Syrian Civil War

[waldo]

You want people to have a more open discussion about our role in it - yes, our role since Canada was involved, too - then make it an all inclusive discussion on your end rather than criticizing others for not doing so.

once again, you won't take ownership... you refuse accountability... you continue your charade in attempting to shift your guilt to some presumed/significant role you interpret Canada had in your country's illegal Iraq invasion/war.

no matter how hard you try to revise history, Hussein/Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States. You have no perspective and live outside reality, projecting a false balance... somehow you miraculously ignore the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed in your country's illegal invasion/war... you ignore the millions of Iraqi refugees scattered across the Middle East... you ignore the utter devastation Iraq has suffered - and continues to suffer. And most pointed of all, you ignore the resulting political instability the country has been left in, particularly fostered closer ties with Iran.

[bleeding heart]

Who ever said anything about "all Saddam's fault?"

Shady did. You agreed.

Or perhaps you were agreeing with his standard boilerplate that I was "making excuses for Saddam"....presumably when I said,

Saddam Hussein was a murderer on a large scale. His behavior was so odious that he automatically shares responsibility for what happened.

Yes, the "excuses"! You can just feel my love for the great man.

But in 'the buck stops here' sense, he IS to blame,

He SHARES the blame with other entities who also make conscious decision which have consequences.

And it's odd that the ultra-violent decisions of your own leaders, and the leaders of allies, aren't as offensive to you as the decisions of leaders over whom you can exercise no influence. Especially since we're talking about the self-same situation.

Saddam's part in all of it seems to be often missing in the discussions.

Not in my post--he is held as blameworthy quite explicitly there. And you were responding to that post.

It seems to be all about the U.S being the Bad Guy.

Well, I hate to hurt anybody's dainty patriotic feelings, but the facts are what they are. But (again, as I said with total clarity) it's not about "the" bad guy, bad multiple agents. Namely, like I said, allies that are weak and/or venal.

You want people to have a more open discussion about our role in it - yes, our role since Canada was involved, too - then make it an all inclusive discussion on your end rather than criticizing others for not doing so.

Inclusive. AW, I was arguing against the notion that the war was entirely the dictator's fault, as if the aggressor US and its aggressor allies were unwillingly forced into the thing through the laws of physics.

In other words, I was explicitly calling for a more inclusive and honest discussion.

So far, no takers, I guess. Rather than focus on the murderous consequences of a terrible war for which our countries share direct and unequivocal responsibility...let's talk about how people are too mean in their comments about the USA.

Edited September 21, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

Shady did. You agreed.

Shady did not. I did not.

Or perhaps you were agreeing with his standard boilerplate that I was "making excuses for Saddam"....presumably when I said,

Yes, the "excuses"! You can just feel my love for the great man.

I made what I was agreeing with - that it was Saddam's fault (notice the lack of "all") in 'the Buck Stops Here' sense - quite clear. By saying just that.

He SHARES the blame with other entities who also make conscious decision which have consequences.

The buck stops with him. Ultimately, he was the only one with the power to change things for the people of his country. He could have done so at any time. Yet he kept making decisions that hurt them. Decisions that other nations reacted to, with good reason.

And it's odd that the ultra-violent decisions of your own leaders, and the leaders of allies, aren't as offensive to you as the decisions of leaders over whom you can exercise no influence. Especially since we're talking about the self-same situation.

Believe it or not, the actions of my own leaders aren't as offensive to me as the things Saddam has done.

Not in my post--he is held as blameworthy quite explicitly there. And you were responding to that post.

Wow. One post, in response to someone else who brought it up. I certainly missed any discussion on your part about it and how it lead to actions from other nations.

Well, I hate to hurt anybody's dainty patriotic feelings,

Could you make a more ignorant response? Just whose "dainty" patriotic feelings do you think you are hurting?

FYI, you are projecting your biased mindset on others, drawing ignorant conclusions about their "feelings."

but the facts are what they are. But (again, as I said with total clarity) it's not about "the" bad guy, bad multiple agents. Namely, like I said, allies that are weak and/or venal.

The facts are what they are; and the fact is, the Buck Stops with Saddam. He was the only one with the power to stop the Iraqis' suffering. As I said. In response to what had previously been said. But what you "namely" said is not fact, but personal opinion.

Inclusive. AW, I was arguing against the notion that the war was entirely the dictator's fault, as if the aggressor US and its aggressor allies were unwillingly forced into the thing through the laws of physics.

Except no one said such a thing, did they? They said, in effect, that actions have consequences - in this case, Saddam's actions. Unless you think the rest of the world should have just turned a blind eye to it? At any rate, as I said, Saddam was the only one with the power to change the situation.

In other words, I was explicitly calling for a more inclusive and honest discussion.

So was Shady by pointing out that it was Saddam's fault.

So far, no takers, I guess.

