Poll: over 40% of Canadian teens think America is "evil"

I, who disagree entirely on the 'worth it', do agree Bill is fully entitled to his opinion, as is Timber, who speaks well for his point of view.

Certainly not--but the atrocious murders in the Sudan don't have the Shrub sending in the cavalry . . . read the post through, get to the conclusion and realize that it all points to the silly story the Right has dreamed up now of saving the Iraqis from Hussein, now that the WoMD and Al Qaeda connection scams haven't panned out. The point about Pappy standing by while the Shiites were slaughtered for their insurrection is that the number of deaths there contributes to 250- to 290,000 figure, but it would not have likely to have recurred if we had forced him to endure a 20 year inspection regime.



There ya go . . . you'll be a card carrying member of the neo-cons in no time. We were lead to war on the basis of the administration's claim that there were WoMD, and the Blair lapdog upped the ante by claiming they could be deployed in 45 minutes. The administration also very willfully constructed a connection in the minds of less critical citizens between Iraq and Al Qaeda--so much so that many continue to believe, despite the lack of a shred of evidence that the two ever cooperated. So, tediously, i would again point out that the Shrub didn't get his war powers in this case because of the overwhelming anxiety for the fate of the Iraqis which was choking the hearts of all right-thinking Americans. This is a post-hoc justification by the Right. How many murders are acceptable in the Sudan, buddy? You think we should rush into to unseat a regime with a history of murder and support of murderous Arab militias with a racist agenda which has gone on for as long as Hussein was in power? Or does your heart bleed only for the plight of Iraqis?



You really did miss the boat on this one. The administration contended that there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Bin Laden and the core membership of the group are/were Wahabbis. Far from being a friend of Bin Laden, Hussein was an enemy. So the point is, that for Islamic terrorists, Hussein and the Ba'atists were not only not friends, they were enemies, until we invaded. This is something the Right just doesn't want to hear about. First, they look like monkeys because of the chimera of WoMD, and now more and more people are questioning whether or not the administration willfully created the impression that Iraq was involved in the WTC attack. Many Americans believed that for a long time--but there is no evidence, and it simply isn't plausible.



No part of it is hard to swallow. Don't try to tar me by implication with a desire to see the Iraqis fail to establish a just an equitable society governed by the system they decide is best. Considering what they've suffered at the hands of our armed forces, any decent man or woman would wish them the best. As i've repeatedly pointed out, the Shrub got war powers to attack Iraq based on the WoMD scam and the chimera of Iraq 9/11 involvement, he definitely did not make an appeal to the better instincts of the nation to liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. That's all just smoke and mirrors trotted out after the embarrassment of being exposed for having gone to war under false pretences.



Don't flatter yourself that you've figured out what i desire. I'm not crying doom, i'm crying liar, murderer . . . this administration lead us down the garden path, and now the Right is desparate to frame the discussion in terms of what is best for the Iraqis--i still remameber all the jubilation of Americans hooting and hollering about how the "towell heads" were getting their asses kicked. Now they've gone all soft and mushy for the fate of the Iraqis. Spare me the disgusting stench of hypocricy, O'Bill . . . i see too much of it from people i despise here, i'd hate to have to hear too much of it from you.

Ah, you've been away... you must have forgotten. :wink: Yes, I think we I think we rush in! I think we should kick ass from one end of the globe to the other until human rights are something all earthlings share. Once the despots all knew we were serious; I think most would roll over rather than face the fate of Saddam. World hunger is an atrocity who's blood is on all of our hands... though we don't all deserve our heads blown off for it (like Kim). I'd like to see NAFTA on a global scale where members may only trade with each other, and basic human rights are a pre-req. for entry (of course with an end to unfair subsidizing). Why Iraq specifically? 1991-2003 behavior gave us enough to call a Green light, whether it really was or not (I think it was, but know we won't find common ground to stand on there). The events of 9/11 were enough of a wakeup call that we our leaders decided to address a problem that should have been addressed in 1998 (if not sooner). If you are including me in the feign concern for Iraqis crowd you're mistaken. Freeing them IMHO, is little more than a damn good start. I'm still hoping beyond all hope we don't stop there. If you are including me in the warmonger crowd, there, your assessment is spot on.


