Features

mburbank · #1

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

"A special X-mas thanks to Christ and all my other pals for a great twenty years. Hopeing you all have an Orange Christmas,

Rummy"

Zhukov · #2

Is this the Liberal reply to everything? Good grief, it was in 1983! There were more important things going on!

mburbank · #3

I know exactly what you mean. That's just like the Patriot Act.

sspadowsky · #4

Yes, because I'm sure Rumsfeld was an innocent lamb 20 years ago, and had no idea what Hussein was all about.

Zhukov, if you're going to continue to post here, please try to be less stupid.

EDIT: Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case,

Protoclown · #5

He was being sarcastic.

ranxer · #6

isnt that the same year we started helping the madrasas teach extremism?

The One and Only... · #7

Again with the integrity attacks, eh burbank?

I've seen this thing so many times on newsfilter...

sspadowsky · #8

Quote:

Originally Posted by sspadowsky

OAO, if you're going to continue to post here, please try to be less stupid.

There. I hate it when I direct a pertinent comment at the wrong person. Sorry, Zhukov.

The One and Only... · #9

[img]
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/picturejokes/13910.JPG[/img]

mburbank · #10

That would be funny if they were in the same posses as Rummy and Sadaam. Cause then it would be referenceing a real event.

See, the fact is, we turned a blind eye to Iraq use of WMD back in Daddy W's administration. We were not at all averse to them gassing Iranians, any more than we were averse to Iranians bombing Iraquis. It kept them occupied.

Now that's just real politique, and I might object to the particulars, but I understand the general drift. What I hate is when the SAME DAMN PEOPLE act as if they never woulda coulda in a million years felt that way about an evil eveil guy who did evil things all the time and was so evil about how evil he was that we had to invade his country right away before he did any more evil, because we don't tolerate evil.

The One and Only... · #11

Umm... we FOUGHT Iraq during Daddy W's administration. Gulf War, anyone?

KevinTheOmnivore · #12

Yeah, se, technically speaking that was the second gulf war, but then again, with that region's history of violence, I guess it could've been the 119th gulf war, but I digress....

Point is, and I think this is what Max meant, George Bush was Reagan's VP. It was Rumsfeld, also a part of that administration, who normalized relations with the Butcher of Baghdad. These men, in no specific order, knew full well what this man HAD done, and what he was capable of.

And you're right, we DID fight him in the early 90s. Why? If he was so rotten, why did we leave Iraqi rebels out to dry and be executed and tortured (perhaps not in that order)??

mburbank · #13

OAO is right. I should have been clearer.

As VP W. was 'out of the loop' to the point of non existance. Rumsfeld himself was acting on orders and no role whatever in policy. He was also 'out of the loop', as were Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Baker, poindexter and popular radio host Oliver North, who was only following orders that came from someone but not Regan, who was Out of the Loop himself. During the time we supported Sadaam and winked at his use of poison gas, there actually was no administration. People in the current adminstration who served during that time in key positions acted under the assumption that there was in fact an adminstration and a policy, but you can't blame them or even ask wht they were thinking at the time and how it relates to what they are thinking now because no thinking was taking place and it isn't part of the canon and that's just a photoshop picture and even if it isn't it's old news and who cares.

The One and Only... · #14

I'm not following your point. Diplomacy failed, we couldn't reshape Saddam after the Gulf War, so we went to war again.

We all realize that everything America does is in its favor, right? Are you arguing that it shouldn't be that way?

mburbank · #15

No. I am arguing that the shock and horror about what a monser Saddam was is hypocrisy. We always new exactly what kind of monster he was and as long as he was using WMD against our mutual enemies, it was fine with us. We only went to war with him when he invaded a country more valuable to us than he was, and we osuted him with extreme force not because of his evil nature, but because we could not control him.

If by 'diplomacy' you mean feeding a rabid dog your enemies, then yeah, sure. But I think that's a kind of sugary name for it.

