own people is good enough for me. Had we come right out and say that, I would have been even prouder of my country.

Really, then why isn''t there a move to send US troops to stop the killing in the Congo? More people have been killed there in the last month or so than were killed during the height of Saddam''s reign. It is quite sad when France appears more benevolent and honorable than the US, eh?

And then there''s this little nugget from The Financial Times. Kind of makes George W. Bush look like Gray Davis, doesn''t it? Oh, wait, Yomm doesn''t like it when you compare his president to horrible, horrible, horrible men.

"Elysium" wrote:

for example, our interventions lead to further destabilization, a rash of new terrorist activity in a variety of places, sparks furhter wars both including and excluding the US, and leads to the deaths of vast number of civilians and people forced into military service by dictatorial regime (we somehow assume that everyone fighting in the Iraqi military had a choice), then precisely how have we gone about saving lives? No, at that point the best we''ve done is get our military rocks off.

And by that arguement, we should do nothing and let the peoples of the world suffer under tyranny and oppression?

Look, I agree with everyone that the US should also be in the buisness of stabilizing, educating, and promoting good welfare for all citizens of the world. I don''t think that alone, is going to do it. I don''t like war, and I don''t want anyone dying. But, I also believe there are quite a few things worse then dying, namely living somewhere and not having the basic freedoms due to one as a human being.

You bring up the evil side effect for taking on oppressed people, namly those in power will do anything to keep it. These are the same people, who, if left to their own device, will make the life''s of their own brethren a misserable one.

That to me, does not consitute a reason for leaving them be.

(and btw, how the hell can I quote diffrent people in one post?)

That to me, does not consitute a reason for leaving them be.

I''m not arguing we leave them alone. I''m arguing that a unilateral war is not doing anyone any favors, that there are other solutions.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Really, then why isn''t there a move to send US troops to stop the killing in the Congo? More people have been killed there in the last month or so than were killed during the height of Saddam''s reign. It is quite sad when France appears more benevolent and honorable than the US, eh?

You seemed to have suggested that the reason is the US''s inability to play nicely with France in the UN. Take the UN out of the equation. Screw what France thinks about anything (or any other country for that matter) and do the right thing. Thats what the US should be doing. Its good that we did it in Iraq, and now I agree its what we should be doing elsewhere.

Took awhile, but I''m glad to see you agree with me.

"Yomm" wrote:

Took awhile, but I''m glad to see you agree with me.

Yes, but I doubt you''d agree with my contention that the US isn''t playing ball with France''s move to do something about it through the UN out of pettiness.

"Elysium" wrote:
That to me, does not consitute a reason for leaving them be.

I''m not arguing we leave them alone. I''m arguing that a unilateral war is not doing anyone any favors, that there are other solutions.

Could very well be. However, if history is any indication ''other solutions'' don''t seem to be as effective.

If we could smuggle in millions in aid and make sure it gets to the people who need it most, then great. Let''s do it. If we could provide free books and text to the people who need it, by all means, we should.

The problem arises, when those in power do everything they can to thwart these attemps, or as is most likly the case, profit from it.

Oh sure, we could wait for the international stage to waggle its finger at a dictator....ooohhh, can you feel them quivering in fear yet? .roll.

Sanctions/embargos hurt the ones who need it most.

What other solutions are there? I''m asking in earnest. Tell me a way to increase the quality of life for a people, all the while keeping the dictator in power. Please.

I have to ask. Do you honestly believe that the US acting alone without any consideration for the rest of the world is actually going to bring about any real kind of peace?

Screw what France thinks about anything (or any other country for that matter)

Yomm, I swear this seems so chilling to me, that I hope no one in any position of US power ever adopts such a position. It''s not the US''s world to deal with at its whim. There are about 4 and a half billion other people on the planet who should really get a voice.

I think that''s pretty much all I have to say in this thread. Moving on.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Yomm" wrote:

Took awhile, but I''m glad to see you agree with me.

Yes, but I doubt you''d agree with my contention that the US isn''t playing ball with France''s move to do something about it through the UN out of pettiness.

I''d doubt that you know for certain exactly what the situation is and why its happening. I''d also suggest that France has a reason to be doing what its doing, and its not purely out of good will. France won''t risk using military unless they have a damn good reason for it, and support from others in doing it. Unless they feel the oppression in the Congo is somehow more important then the oppression that WAS in Iraq?

But again, ideally? The US should be envolved

"Elysium" wrote:

I have to ask. Do you honestly believe that the US acting alone without any consideration for the rest of the world is actually going to bring about any real kind of peace?

