7/20 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/weekinreview/20KIFN.html?8hpib
Oh no! We are screwed!
\_ couple points. 1. Thanks for the article. 2.How come NY Times
didn't publish this article *BEFORE* the damn war started?
It might just persuade public opinion to some degree.
3. Does any of the Sodans actually believe that democracy
and the well-being of the Iraqis are USA and UK's objective?
-kngharv
\_ 1. nothing new here. 2. it has nothing to do with anything and
the NYT published far more biased anti-war nonsense before the
war. 3. In part. 4. The NYT has a really shitty track record
for reporting and editing in the last few years, maybe you should
find another source for your news and information. 5. Why does
the NYT *not* tell you about the 90+ mass graves that have been
found to date? Why does the NYT *not* tell you about how well
the vast majority of the population is doing now than under the
mass murdering butcher Hussein in terms of everything from basic
service improvements such as power and water all the way to the
right to *not* get dragged away and executed just because? No
matter what happens now, the people are better off than they were
before and we had a moral obligation to help them as much as
we could. Freedom is a messy business and it will take time for
life to settle down there but it *is* improving and is already
better than they had under the Baathists.
\_ we had to kill them to save them. They are happy now.
\_ If the mass majority of the people are doing so well, why
are they dancing in the streets celebrating around destroyed
humvees?
\_ Don't kid yourself. US always puts its own self-interest
first. That's why Donald Duck approved all 50 cases where
bombing may likely kill 30 or more civilians. Every single
case.
\_ 90+ mass graves? Is that from the same source that told
us about Iraq buying African Uranium? Or that Iraq has lots
of chemical/biological weapons? Haven't you learned by now
to take the words of these liars and blindly-following media
with a grain of salt?
to take the words of these liars and blindly-following-afraid-
to-appear-unpatriotic media with a grain of salt?
\_ "The very first report, as I recall, was of mass graves that
turned out to be cemeteries. But because the news accounts on
CNN repeated incessantly that they were "mass graves," it
simply confirmed the public's predisposition to believe that
Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac. Ever since, the Times
has been reporting on bodies being turned up by the hundreds
or thousands in one place or another, and in each instance the
dispatch suggests that these were the result of Saddam's
brutality.
My caution is the result of having consulted experts in the
history of Iraq, who tell me there are most certainly mass
graves all over the country, because it has been at war since
1958. That is, "Nineteen Fifty Eight," when the monarchy fell.
I'm advised that most of the slaughter that occurred over this
period was in these early years of civil war, when there really
were men and families lined up along ditches, machine-gunned
or in other ways executed. There are also stories of "mass
graves" that followed the 1991 Gulf War, when the USA urged the
Shi'ites in the South and Kurds in the North of Iraq to take
up arms against the Baghdad regime. I think even Human Rights
Watch would have to say that "rebels" who are trying to kill
"loyal" should expect to either succeed or pay the consequences,
as they did when the USA was nowhere around to back them up."
http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2674
\_ Remember the truck they said was used for making chemical /
biologial weapons? Experts have come out and said that that's
nonsense. Guess that's why you no longer hear about it. |
http://csua.com/feed/