White guilt: THE ONLY reason Obama was elected

[JoeB131]

[]You forgot the gassing of Kurds. That was really cool. Toppling Saddam was such a tragedy!

Well, here was the thing. When Saddam was gassing the Kurds, Saint Ronald Reagan was actively cultivating Saddam as an ally and opposed an embargo against them.

The world's most heinous crime - CNN.com

CNN found that intervention is often weighed against political and economic costs.

Declassified U.S. government documents show that while Saddam Hussein was gassing Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. opposed punishing Iraq with a trade embargo because it was cultivating Iraq as an ally against Iran and as a market for U.S. farm exports.

According to Peter Galbraith, then an idealistic Senate staffer determined to stop Hussein from committing genocide, the Reagan administration "got carried away with their own propaganda. They began to believe that Saddam Hussein could be a reliable partner." Read once-secret U.S. documents

How could you then argue with Bush's actions. If Reagan was wrong, then Bush II was right.

Either way, I don't like Stalin of Saddam. We have different heroes obviously.

No, they were both wrong.

Reagan for trying to make nice with this scumbag, Bush for trying to change the country.

Here's a crazy idea. Stop letting the Oil COmpanies and Zionists pick our foreign policy priorities.

 

[Meathead]

How could you then argue with Bush's actions. If Reagan was wrong, then Bush II was right.

Either way, I don't like Stalin of Saddam. We have different heroes obviously.

Why does one of them have to be right?

Reagan was backing Saddam who was doing horrible things to his own people.
Bush W. went in for oil.

Neither gave a damn about the Kurds.

Saddam was not only doing horrible things to his own people, but to his neighbors. He was a regional cancer responsible for a lot of misery. Whatever you feel about Bush, he brought that to an end. Mourn him if you will and whine about the events that led to his passing but accept that a great many are grateful for it.

 

[JoeB131]

How could you then argue with Bush's actions. If Reagan was wrong, then Bush II was right.

Either way, I don't like Stalin of Saddam. We have different heroes obviously.

Why does one of them have to be right?

Reagan was backing Saddam who was doing horrible things to his own people.
Bush W. went in for oil.

Neither gave a damn about the Kurds.

Saddam was not only doing horrible things to his own people, but to his neighbors. He was a regional cancer responsible for a lot of misery. Whatever you feel about Bush, he brought that to an end. Mourn him if you will and whine about the events that led to his passing but accept that a great many are grateful for it.

The worst thing he did to his neihbors was the 10 year war he fought against Iran, which most of the world supported - including the US. We Sold Iraq weapons and gave them intelligence (over the loud cries of the Zionists) because he was keeping the scary Ayatollahs in check.

I don't mourn Saddam. I mourn 5000 American soldiers who died for nothing. I mourn half a million Iraqis who died for nothing. I mourn 32,000 Americans who came back from that with injuries and thousands more who came back with PTSD and screaming nightmares.

 

[Meathead]

Why does one of them have to be right?

Reagan was backing Saddam who was doing horrible things to his own people.
Bush W. went in for oil.

Neither gave a damn about the Kurds.

Saddam was not only doing horrible things to his own people, but to his neighbors. He was a regional cancer responsible for a lot of misery. Whatever you feel about Bush, he brought that to an end. Mourn him if you will and whine about the events that led to his passing but accept that a great many are grateful for it.

The worst thing he did to his neihbors was the 10 year war he fought against Iran, which most of the world supported - including the US. We Sold Iraq weapons and gave them intelligence (over the loud cries of the Zionists) because he was keeping the scary Ayatollahs in check.

I don't mourn Saddam. I mourn 5000 American soldiers who died for nothing. I mourn half a million Iraqis who died for nothing. I mourn 32,000 Americans who came back from that with injuries and thousands more who came back with PTSD and screaming nightmares.

Please Joe, the only thing you mourn are your own inadequacies and failures while idolizing the likes of Stalin and Saddam. You don't give a rat's ass of the 1 million who died in Saddam's war with Iran any more than you do about the Iraqi children, Kurds or US soldiers. To you it's all a political game to show how patently self-righteous you can be.