I'll tell you what. You make an honest effort to make an all inclusive discussion about it and I'll jump in. But here's a tip - simply saying "Bad Saddam!" isn't going to cut it.

Rather than focus on the murderous consequences of a terrible war for which our countries share direct and unequivocal responsibility...let's talk about how people are too mean in their comments about the USA.

Oh, please. Let's. Because that's the problem.

Good God. Talk about clueless.

[waldo]

The buck stops with him. Ultimately, he was the only one with the power to change things for the people of his country. He could have done so at any time. Yet he kept making decisions that hurt them. Decisions that other nations reacted to, with good reason.

Believe it or not, the actions of my own leaders aren't as offensive to me as the things Saddam has done.

The facts are what they are; and the fact is, the Buck Stops with Saddam. He was the only one with the power to stop the Iraqis' suffering.

At any rate, as I said, Saddam was the only one with the power to change the situation.

ever consistent! You absolutely refuse to accept that your country has any culpability in its illegal invasion/war against the sovereign country of Iraq... has any culpability in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed in your country's illegal invasion/war... you ignore the millions of Iraqi refugees scattered across the Middle East... you ignore the utter devastation Iraq has suffered - and continues to suffer. And most pointed of all, you ignore the resulting political instability Iraq has been left in, particularly fostered closer ties with Iran.

[Shady]

ever consistent! You absolutely refuse to accept that your country has any culpability in its illegal invasion/war against the sovereign country of Iraq... has any culpability in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed in your country's illegal invasion/war... you ignore the millions of Iraqi refugees scattered across the Middle East... you ignore the utter devastation Iraq has suffered - and continues to suffer. And most pointed of all, you ignore the resulting political instability Iraq has been left in, particularly fostered closer ties with Iran.

What is this nonsense of an illegal invasion? Anyways, Saddam was the one responsible violating ceasefires and weapons inspections. Stop making excuses for murderous dictators.

[bud]

she also refuses to accept u.s.' culpability in the 80's when u.s. and saddam were good friends. they were such good friends that u.s. helped saddam to use its chemical weapons against the kurds and iranians.

[Guest American Woman]

she also refuses to accept u.s.' culpability in the 80's when u.s. and saddam were good friends. they were such good friends that u.s. helped saddam to use its chemical weapons against the kurds and iranians.

Don't speak for me. Leave me out of your ludicrous posts. Edited September 21, 2013 by American Woman

[waldo]

What is this nonsense of an illegal invasion?

oh, sorry... that's right, the U.S. Congress sanctioned it!

[bud]

Don't speak for me. Leave me out of your ludicrous posts.

so you accept u.s.' culpability in the 80's when they helped saddam use chemical weapons against the kurds and iranians?

[Shady]

she also refuses to accept u.s.' culpability in the 80's when u.s. and saddam were good friends. they were such good friends that u.s. helped saddam to use its chemical weapons against the kurds and iranians.

No, they didn't help them use chemical weapons against the Kurds. But if they had, then bringing Saddam to justice and ending such relationship would be correcting a mistake. It could be said, that Canada is helping prop up a dictatorial murderous regime by dealing with Cuba. Where's your outrage about that? Or do you donate to the keep Castro in power fund by vacationing there like many other Canadians?

[Shady]

oh, sorry... that's right, the U.S. Congress sanctioned it!

Who else is suppose to?

[waldo]

Who else is suppose to?

oh my! Do you really need a history lesson on the efforts the U.S. (UK) made in an attempt to secure UN Security Council sanctioning of the invasion? It's been discussed quite extensively in past MLW threads... try a search! I trust you'll be particularly enamored with all the exhaustively detailed 'backroom lobby' attempts by the U.S. attempting to secure votes. I trust you'll also be quite impressed with such things like the equally much discussed 'Downing Street Memos'. You see, even the U.S. (UK) realized the legality of invasion required UN sanctioning! Of course, when it ultimately wasn't forthcoming, we can fall back to your most naive, 'who else is supposed to'!

[Shady]

oh my! Do you really need a history lesson on the efforts the U.S. (UK) made in an attempt to secure UN Security Council sanctioning of the invasion? It's been discussed quite extensively in past MLW threads... try a search! I trust you'll be particularly enamored with all the exhaustively detailed 'backroom lobby' attempts by the U.S. attempting to secure votes. I trust you'll also be quite impressed with such things like the equally much discussed 'Downing Street Memos'. You see, even the U.S. (UK) realized the legality of invasion required UN sanctioning! Of course, when it ultimately wasn't forthcoming, we can fall back to your most naive, 'who else is supposed to'!

So the UN was suppose to sanction the invasion?

[dre]

Who else is suppose to?

You guessed it!

Frank Stallone.

[Shady]

You guessed it!

Frank Stallone.

I don't know what that means. Sorry.

