UmHaider not Nader showed me there is not that much difference

[corporatewhore]

i helped with an indy tv series last summer www.austinwomeninblack.org (we got our pilot on free speach) We got to interview an iraqi woman by the name of Um Haider (meaning mother of Haider)who was over here via voices in the wilderness to get medical treatment for her son Mustafa who had onehundred pieces of shapnel inside of him becuase of us bombings.Her other son Haider died at age 11.I assumed this happened under bush the first but it was in 1999.She told us of the devastation Sanctions brought and how her life of a regular middle class teacher was destroyed and how she had to sell all of herfurnature jewelery and eventually her house.I also researched sanctions and unicef says they killed around 1 million iraqis and about 4500 kids per month(bush has some catching up to do.She helped me to see tsee the "Them" on avery personal level.Filming her really changed my outlook on the dem party.She helped me to see that social injustice happens as easily under a dem term as a repub term.Maybe al gore would not have invaded iraq but i think he would have continued the sanctions/I dont know if i would not vote ABB if i lived in a swing state but i dont and am glad that i dont have to take responsibility for voting a hawk (dem or repub) in office

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Thanks for sharing that

It is true that our nation has done some awful things no matter what party was sitting in the oval office.

If I could change just one thing that we do as a country, it would be that we stop supporting dictators in any way, shape, or form.

[corporatewhore]

2. yeah she had to suffer under saddam and the us

[corporatewhore]

3. self kick

[lcordero]

4. kick

[corporatewhore]

5. any one else wanna chime in?

[JVS]

7. hi

love your sig picture

[corporatewhore]

8. thanks

[corporatewhore]

6. Not even a post to say You are a Republican and love bush?

[MadHound]

9. Nice post

Yes, people around here tend to forget the atrocities that happened under Clinton and other Democratic presidents. What I really like are the folks who say that a Democratic president would never take the US into war under false pretenses. I then have to remind them of LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin affair. Some people just can't or won't believe the evil that is staring them in the face, the one that wears a donkey button.

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. I don't think most voters have this as a high priority.

The crusade is popular, and what will actually change for the victims, regardless of the uniform or hat color of the crusaders, is just not on the radar, not a concern.

[Tinoire]

11. This the truth most Dem voters REFUSE to deal with

It's a lot easier when you can keep blaming the "other" guy so you can ignore your own enabling of these horrors.

The Dem party is going to split over this because more and more people are catching on to, facing the lies & hypocrisy and saying "NO".

With the advent of these elections, I've heard the strident defense right here at DU of all places for the war-enabling, war-pushing tools like the NED & the SOA. I am fast realizing that this New Dem Party is nothing like the old one (or at least what I thought it was) and am not so sure it's anything I any longer want to be a part of.

The 2 parties go back and forth with their little wars, arms build-up & support of the institutions that want these wars, machivellically exploiting the people's confusion. This is why the fear of a 3rd party. This is why the fear and hatred of people like Nader who expose our hypocrisy and undo the fine power-sharing balance the 2 parties have agreed to at the expense of the American people and people all over the world.

Keep on talking Nader, keep on talking Chomsky. Continue exposing the hypocrisy. Maybe one day people will take a good long look in the mirror and then go on about the business of changing things instead of excusing these horrors and continually blaming the "other" guy.

Right here at DU, we have a new crowd that wants to take this war from a neo-con Republican one to a neo-liberal Democratic one. What's the god-damn difference? A few less people dead and the rest enslaved under an occupation that they will fight at all costs? That is SOME major improvement!

The whole thing is sickening.

[kodi]

16. thanks ever so much for sharing your moral superiority.

feel better now?

[Tinoire]

17. I always feel good. Sleep very peacefully at night.

Not at all afraid to meet my maker if & when that happens. How do you feel?

[kodi]

18. sure you do, then that was your evil twin who posted the diatribe

frankly, i dont give a flying fuck about your sleep patterns or your god.

but, if posting how morally superior you are to others makes you sleep, knock yourself out.

[Tinoire]

21. Then why enquire? You are a funny sort indeed. n/t

[snoochie]

24. That's one thing that I wonder about often

With so many supposedly religious people in this country, how can this willful support of war enablers go on?

I mean, by paying taxes I am supporting it, but that is the law. There is no law that says you must support candidates who helped in the murder of innocents.

[corporatewhore]

12. kick for insight

[no name no slogan]

13. Thanks for spelling this out

Most people (especially hardcore "party line" at all cost types) don't mention that Clinton killed a lot of Iraqis, too.

Don't forget, the first Iraqi WMD inspectors left Iraq because of an imminent US/UK attack.

This post says all too well why I'll never support a Democratic hawk. Let's not forget that it was Kennedy and Johnson who got us into Vietnam.

:kick: for peace

[mzmolly]

14. It sucks that Clinton bombed Iraq but the circumstances were different.

Saddam at the time DID in fact kick out weapons inspectors. He was in violation of UN resolutions.

