for R&G: re: enslaving brown-skinned people


Posted by gypsyfrocksbedlam ® , Oct 04,2003,22:04   MetroBlab
I know there isn't any actual point in trying to convince you of anything, since your allegiance is so total that if, for example, George Bush says the absence of weapons in Iraq proves he was right all along (as he said yesterday), you'll stand up and salute.

Still, I noticed this comment from you below directed at fluffy:

Hey, how's your campaign for the enslavement of 25 million brown-skinned people going? Oh, wait a second...I think we won that one.

Now, the only reason I know what the hell you're talking about is that I read some of the same right-wing websites you do, and I've noticed in the past few weeks that this is the latest ratcheting-up of the "people who were against the war were pro-Saddam" line. (You're at least a week behind on GOP talking points -- you'd better catch up, I'm sure Karl Rove is keeping score, and he won't bring a tax cut down your chimney if you haven't been sufficiently prompt about repeatig the party line.)

But anyway, you certainly are aware, right, that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush actively supported and armed Saddam Hussein? And that Reagan-Bush operative James Baker fended off bipartisan congressional efforts to levy sanctions against Iraq following the international outcry over his use of chemical weapons? And that liberal advocacy groups and human rights organizations were the ones who spent all of the 1980s and '90s documenting the torture and killings and brutality of Saddam's government? I mean, you do know these things, right? (The same liberal advocacy groups -- including a lot of feminist organizations -- were the ones screaming loudest about the bad shit that was going on in Afghanistan under the Taliban and urging more U.S. attention there through the late '90s.) You can go look all this stuff up, not that I actually think you will.

I know you think "human rights" were just discovered a couple months ago, when it turned out the weapons thing wasn't gonna pan out -- and maybe for you, they were.

But here's a question for you: If the abuses of Saddam Hussein were so horrible (which they were) and also so well documented over so many years (which they also were), and if they are now being offered as the reason for invading the country in the first place...well, why weren't they the reason six months ago? Or a year ago? Or fucking 15 years ago?

Don't lecture me about "enslaving brown-skinned people." Come back when you can give some evidence of knowing anything about the world that didn't come out of last week's NRO.

Followups


 for R&G: re: enslaving brown-skinned people

Re: for R&G: re: enslaving brown-skinned people -- gypsyfrocksbedlam
Posted by fluffy ® , Oct 05,2003,15:30   MetroBlab
im curious about RnG's differentiation between "enslavement" and "occupation". as ive said to him many a time, if i can be quoted anywhere as saying that ive ever supported saddam, id love to see it. the war to me is more about cost than anything else, which bring up another interesting point; in all of RnG's posts, i cant remember him ever addressing the ONE thing that poll after poll has shown is the #1 concern of americans since Dumbass took office; how to fix the economy. no, instead we get jabs at presidential candidates that havent even gotten the nomination yet, and even those arguments dont even make sense(whats with this made up "outer space" clark stuff anyways?). its bad enough hes trashing a 4 star general; but given all the posts RnG has made about clark that he thinks discredits clark would seem to be things about clark that RnG would support himself. but you are right, jess; he does seem to be behind in addressing the latest GOP propoganda. sad, RnG cant even tow the party line for his OWN party. hes not even worth of the republican party-pitiful.


for R&G: re: enslaving brown-skinned people

Re: for R&G: re: enslaving brown-skinned people -- gypsyfrocksbedlam
Posted by ilyich ® , Oct 04,2003,22:31   MetroBlab
But here's a question for you: If the abuses of Saddam Hussein were so horrible (which they were) and also so well documented over so many years (which they also were), and if they are now being offered as the reason for invading the country in the first place...well, why weren't they the reason six months ago? Or a year ago? Or fucking 15 years ago?

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Iraq was our friend at the time

Re: for R&G: re: enslaving brown-skinned people -- ilyich

Posted by Lysander Spooner ® , Oct 04,2003,23:09   MetroBlab
or more accurately, it is simply a case of situational ethics and moral relativism.
Iraq was our friend at the time

Re: Iraq was our friend at the time -- Lysander Spooner
Posted by gypsyfrocksbedlam ® , Oct 05,2003,00:49   MetroBlab
They weren't our "friend," they were just trying to kill a lot of Iranians, which someone decided was in American interest at the time. (Iran being another country where we helped install and backed a fucking horrible government -- until things got so bad that the asshole religious fundamentalists were able to exploit the widespread anger and take over, and 24 years later they're still there, thank you very fucking much all you Realpolitik idiots.)

Saddam Hussein was never a "friend" to any American, or much of anyone else except himself and his family. But we had people in government who thought it would be OK to give him a lot of guns. Some of them are still in our government. Talk to them about "enslaving brown-skinned people."

--modified at Sun, Oct 05, 2003, 00:50:12

that photo again

Re: for R&G: re: enslaving brown-skinned people -- ilyich
Posted by gypsyfrocksbedlam ® , Oct 04,2003,23:02   MetroBlab

Thanks ilyich. It's a classic.


that photo again

Re: that photo again -- gypsyfrocksbedlam
Posted by ilyich ® , Oct 04,2003,23:51   MetroBlab
It's a classic.

No, it's one of the most sickening images I can think of.

The EXACT same people who were fucking giving weapons to Saddam with the full knowledge that he would use them to massacre his own people have the gall to claim that they are the saviors of the Iraqi people. It's just repulsive beyond belief.

that photo again

Re: that photo again -- ilyich
Posted by gypsyfrocksbedlam ® , Oct 05,2003,00:43   MetroBlab
Repulsive, yes. Beyond belief, no. History repeats the old conceits, the glib replies, the same defeats. Keep-your-finger-on-the-button issues, with crocodile tears and a pocketful of tissues.
ok, now you've done it

Re: that photo again -- gypsyfrocksbedlam
Posted by jmac ® , Oct 05,2003,01:17   MetroBlab
Imperial Bedroom goes on now
ok, now you've done it

Re: ok, now you've done it -- jmac
Posted by gypsyfrocksbedlam ® , Oct 05,2003,02:24   MetroBlab
I'm just an oily slick in the wind-up world of the nervous tick.
ok, now you've done it

Re: ok, now you've done it -- gypsyfrocksbedlam
Posted by DnB ® , Oct 06,2003,10:40   MetroBlab
but at least you are in a very fashionable hovel.