You are an aging hipster with a lot of baggage and a transparent pathological condition. Mourning for others is not part of it.

 

[JoeB131]

[]Please Joe, the only thing you mourn are your own inadequacies and failures while idolizing the likes of Stalin and Saddam. You don't give a rat's ass of the 1 million who died in Saddam's war with Iran any more than you do about the Iraqi children, Kurds or US soldiers. To you it's all a political game to show how patently self-righteous you can be.

You are an aging hipster with a lot of baggage and a transparent pathological condition. Mourning for others is not part of it.

HIpster? Frankly, nothing I do is "hip".

But any sensible person looking at the IRaq War can see it was a huge waste of lives and resources, and was not justified by invoking past crimes of Saddam the world was perfectly fine with at the time.

I'm hardly a pacifist. I was in the Army for 11 years. But as a pure practical matter, if you have men brave enough to put their lives on the line for your country, then you owe it to them not to waste their lives on foolish endevours that make matters worse.

With half of Iraq now run by Iran, and the other half run by AL Qaeda, things are definitely worse than when Saddam was in charge.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Saddam was not only doing horrible things to his own people, but to his neighbors. He was a regional cancer responsible for a lot of misery. Whatever you feel about Bush, he brought that to an end. Mourn him if you will and whine about the events that led to his passing but accept that a great many are grateful for it.

Yeah, Saddam wasn't a great guy. So..... you think the US govt acted based on whether he was a good guy or not? Come on.

Bush brought Saddam to an end, then increased the instability and the possibility that far more people have died in Iraq because of the Bush govt.

But I don't see who is mourning Saddam, I didn't like the guy and would have loved to have seen him been taken down by his own people.

Yeah, many are grateful, and many are dead. In change some become winners and others losers. What's the point?

The point surely is that Bush went in, not because he gave a damn about the Iraq people, but because what the Iraqi people are sat upon. OIL!

 

[Meathead]

Saddam was not only doing horrible things to his own people, but to his neighbors. He was a regional cancer responsible for a lot of misery. Whatever you feel about Bush, he brought that to an end. Mourn him if you will and whine about the events that led to his passing but accept that a great many are grateful for it.

Yeah, Saddam wasn't a great guy. So..... you think the US govt acted based on whether he was a good guy or not? Come on.

Bush brought Saddam to an end, then increased the instability and the possibility that far more people have died in Iraq because of the Bush govt.

But I don't see who is mourning Saddam, I didn't like the guy and would have loved to have seen him been taken down by his own people.

Yeah, many are grateful, and many are dead. In change some become winners and others losers. What's the point?

The point surely is that Bush went in, not because he gave a damn about the Iraq people, but because what the Iraqi people are sat upon. OIL!

How the fuck do you know that more people died in Iraq because of the Bush government? You do realize Kurds, Shia, Kuwaitis and Iranians were dying and that Saddam possessed an Army that could still inflict a lot of carnage on its neighbors?

Bush went in to be rid of Saddam. The Iraqi people and their neighbors were obviously incapable of doing it on their own. After a difficult period, iraq has emerged as a far more stable and less threatening country with some nascent democratic institutions. That is not a bad thing regardless of your conjecture as to whether the cost in lives would have been less with Saddam and sons still in power.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How the fuck do you know that more people died in Iraq because of the Bush government? You do realize Kurds, Shia, Kuwaitis and Iranians were dying and that Saddam possessed an Army that could still inflict a lot of carnage on its neighbors?

Bush went in to be rid of Saddam. The Iraqi people and their neighbors were obviously incapable of doing it on their own. After a difficult period, iraq has emerged as a far more stable and less threatening country with some nascent democratic institutions. That is not a bad thing regardless of your conjecture as to whether the cost in lives would have been less with Saddam and sons still in power.

How do I know? I don't, nobody does. Hence why I didn't commit myself to anything in what I wrote.


But again, this isn't the point. The FACT is the US govt under Bush did NOT go into Iraq to help the people of Iraq like the Kurds. The US has never done anything for the Kurds, never done anything for the Shia, never done anything for the people of Kuwait, not once have they lifted a finger for the people on the ground.
They have only ever gone in with the interests of the US at heart. I know this. Colin Powell in his autobiography has made this clear and other leaders will make this clear too.