[waldo]

So the UN was suppose to sanction the invasion?

although you're quite regularly out of your depth on most discussions, to see you wade in so naively on this is gold, real gold Jerry!

I believe you were so adamant in detailing those UN resolutions you interpret Hussein was in violation of... perhaps you should spend some time in reviewing other related UN resolutions, most particularly 1441... and the failure to secure the so-called '2^nd resolution' sanctioning military force against Iraq. Imagine, in spite of the most fallacious efforts of Powell, Rice, Bush, Cheney, (and the rest of neo-con complement), somehow the UN Security Council wasn't buying it! The U.S. (UK and Spain) couldn't secure enough votes within the UN Security Council... why... France didn't even need to lay down its veto!!!

[Shady]

although you're quite regularly out of your depth on most discussions, to see you wade in so naively on this is gold, real gold Jerry!

I believe you were so adamant in detailing those UN resolutions you interpret Hussein was in violation of... perhaps you should spend some time in reviewing other related UN resolutions, most particularly 1441... and the failure to secure the so-called '2^nd resolution' sanctioning military force against Iraq. Imagine, in spite of the most fallacious efforts of Powell, Rice, Bush, Cheney, (and the rest of neo-con complement), somehow the UN Security Council wasn't buying it! The U.S. (UK and Spain) couldn't secure enough votes within the UN Security Council... why... France didn't even need to lay down its veto!!!

I didn't detail UN resolutions. I did mention inspections and ceasefires though. So the UN approves an invasion or military action? When did this start? Did they approve of Saddam's Kuwait invasion, or his military action against Iran and Israel?

[waldo]

I didn't detail UN resolutions. I did mention inspections and ceasefires though. So the UN approves an invasion or military action? When did this start? Did they approve of Saddam's Kuwait invasion, or his military action against Iran and Israel?

what you mentioned associates with and/or has bearing on, respective UN resolutions.

when did this start? Really? That's your ask? See the UN Charter, Article 2(4)... accepting to the only allowed exceptions to the article as reflecting upon either self-defense measures or actual UN Security Council sanctioning: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations"

now, as I stated a couple of posts back, Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States (to the UK)... there was no question of the U.S./UK acting in self-defense. Hence, the actual efforts by the U.S./UK to garner the other required exception; i.e., a UN Security Council sanction of military force against Iraq.

if your new measure of the legality of the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a comparison to the actions of dictators, I suggest you should have gone with the other choice presented to you; i.e., Frank Stallone!

[Shady]

what you mentioned associates with and/or has bearing on, respective UN resolutions.

when did this start? Really? That's your ask? See the UN Charter, Article 2(4)... accepting to the only allowed exceptions to the article as reflecting upon either self-defense measures or actual UN Security Council sanctioning: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations"

now, as I stated a couple of posts back, Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States (to the UK)... there was no question of the U.S./UK acting in self-defense. Hence, the actual efforts by the U.S./UK to garner the other required exception; i.e., a UN Security Council sanction of military force against Iraq.

if your new measure of the legality of the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a comparison to the actions of dictators, I suggest you should have gone with the other choice presented to you; i.e., Frank Stallone!

I'm not comparing the actions of the two, I'm just asking when the UN started approving and disapproving military action. Also, how do they enforce violations of their proclamations? How did they do so when Saddam invaded Kuwait? How do they do so when ceasefires are broken? Also, did they approve of Russia's military action in Georgia? And how are such approvals or disapprovals devised when there are members of both sides of conflicts? How would we expect Iraq, or any allies of Iraq to "approve" of any military action, regardless of what Iraq did?

[waldo]

I'm not comparing the actions of the two, I'm just asking when the UN started approving and disapproving military action. Also, how do they enforce violations of their proclamations? How did they do so when Saddam invaded Kuwait? How do they do so when ceasefires are broken? Also, did they approve of Russia's military action in Georgia? And how are such approvals or disapprovals devised when there are members of both sides of conflicts? How would we expect Iraq, or any allies of Iraq to "approve" of any military action, regardless of what Iraq did?

history lessons? Try a few googlies to supplement your naivety!

[Shady]

history lessons? Try a few googlies to supplement your naivety!

That's what I thought. Your notions of so-called illegalness, and the united nations are a ridiculous pretzel of twisted logic.

[waldo]

That's what I thought. Your notions of so-called illegalness, and the united nations are a ridiculous pretzel of twisted logic.

nice one - beauty! You charge forward showing you have zero knowledge in this matter in the foundations of legality... you know, just being you! Your save face attempt is glaringly evident. Like I said, you should have gone with Stallone!

[bleeding heart]

Shady did not. I did not.

I take no pleasure from watching you twist in the wind. Again, you're flatly mistaken.

I said

So when you mention ugly truths like Saddam's intransigence and violations (all serious in and of themselves, I agree), how could you possibly avoid pointing to Western culpability for similar crimes, in the exact same timeframe and situation to which you're referring?