Screw what France thinks about anything (or any other country for that matter)

Yomm, I swear this seems so chilling to me, that I hope no one in any position of US power ever adopts such a position. It''s not the US''s world to deal with at its whim. There are about 4 and a half billion other people on the planet who should really get a voice.

I think that''s pretty much all I have to say in this thread. Moving on.

Elysium,

If you took that statement within the context of everything else I''ve been saying, you''ll realize I don''t think the US is demanding too much from countries. Just allow the people to govern themselves in such a manner that they are allowed political and economic freedoms, and oh, by the way, don''t attack us either. I think our freedoms *should* be voiced by the 4.5 billion others on this planet.

What I''m saying (once again) is that we *should* eridicate those who would suffer their people''s misery for their own personal gain. And I say screw other countries that would give us a hard time for doing it. Over and over again, I''ve said that waiting for international permission is a dead-man''s game.

*If* we could perfect a ''post-war'' building of nations and then leave, I have no need whatsoever for any international support. We are a super-power and have taken it upon ourselves to try and offer the freedoms to everyone that we are lucky enough to enjoy.[/i]

"Yomm" wrote:

Actually, if you remember the adminstration backed off the WMD threat and did stress the humanitarian aspect quite strongly. Frankly, the US''s reasons behind the attack don''t concern me as much. We went after an obivous madman and, though doing a piss poor attempt at making things better for Iraq as of now, I have to believe that life will be better for them soon.

They said WMDs, and Humanitarian, and AlQuaeda where all reasons for going to war at some point or another. Thier official reason was WMDs, and they lied.

Again, Bush didn''t start making war plans until *after* the US was attacked. And btw, don''t you think ""Jew burner"" is a bit over the top?

I''m sorry, I have a very hard time believing there were no plans to attack Iraq until after 9/11. Alot like the PATRIOT Act, these plans were just sitting around, waiting for an excuse. And you keep acting like Iraq attacked us, they were not the ones who attacked us.

The one point I was adressing was likening Hitler''s rise to power and Bush''s. And there was a threat, be it today or later, the threat was there. It kills me to think that some of you would consider Bush sending men to die as nothing more then an ego trip. Please point out just one example where US men and women were sent to die for no reason other then an adminstration''s desire to flex their muscle. Not for politcal freedom, just sent to die for no reason.

You keep reading into this, nobody said it was an ego trip. I am not foolish enough to believe for a minute that Bush woke up one day and said ""I feel like killin me some towelheads!"". They have thier reasons for doing this, my point is that they are not in it for the reasons they say they are, or they are very foolish in how they go about thier goals.

And I''m stating that threat to his own people is good enough for me. Had we come right out and say that, I would have been even prouder of my country.

If theyd come right out and said it in the first place, we wouldn''t be having this discussion. This is not a pro-war/anti-war discussion.

If you took that statement within the context of everything else I''ve been saying, you''ll realize I don''t think the US is demanding too much from countries. Just allow the people to govern themselves in such a manner that they are allowed political and economic freedoms, and oh, by the way, don''t attack us either. I think our freedoms *should* be voiced by the 4.5 billion others on this planet.

What I''m saying (once again) is that we *should* eridicate those who would suffer their people''s misery for their own personal gain. And I say screw other countries that would give us a hard time for doing it. Over and over again, I''ve said that waiting for international permission is a dead-man''s game.

You didn''t refute anything Elysium had to say, you simply repeated yourself again. He was saying we cannot force our values onto everyone in the world, even if those values are democratic. You merely said that we should. You didn''t refute him at all.

I agree, we should get rid of those that use other people''s misery for thier own personal gain. Thats not what were doing. It''s like the hoodlum analogy earlier, another will take Saddam''s place unless we step in to enforce democracy. And thats where the forcing part comes in, even if they don''t want democracy we force it on them. Democracy does not equal self-government. If it''s a democracy enforced by America, we rule them, whether we like it or not. While we may not kil them if they disagree, we are the only one''s keeping the current regime in power and when push comes to shove we get what we want. That is not letting people govern themselves.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]y, I have a very hard time believing there were no plans to attack Iraq until after 9/11.

Shazaam!

Pow!

Nanu nanu!

This has been planned since 1991! As soon as Bush took office we were bound for war with Iraq! 9-11 and Afghanistan were ""side issues."" At the 4 p.m. meeting of the National Security Council on September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld suggested that the US should attack Iraq first. Makes you wonder where the man''s priorities were, and why he wanted Iraq so badly.

the bit about enforcing democracy raised a question for me:

What do you think your administration will do, if the Iraqi people decide to vote for the radical Schiits? That is not unlikely since they are one of the largest ethnic/religious group in Iraq. These people want to shape Iraq in the form of Iran. Will you step in and declare their vote illegal? Or will you try preventing such people from getting on the vote list in the first place? Is that still democracy then?