Hence why the Civil War in the Ivory Coast meant NOTHING to the US govt, nothing to McCain or the Republican Party when they were oh so concerned about the "citizens" in Libya.

But yes, Iraq is far less threatening now than it was under Saddam.

Saying that Iraq wasn't exactly threatening before it became Iraq, then the British made Iraq and put a Saudi in as king, but they got rid of him and replaced him with........

..... the Ba'ath Party, of which Saddam was a member and would soon be leader.

Do you get my point here?

You can go into countries, change regime, pretend to sort out all the problems, and cause MORE problems in the future.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And here's some "US interests" stories for you.

BBC News - Obama: Libya's future is a vital US interest

"Obama: Libya's future is a vital US interest"

Do American Interests in Libya Warrant Military Intervention? - National Security Experts

"Do American Interests in Libya Warrant Military Intervention?"

Factbox: U.S. oil companies' interests in Libya | Reuters

"Factbox: U.S. oil companies' interests in Libya"

What Is U.S. National Interest in Libya? | Blogcritics

 

[Meathead]

How the fuck do you know that more people died in Iraq because of the Bush government? You do realize Kurds, Shia, Kuwaitis and Iranians were dying and that Saddam possessed an Army that could still inflict a lot of carnage on its neighbors?

Bush went in to be rid of Saddam. The Iraqi people and their neighbors were obviously incapable of doing it on their own. After a difficult period, iraq has emerged as a far more stable and less threatening country with some nascent democratic institutions. That is not a bad thing regardless of your conjecture as to whether the cost in lives would have been less with Saddam and sons still in power.

How do I know? I don't, nobody does. Hence why I didn't commit myself to anything in what I wrote.


But again, this isn't the point. The FACT is the US govt under Bush did NOT go into Iraq to help the people of Iraq like the Kurds. The US has never done anything for the Kurds, never done anything for the Shia, never done anything for the people of Kuwait, not once have they lifted a finger for the people on the ground.
They have only ever gone in with the interests of the US at heart. I know this. Colin Powell in his autobiography has made this clear and other leaders will make this clear too.

Hence why the Civil War in the Ivory Coast meant NOTHING to the US govt, nothing to McCain or the Republican Party when they were oh so concerned about the "citizens" in Libya.

But yes, Iraq is far less threatening now than it was under Saddam.

Saying that Iraq wasn't exactly threatening before it became Iraq, then the British made Iraq and put a Saudi in as king, but they got rid of him and replaced him with........

..... the Ba'ath Party, of which Saddam was a member and would soon be leader.

Do you get my point here?

You can go into countries, change regime, pretend to sort out all the problems, and cause MORE problems in the future.

Are you surprised that nations conduct themselves in their own interests? If that is your point, I think it as obvious as it is useless. Ousting Saddam Hussein was in the interests of the US and indeed the world. I am not much concerned with the morality others dictate. In fact I respect them about as much as I respect hellfire & brimstone preachers.

And there are so very many of both!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you surprised that nations conduct themselves in their own interests? If that is your point, I think it as obvious as it is useless. Ousting Saddam Hussein was in the interests of the US and indeed the world. I am not much concerned with the morality others dictate. In fact I respect them about as much as I respect hellfire & brimstone preachers.

And there are so very many of both!

No, I'm not surprised as such.

What annoys me is the excuses used to try and hide the fact.

It was in the interests of the US because of oil. In 1999 Chavez became democratically elected leader of Venezuela, decided he could use OPEC as a tool, and this annoyed the US.

Hence why Iraq was invaded, Venezuela saw a US backed coup, Libya was bombed and Iran has sanctions against it.

But why do so many claim this is not the case? Why do so many go on about WMD and the Iraqi people as if Bush gave a shoe.

 

[BlindBoo]

Bush was such a fuck up that Beelzebub could have won in 2008 if he had a D behind his name.

Corporate man Romney just couldn't help himself and alienated every group except for one.