This time, there was NO reason what so ever to invade Iraq and change the regime. NONE. And the UN was vocal in their opposition.

[WilliamPitt]

19. Saddam Hussein did not 'kick the inspectors out'

From my book:

PITT: Why were the UNSCOM inspectors pulled out in 1998? What happened there?

RITTER: In August of 1998, Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM, took a delegation to Baghdad to have discussions. The Iraqis were fairly fed up with what they felt to be foot-dragging and deliberately provocative issues. They felt that the inspectors were probing inappropriately into areas that dealt with the sovereignty if Iraq, the dignity of Iraq, and their national security. They were trying to get these issues clarified, and Richard Butler came in with a very aggressive program. The Iraqis made the announcement that they weren't going to deal with Richard Butler anymore. They felt he was no longer a fair and objective implementer of Security Council policy, that he was little more than a stooge for the U.S., and they said they were not going to deal with him. Butler withdrew, and the Iraqis said they were not going to deal with UNSCOM. This led to Richard Butler ordering the inspectors out in October.

Actually, the Iraqis said they were not going to deal with American inspectors to begin with, and then they expanded it to, we're not going to let you do anything other than ongoing monitoring because we don't feel there is anything left. At that point, Richard Butler pulled the plug and got all of the inspectors out. So now the inspectors are out, and the U.S. is getting ready to bomb Iraq. There was actually a point in time when we had bombers in the air. The Secretary General's office was able to get the Iraqis to agree to have the inspectors return without precondition, and because of that the bombers were called back. But there was a lot of frustration in the Pentagon and in the White House about being jerked around by the UN, so a decision was made that they weren't going to let themselves be jerked around anymore.

So, the inspectors were due to go back in. On November 30th of 1998, Richard Butler met with Sandy Berger, who was the National Security Advisor. They met at the U.S. mission to the United Nations in New York in what they call 'The Bubble,' the secret room where you can have a conversation protected. The fact was laid out that the U.S. was going to bomb this time. The timeline of the bombing campaign was laid out, and it was indicated that because of an upcoming religious event in December, the bombing campaign had to be initiated by a given date and terminated by a given date. They had to coincide the bombing campaign with inspection – the inspections were to be used as the trigger. So Richard Butler was encouraged to develop an inspection plan of action that met U.S. strike timelines.

Based upon these conversations with the U.S., Richard Butler decided that they would send the inspectors in to carry out very sensitive inspections, inspections that had nothing to do with disarmament, but had everything to do with provoking the Iraqis. These kind of inspections – not the provocative nature – but when you do sensitive sites like that, they're called 'sensitive site inspections. This was something that Iraq came up with in 1996, after several inspection teams that I was involved in tried to get into special Republican Guard and other sensitive facilities around Baghdad.

The Iraqis said, this is very sensitive, we don't like forty intelligence officers running around here. Rolf Ekeus flew over to Iraq in June of 1996 and worked out an agreement called the 'Modalities for Sensitive Site Inspections.' So when inspectors came to a site, and the Iraqis declared the site to be sensitive, the Iraqis had to facilitate the immediate entry of a four-man inspection element that would ascertain whether or not this site had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction, or if it was indeed sensitive. If it was sensitive, the inspection was over.

PITT: These 'Sensitive Site Modalities' came under the rubric of the Security Council inspections framework, part of the international laws that governed the process?

RITTER: Yes, these modalities were accepted by the Council and became part and parcel of the framework of the operating instructions. And they worked, not perfectly, but they worked and enabled us to do our jobs from 1996 to 1998. What Richard Butler did, in close coordination with the United States, was that when the inspectors went in that December, he ordered them to make null and void the Sensitive Site Modalities. He did this without coordinating with the Security Council. The only nation he coordinated this with was the United States.

So the inspectors went in, and went to a Ba'ath Party headquarters in downtown Baghdad. The Iraqis said it was a sensitive site but they were welcome to come in, but the inspectors made null and void the Sensitive Site Modalities.

PITT: How did they do that?

RITTER: They said, we're not doing it as part of the modalities, we're going in with everybody. The Iraqis said, no, you come in with the small group. In fact, the Iraqis actually allowed a six-man inspection element into the site to do a survey, and the team went in and found nothing. They came out, and still the chief inspector, under orders from Richard Butler, demanded that a much larger team be given access. To which the Iraqis said, only under the Sensitive Site Modalities will you be allowed back inside the site. The inspectors withdrew, reported to Richard Butler, and Richard Butler cited this as an egregious violation of the Security Council mandate, that the Iraqis were not cooperating with the team and infringing on the ability of the team to do their inspections.