I'm not arguing that America should act in it's own interests. I'm questioning what those interests are. Since I think we are currently ramping up the threat to America, I'm arguing the converse. I would amend your statement to read 'Everything America does attempts to favor the sliver of society it's current administration aligns itself with.'

ranxer · #16

Quote:

We all realize that everything America does is in its favor, right?

lol you mean in americas favor??! damn, you sound like a Fox news devotee.

i think this cartoon sums it up in so many ways

as far as democracy the rumsfeld way .. i kinda like this as a christmas card too..
(1.2meg)http://www.capedmaskedandarmed.com/video/love.mov

Zebra 3 · #17

Quote:

Originally Posted by sspadowsky

Yes, because I'm sure Rumsfeld was an innocent lamb 20 years ago, and had no idea what Hussein was all about.

The Reagan administration knew about Hussein using WMDs against Iran when Rumsfeld went over to Iraq to give good ol' Saddam a hardy handshake as pictured, and continued to champion Hussein's regime right until he invaded Kuwait.

But to be fair, although the US gov't was the most active, other countries also casted morality aside and traded with Hussein including the UK, France, Germany, Russia and my own country, Canada.

It's worth noting, then Canadian Minister Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy has recently been on TV to admit Canada's involvement in dealing with Hussein, and mentioned that morality was never at play when dealing with the dictator's regime.

The One and Only... · #18

But Max, you are again talking about politics, not policy, which is what I care about.

Ranx, I doubt that ousting Saddam has been a bigger hindrance than help to national security. I just don't think that the cost of the war was worth the benefit.

ranxer · #19

i guess we don't look at it the same way.
the results that outwheigh most any benefits you can name are things like a
-reduction in respect etc. worldwide,
-a huge dept of lies to maintain,
-monster presence to maintain that is still a gamble with many lives and violates many rules of a just society,
-which costs a ton
-involves many of our family members, coworkers etc. that
are being exposed to the hell of war. not to mention innocents and unwilling combatants.
-an increase in number of enemies, (defending what they see as attacks on thier homeland
-a repeat of pre-emptive military imperialism that only the U.S. is allowed to do. reaffirming the notion that war solves problems etc

these long term problems created by the bush administration have driven a new spurt in a security police state economy but the cost will be coming in for many years. plus, part of this economic 'recovery' is a borrowing on the future that may backfire.

mburbank · #20

I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.

The One and Only... · #21

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranxer

-reduction in respect etc. worldwide

Hardly. We never had any respect anyway.

Quote:

-a huge dept of lies to maintain

...which only liberals seem to care about.

Quote:

-monster presence to maintain that is still a gamble with many lives and violates many rules of a just society

What do you consider a "just society?" I ascribe to the Nozickian believe that justice goes with entitlement. In any case, is maintaining a presence in foreign countries bad for national security? It's not like our armed forces are running thin here.

Quote:

-which costs a ton

Not bad for national security.

Quote:

-involves many of our family members, coworkers etc. that
are being exposed to the hell of war. not to mention innocents and unwilling combatants.

You join the army to fight. Anyway, it's not bad for national security.

Quote:

-an increase in number of enemies, (defending what they see as attacks on thier homeland

Probably, but that will not offset the gains in security. It's more about how much money terrorist organizations have than how much people at this point.

Quote:

-a repeat of pre-emptive military imperialism that only the U.S. is allowed to do. reaffirming the notion that war solves problems etc

War does solve problems. Especially when you have a huge military. Again, not bad for national security.

Quote:

these long term problems created by the bush administration have driven a new spurt in a security police state economy but the cost will be coming in for many years. plus, part of this economic 'recovery' is a borrowing on the future that may backfire.

Not bad for national security.

Zhukov · #22

Quote:

...which only liberals seem to care about.

You mean you don't mind the lies? I do, and I'm not liberal.

mburbank · #23

I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.I will not make fun of little kids. I will not make fun of little kids.