 

[Meathead]

Bush was such a fuck up that Beelzebub could have won in 2008 if he had a D behind his name.

Corporate man Romney just couldn't help himself and alienated every group except for one.

A group with 47% of the electorate? One hell of a big group. Come to think of it, probably whites not guilt-ridden.

 

[BlindBoo]

Poor voter turn-out and a lack of will among us and candidates nominated him and then elected him. What else?

Voter turn out was at a 40 year high in 2008

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bush was such a fuck up that Beelzebub could have won in 2008 if he had a D behind his name.

Corporate man Romney just couldn't help himself and alienated every group except for one.

A group with 47% of the electorate? One hell of a big group. Come to think of it, probably whites not guilt-ridden.

47% of those who bothered to vote would be from 61.6% voting in 2008 and 58.2% in 2012, I'm a little confused which is being spoken about as Romney and 2008 have been mentioned, but anyway.

Eitherway, 47% of the vote would be about a quarter of those who can vote.

 

[BlindBoo]

the son-of-a-bitch promised that pie in the sky and too many dupes fell for it, plus 98.7% of blacks voted for him believing he would lift the chains of slavery, then we had the white guilt folks who wanted to avoid the "RACIST" title that is thrown around so much so, that it has no negative impact on Conservative people who have strong Constitutional convictions.

so there ya are..., how we got this worthless racist pile of muslime dog shit, fools, idiots, racists and America hating commies.

Yeah but it's predictable cause every single racist white piece of shit has had that opinion since Nov. of 2008.

 

[Meathead]

Bush was such a fuck up that Beelzebub could have won in 2008 if he had a D behind his name.

Corporate man Romney just couldn't help himself and alienated every group except for one.

A group with 47% of the electorate? One hell of a big group. Come to think of it, probably whites not guilt-ridden.

47% of those who bothered to vote would be from 61.6% voting in 2008 and 58.2% in 2012, I'm a little confused which is being spoken about as Romney and 2008 have been mentioned, but anyway.

Eitherway, 47% of the vote would be about a quarter of those who can vote.

Either way, pointless. We can't preface everything with definitions of things like the electorate. Maybe Obama really had only 31% to Romney's 28 - "What difference does it make?", Hilary Clinton on Benghazi.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah but it's predictable cause every single racist white piece of shit has had that opinion since Nov. of 2008.[/QUOTE]

And it's not difficult to find more corrupt presidents in the past either. However lies travel quicker than reality, so.... the lies just keep coming.

And what do the lies solve? They solve the problem that the rich who control the govt have. They;re happy, you're not. Figure out why or just blame Obama, or the next president, or the last?

 

[BlindBoo]

[



OK, once and for all. BOTH PARTIES AUTHORIZED AND FUNDED THE FIASCO KNOWN AS THE IRAQ WAR. BUSH DID NOT DO IT ALONE, NO PRESIDENT HAS THAT POWER, CONGRESS (BOTH PARTIES) VOTED TO AUTHORIZE AND FUND IT. THE UN CONDONED IT. MOST OF THE WORLD SUPPORTED IT.

TO CLAIM THAT ONLY BUSH AND REPUBLICANS CAUSED THAT STUPIDITY IS TO LIE ABOUT HISTORY.

Bush was the one who pushed for it. Who lied about WMD's, lied about Saddam's links to Bin Laden, who sent Cheney over to the CIA to cherry pick the data and downplay the skeptics. Bush is the one who fired General Shinkisi when he said that we did not have enough troops to pull it off.

So, no, it really is Bush's fault. SHame on the UN and the democrats for not having the balls to stand up to an illegitimate president's desire for war, but at the end of the day, Bush was the instigator. Had Al Gore been in the White House, we'd have never gone to war with Iraq.

Or at the very least, we'd have done it competently.

The UN did not condone it either, in fact the head of the UN at the time called it illegal. Bush was also informed by the head of the CIA that Iraq had no WMD.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

 

[Pennywise]

There is no such thing as "White Guilt." It is a pejorative stereotype fabricated by the Racist Right to attack Liberals with. It exists only in the sick perverted minds of the Racist Right.

You are a mental midget and a liar.