Set; you misunderstood me completely. I would never put you in that camp. I was applauding you for the admission that things will probably get better for the Iraqis. Too many on the left, including one of your fans who is cheering you on here, have a very hard time with the idea that any good is coming about from this action. That was a compliment, not sarcasm. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. I hope you haven't forgotten that I too am one of your fans.

Thanks Osso. I trust that means Fox is entitled to her opinion then too. :wink:

I also agree Osso. It's when it goes beyond opinion that bugs me.

Hey, what in the hell am I doing in here?

Think Chocolate and bubbles Montana :-)

I understand your reasoning more than I understand Fox's, on most posts. Still I listen.

Osso, the point of the statement was to demonstrate that one need not have a personal investment in order to have an opinion about an important decision. I chose the Big One's example so no one could slight the relative importance of the example. I could tell by the silence that followed, that the point was well taken. I jumped in to Fox's defense because I've been attacked in that same way before... and it's harder to defend when you are the one on the receiving end. It's a cheap shot that I suspect won't be attempted again. We are all entitled to our opinions without having to qualify ourselves.

Montana, are you spoiling for another fight already? :wink:

Or well ignored perhaps?

Adrian, people pounce on weak arguments here like cats on mice. Ignored signaled understood to me.

CI writes


No retort. Set seems satisfied with one source as long as it disagrees with my numbers and he can get in an insult. Any of you can google up the numbers yourself and find that almost all media sources put the best estimate at 300,000. I don't have a written source but have heard Iraqi spokespersons on both Fox and CNN report they think that number may be much higher.

I simply disagree with the rationale that the killing had stopped and would not have continued to occur had we not intervened.

This site, btw,
Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century
may be worth looking at - if you really want to disput the numbers.






Well, if this is your argument ...

What an awesome source Walter... Thanks!

But Bill, you're forgetting the most important fact here....







are you ready?







40% of Canadian teenagers STILL think you're evil.

Well, you missed the 500,000 children, killed by the embargo, which are listed on this site as well.

Walter writes


I thought I had already made my argument. I didn't see any reason to repeat myself.

I agree with Bill however that you gave us an awesome site. I now have it bookmarked.



Here I believe the evidence will clearly show that the embargo didn't kill anybody. The UN allowed Saddam to sell all the oil it needed to buy food and medicine for the people. It seems that he didn't buy food and medicine however but diverted the oil other places--the most probable diversions to France, Russia, and possibly Germany--and also lined his own pockets allowing him and his henchmen to live in grand style.

But playing devil's advocate for a bit here, some on this thread maintain that we should have continued the UN policies of 'containing' Saddam, continue the embargo, continue the inspections indefinitely. If that policy in fact did kill 500,000 children. . . .well, you get my drift.

Well done Fox. :wink:

I was tempted to lay that sucker punch myself.

LOL Adrian. Thanks. There are many times I wish we had not gotten involved in Iraq. But I do believe in the long haul we will have done good.

I think in the long run Iraq will teach us we can't save these people.

Once the oil runs out they will be just like africa.

And to Osso, my argument/opinion on the issue of Iraq has been pretty simple and consistent:

1. The United States suffered an unprovoked and devastating attack on 9/11. The President with consent of Congress declared war on terrorism to ensure it would not happen again.

2. The US and others invaded Iraq because (almost) everybody in the free world in the current and previous administrations believed he had WMD and would use them. Whether or not he had them at the time of the invasion, the belief was that he did. That belief put Iraq squarely in the cross hairs of the 'war on terrorism'.

3. Wheher or not an invasion of Iraq was prudent or well advised, it was done, and we have well over 100,000 troops on the ground in harms way there. It is imperative for their safety for them (and others) to know that the people back home are supportive and appreciative of what they are doing. The more negative publicity there is, the more demoralizing it is to the troops and the more the terrorists/insurgents/resisters are encouraged.

4. Whatever errors, miscalculations, or mistakes have been made, much more good than bad has resulted from the invasion. Given half a chance, Iraq will become a free, democratic ally and trading partner that will help provide greater stability in the Middle East, will encourage others to follow suit, and will be good for everybody.

5. The argument that we haven't 'rescued' other people who are being oppressed/murdered or whatever is not a reasonable rationale for not rescueing the people of Iraq. But give us time. Sudan might be next.

I don't ever require anybody else to agree with my opinion, but I don't believe it is all that difficult to understand where I am coming from.