Another thing: For enforcing democracies enforcing our way of economics is also important to keep the democracy stable. The only thing we have heard so far is that a lot of foreign companies got deals for rebuilding Iraq and that thousands of people have been laid-off in Iraq because they were members of the Baath party. If this problem will not be solved you will have a state with a very high unemployment rate, with a lot of very anrgy people that are unemployed because they had to accede to a political party to avoid being killed. A lot of these people actually helped the allied forces rebuilding the Iraq. They were only members on paper.
And that situation is comparable to the situation in Germany during the twenties. What do you think how long it takes then until the people start cheering to some radicals because they promise to solve all their problems?

A third problem is that the allied forces currently have a hard time on the streets. They are being spit at, badmouthed and whatnot. How long do you think your soldiers will just swallot this demoralizing affronts, before they start to react?

What do you think your administration will do, if the Iraqi people decide to vote for the radical Schiits? That is not unlikely since they are one of the largest ethnic/religious group in Iraq. These people want to shape Iraq in the form of Iran. Will you step in and declare their vote illegal? Or will you try preventing such people from getting on the vote list in the first place? Is that still democracy then?

Flaw in your arguement. We are not setting up the country to give them a vote, the vote for a government will happen later. We are setting up Democratic institutions, Court system, Bill of rights, etc. Then we will have the elections.

Oh and another interesting fact about the reasons for war in Iraq. According to this Spiegel article:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...

Wolfowitz said in an Interview they concentrated on WMDs for bureaucratic reasons and that it was not the main reason for attacking Iraq. The real reasons for this were different though. One of them that was not made public on purpose was that the US army is now able to retreat their forces from Saudi Arabia to protect them from terrorist attacks.

As ridiculous as this may sound, the fact that Wolfowitz said this at all is a very sad proof that the WMDs were not really an important reason for their attacks. Naturally Rumsfeld is dementing this already.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Flaw in your arguement. We are not setting up the country to give them a vote, the vote for a government will happen later. We are setting up Democratic institutions, Court system, Bill of rights, etc. Then we will have the elections.

And what if the elected party rules your institutions irrelevant?

"Ulairi" wrote:
What do you think your administration will do, if the Iraqi people decide to vote for the radical Schiits? That is not unlikely since they are one of the largest ethnic/religious group in Iraq. These people want to shape Iraq in the form of Iran. Will you step in and declare their vote illegal? Or will you try preventing such people from getting on the vote list in the first place? Is that still democracy then?

Flaw in your arguement. We are not setting up the country to give them a vote, the vote for a government will happen later. We are setting up Democratic institutions, Court system, Bill of rights, etc. Then we will have the elections.

Thats not really a flaw, it still stands. What if they vote for the Schiits when we give them a vote? The only way it could be a flaw is if we don''t give them a vote until the vote will be against the Schiits, which just proves my point, thats a puppet democracy and we have truly conquered them. How is that a flaw?

Thats not really a flaw, it still stands. What if they vote for the Schiits when we give them a vote? The only way it could be a flaw is if we don''t give them a vote until the vote will be against the Schiits, which just proves my point, thats a puppet democracy and we have truly conquered them. How is that a flaw?

Fist, I do not think it would happen. 60% of Iraqi''s are Schiits and I do not think a majority of those 60% are nuts. I do not believe that just because someone is Muslim that they would be against Liberal Government.

"Ulairi" wrote:
Thats not really a flaw, it still stands. What if they vote for the Schiits when we give them a vote? The only way it could be a flaw is if we don''t give them a vote until the vote will be against the Schiits, which just proves my point, thats a puppet democracy and we have truly conquered them. How is that a flaw?

Fist, I do not think it would happen. 60% of Iraqi''s are Schiits and I do not think a majority of those 60% are nuts. I do not believe that just because someone is Muslim that they would be against Liberal Government.

Thats not a flaw in his argument, thats your opinion vs his opinion. I was just confused, if that is your argument, then thats fine. I don''t have much of an opinion either way, the situation is too unstable to be placing bets at this point.

I bet people won''t be thrown in a grinder anymore for not backing Saddam.

"Yomm" wrote:

Unless they feel the oppression in the Congo is somehow more important then the oppression that WAS in Iraq?

Honestly, it shouldn''t take much for anyone to realise that the situation in Congo is far, far worse than it ever was in Iraq. I''m not saying that the French have entirely altruistic reasons, but if were talking military intervention for humanitarian reasons, Congo would be the first choice.

Yeah, there are pretty good reasons they are calling the war over there ''Africa''s first world war'' as in comparison with the immense losses both world wars inflicted in Europe.