Then, he withdrew them under orders from the United States. He received a phone call from Peter Burleigh, deputy U.S. ambassador, and withdrew the team even though Butler had promised the other members of the Security Council that he would never again withdraw inspectors unilaterally, that if they were to be withdrawn, he would go through the Security Council, inform them, and get their permission. The inspectors work for the Council. But Richard Butler took the telephone call from the United States, executed their instructions, withdrew the inspectors, and two days later the bombing campaign started, using Richard Butler's report to the Security Council as justification – his report saying, of course, that the inspectors weren't being allowed to do their jobs by the Iraqis.

[mzmolly]

26. Will, I broke it down in simple terms.

"The inspectors withdrew, reported to Richard Butler, and Richard Butler cited this as an egregious violation of the Security Council mandate, that the Iraqis were not cooperating with the team and infringing on the ability of the team to do their inspections."

Clearly, there was some precident/violation *at least - a percieved one* before Clinton acted.

Clinton was in a no win situation, damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

I did not agree with the Clinton bombing, but to compare the Bush WAR to the Clinton action is a stretch.

[Protagoras]

15. There are differences.

Sadly...one part of our American Heritage has been that those differences are primarily aimed at US. We have a pretty universally crappy record internationally. Sure we've done some good but it doesn't counterbalance the bad imho.

However...those other things...those national things do matter. They matter to 300 million Americans...they matter to people who see the US as an example in how people CAN be cared for. They still (though Bush is quickly undermining it) see us as a model for what a democratic and constitutional government can do.

We may be slipping...we may make mistakes (oh hell yes we do) but we are not unremittingly evil. And American liberals, while far from perfect, do have a better record on repairing the damage of the other side. We are more likely to help address hunger and AIDS and work within the context of the UN. That DOES matter. It could clearly be better...it SHOULD be better. But when compared to the republicans IT IS better and different.

And while we rightly feel bleak about some of the things we have allowed to happen...remember too that we won't be able to make redress with Bush continuing the attrocities. We need to insure Civil rights at home, Woman's rights at home. A decent job base from which to fund international aid. A decent education system by which to grow the next generation of more socially conscious progressive children.

And none of those things are going to happen under Bush.

Voting still matters. The Democratic Party still matters. Don't abandon the future over grief from the past.

[corporatewhore]

22. This was just meant to illustrate that anti abbers are

people who for some reason many times personally have come to their own conclusion how they want to vote and to show that we arnt just some hopelessly idealistic reactionary radical chic idiots

[JHBowden]

23. You prove that yourself.

:beer:

[Skip Intro]

20. You know what I don't understand...

bush the first attacked Iraq because saddam invaded Kuwait. I have read that Kuwait was "slant-drilling" southern Iraqi oilfields, and that that was the justification saddam used to attack. I remember others, as well. I have also seen documentation, in the form of news reports that we gave saddam the "wink, wink" go ahead in invading Kuwait. Its a fact that we supplied his regime, under bush first, with wmds with which to fight Iran.

So the first attack on Iraq by the US was, at best, questionable in justification.

Then Clinton attacked because, as was reported at the time, and since, saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998. From what I've read, and you have to search for it (whatreallyhappened.com has a good volume on this) the inspectors left only because the attack was imminent. Another lie, another attack.

And the g.w.moron admin comes in. God, who needs that fiasco spelled out. The entire thing was a complete fabrication the type of which we as a species should reject and rectify.

What I don't understand tho, is, what is the REAL reason our government, under bush one, Clinton, and bush the moron, the REAL reason for the demonification of Iraq and the subsequent, yet in retrospect probably inevitable occupation of Iraq? Why has the US had such a powerlust toward Iraq for the last twenty years?

One answer, and only one answer comes to mind - O-I-L.

It is the blood of capitalism as we know it. And that, imho, is what I suspect it is all about.

Were the American people to be informed of the reality of what is going on and why, I think, I believe, we would find a way to preserve our economic viability, our survival, as well as that of the rest of the world. I frimly believe the American people as a whole would be motivated to put the lives of the innocent above the needs of our corporatons and their political whores if only given the chance.

The drumming of hatred of "those people" into the heads of Americans, sadly, is a tool of control not only of the institutional right, but, I fear, of the institutional left as well.

The only thing that keeps this insanity alive is the ignorance of the American people.

IMHO, of course.

[plurality]

25. oil and something else

Saddam was getting too big for his britches. We had no problem with him using chemical weapons or with sending him arms in the past becasue he was controllable, no matter what he did, we knew we could squash him.

By 1990 that was no longer the case. By that time Iraq had become in many ways a model of progress in the Middle East, yes Saddam was still a despot, but its health care system and was one of the best in the Middle East as well as its domestic infrastructure and industrial capacity. That along with Iraq and Kuwait's combined oil wealth would have made Saddam a MAJOR player in the world arena. The US would no longer be able to tell Iraq to jump and have them say "how high?" Gulf War I was to knock them back down to size, and provide a lesson to anyone else who had ideas about progressing as a nation.

[corporatewhore]

27. kick