To which Shady responded

No, the person responsible for Iraqis suffering was Saddam Hussein. Stop making excuses for his behaviour.

To which you said

Exactly.

So yes, Shady said just what I claimed he did; and yes, you agreed.

I made what I was agreeing with - that it was Saddam's fault (notice the lack of "all") in 'the Buck Stops Here' sense - quite clear. By saying just that.

You said it afterwards, though if you insist it's retroactive, so be it.

But why does "the buck stop" with Saddam, but "the buck" doesn't stop with US leaders, or the leaders of the coalition?

Are they also responsible for their own behavior?

Like, oh, for example, launching a war and precipitating the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?

The buck stops with him. Ultimately, he was the only one with the power to change things for the people of his country. He could have done so at any time. Yet he kept making decisions that hurt them.

Um, the US and its sycophantic allies certainly had the power not to launch the war, which would therefore result in hundreds of thousands of people not being killed.

Christ on a cracker.

Believe it or not, the actions of my own leaders aren't as offensive to me as the things Saddam has done.

Oh, of course I believe it. 100%. When your country shares responsibility for hundreds thousands dead--in Iraq and elsewhere--I understand it won't do to dwell on such things. We got crimes of enemies to consider, after all.

Wow. One post, in response to someone else who brought it up. I certainly missed any discussion on your part about it and how it lead to actions from other nations.

First of all, it was two posts--in this thread--which only underlines that you didn't read the discussion in which you claimed Shady did not say what he did. (How would you know, anyway, if you didn't read it? Odd.)

Second, it would be good for you to follow your own advice: where in this thread, or other threads, have you "discussed" American precipitation of hundreds of thousands dead in this conflict?

So, to recap:

1. I claim Saddam and the invading nations to share responsibility for the suffering of Iraqis.

2. Shady says "complete nonsense," it's ALL Saddam's fault.

3. You agree with him...in fact, you think he has nailed it "exactly."

4. My claim that there is shared responsibility is, to you, not "inclusive"; whereas your view, that we shouldn't keep focusing on the Western part of the problem, but rather ignore it...IS "inclusive."

Could you make a more ignorant response?

Sure..I could call you "clueless"...but neither of us would stoop to that level of insult, now, would we?

FYI, you are projecting your biased mindset on others, drawing ignorant conclusions about their "feelings."

Opinion stated as fact...evidently a great sin, so you should stop doing this.

The facts are what they are; and the fact is, the Buck Stops with Saddam. He was the only one with the power to stop the Iraqis' suffering.

Right...the aggressive war of choice had no effect on Iraqi suffering. Zero.

As I said. In response to what had previously been said. But what you "namely" said is not fact, but personal opinion.

Look through your long history of declarative sentences, and think on it a little.

Unless you think the rest of the world should have just turned a blind eye to it?

You opposed the war. Why do you think the world should have turned a blind eye to it?

Besides, as I'm sure you don't know, the war wasn't fought because of suffering Iraqis. The US had been killing them through breaking the sanctions rules for many years. That's how much US officials cared about Iraqi suffering. As for the war itself, one of the architects and key figures of Iraq War policy was Wolfowitz...and we fully know his feelings on humanitarianism thanks to his robust defense of Suharto during that other paroxysm of terror and murder (made possible by the West, especially the United States).

I'll tell you what. You make an honest effort to make an all inclusive discussion about it and I'll jump in. But here's a tip - simply saying "Bad Saddam!" isn't going to cut it.

It's a lot more than you have offered, vis-à-vis your own country's unequivocal responsibilities for the unleashed horrors.

Again with your irrationally uneven standards of discussion.

.

Good God. Talk about clueless.

And yet you have refrained, for reasons of your own, to offer a single intelligent rebuttal to anything I've said.

Edited September 21, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

I take no pleasure from watching you twist in the wind. Again, you're flatly mistaken.

I take no pleasure in ignoring 99% of your post, but I'm doing it anyway. I stopped right here. I explained what I meant. You came back with this ignorant response about me so I won't be wasting any more time on this with you except to say, no, I'm not flatly mistaken. I'm totally correct. Now seriously. Try responding to what I say instead of coming back with this 'you're twisting in the wind - again' drama/personal crap.

[bleeding heart]

I take no pleasure in ignoring 99% of your post, but I'm doing it anyway. I stopped right here. I explained what I meant. You came back with this ignorant response about me so I won't be wasting any more time on this with you except to say, no, I'm not flatly mistaken. I'm totally correct. Now seriously. Try responding to what I say instead of coming back with this 'you're twisting in the wind - again' drama/personal crap.

Ok, I retract the statement (just as you doubtless retract your remark that I'm "clueless.")

The rest of my post has plenty of substantive rebuttal to your post, if you wish to look at it.