Just recently, San Cho posted this Photoshop picture of Sarah Palin in a KKK uniform in the comment section of my blog.
I personally condemn the picture and I can't find any humor in it. My question is simple. Does anyone else condemn this?
And who supports it? I have joked around with photoshop pictures before, but I have never put anyone in a Hitler or KKK uniform because that goes beyond being a joke and crosses over into the realms of full blown hate speech.
Bush Senior may have gone to war with Iraq to assist Kuwait, but there was a ceasefire between the US and Iraq. So, with the cessation of hostilities, the war in essence had ended, if not officially/on paper. Hence, Bush Junior's invasion of Iraq was a resumption of hostilities that turned out to be overkill based on a pack of lies and, according to the international community, illegal without UN sanction.
Again, Iraq broke the cease-fire, several times.
The invasion was not "a resumption of hostilities" and it didn't turn out to be overkill.
As for the illegality, in my experience it is always "against international law" to act against dictators while it is perfectly legal to slaughter one's own population. So please forgive me for not caring about "international law".
I am assuming that if there is a case to be made against the invasion it should be possible to make that case without changing the facts. Explain why the invasion is wrong while acknowledging that firing at US aircraft is a violation of the cease-fire and acknowleding that a majority of Iraqis just voted for the very man who gave the US and UK the information about the WMDs (Iyad Allawi) and we can talk.
What Iraq did under Saddam Hussein to break the ceasefire was little more than annoyance value in terms of warfare... and the response was over the top. Hundereds of thousands of Iraqis died during the initial invasion, and with the balance of power destroyed, thousands have died since. Whether you liked Saddam Hussein or not, agreed with his methods or not, he knew what was required to rule a people divided by religious/cultural divides.... and Bush, being ignorant of the country's cultural demographics, signed the death warrants of thousands of Iraqis by interfering in that which he did not understand and had no business meddling with.
Does this mean I agree with what Saddam Hussein did? No!!! Absolutely not!!! I just disagree with an invasion that was based on lies that killed as many if not more innocent Iraqis. And what WMDs??? They were never found... and Bush's premise for invasion was total bullshit. As for Iyad Allawi, how friggin' convenient.... he gives the US and UK WMD info and ends up Iraqi PM, and there's nothing sus about that???
Anyhow, life's too friggin' short..... orright?
What Iraq did under Saddam Hussein to break the ceasefire was little more than annoyance value in terms of warfare... and the response was over the top.
Who cares whether YOU consider it an annoyance?
Hundereds of thousands of Iraqis died during the initial invasion,
That's a lie.
and with the balance of power destroyed, thousands have died since.
Yes. And thousands have died under Saddam.
The point is that most of the "anti-war" crowd don't count Saddam's victims. Plus they made up the lie about the "hundreds of thousands" of victims that is simply not true.
If it were true (and you can do the maths and find out how many bodies they would have had to deal with to find out that it cannot be true) do you think Iraqis would now vote for exactly the parties that supported and invited the invasion?
Whether you liked Saddam Hussein or not, agreed with his methods or not, he knew what was required to rule a people divided by religious/cultural divides....
Yes. He simply slaughtered those who weren't Arab and Sunni.
He knew.
He had a solution. I have seen it:
http://gallery.me.com/ajbrehm#100025&bgcolor=black&view=grid
Whether you agreed with Saddam's methods or not, I cried when I saw the cells the Kurds were kept in before they were transported to Abu Ghraib.
and Bush, being ignorant of the country's cultural demographics, signed the death warrants of thousands of Iraqis by interfering in that which he did not understand and had no business meddling with.
Actually, Bush was not at all ignorant of the country's demographics. He knew exactly that he could count on the Kurds and Shiites to support the invasion (which they did) and hew knew exactly where Saddam's supporters lived. American troops landed in Kurdistan before the invasion and helped the Peshmerga (Kurdish militia) with their final push against Kiruk and Tikrit.
Shortly after the invasion the Peshmerga (with American air support) also took out Al-Qaeda's base in Halabja. (Yes, Al-Qaeda had a base in Iraq and Saddam did protect them. You might think it was a lie that Saddam had links to Al-Qaeda but he did.)
The fact that you disagree with the invasion does not make George W. Bush "ignorant of the country's cultural demographics".
No, there isn't. His party got a majority and it will take a big conspiracy theory to explain that away, especially since the previous government was more pro-Iranian than pro-American.
At some point liberals will just have to get used to the fact that the invasion was a success and that the Iraqis supported it.
Give it up.
Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups. A cease fire is not an end, but an interlude. And the cease fire was not universally followed (by either Clinton or Saddam). IN YOUR OPINION (not shared by any other diplomats) the war was over. in reality, it was put on hold pending compliance with agreed upon conditions. Those conditions were never met, Bush 43 finished the job.
The issue was did Bush 43 start a war. The clear answer is no. If the question was did Bush 43 resume hostilities, the answer could be yes, or could be no based upon one's viewpoint of what constitutes hostilities. i.e. is Bombing considered hostilities?
if the question was did Bush 43 resume the invasion, then the answer is clearly yes.
The issue was did Bush 43 start a war. The clear answer is no.
Before Bush 43 the US were at war with Iraq.
After Bush 43 the US are allied with Iraq.
Despite what the sensationalist media claim (and in fact the worst lies do not even come from them but from conspiracy Web sites), the invasion went fairly well, certainly not worse than any other invasion of the magnitude.
It's easy to blame Bush and the invasion for terror attacks after the invasion. It's also easy to pretend that those same terror attacks didn't happen under Saddam, where the Iraqi government supported such attacks and the media certainly didn't report them.
But the fact is that Iraq is now an ally of the US and that Iraqis just elected a very pro-American government.
Incidentally, under Bush 43 the post-invasion government of Aghanistan was also completely loyal to the US. How long did it take Obama to change that?
Just days after meeting with Obama, Karzai, who has increasingly distanced himself from his U.S. backers, said that U.S. and NATO troops risked being seen as invaders rather than saviors of the country. In the speech, Karzai also delivered extraordinarily harsh criticism of the Western governments fighting in his country, the United Nations and the British and U.S. news media, accusing them of perpetrating a fraud that denied him an outright victory in last summer's presidential elections.
And Karzai has met with leaders of China and Iran, showing he has options for support from other countries.
http://www.startribune.com/world/89958247.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ
One year.
And no, this is not because Obama is more hawkish than Bush 43 and violence in Afghanistan has increased because of that. It's because the US are no longer perceived as a trustworthy ally. Middle-eastern allies have to look elsewhere for protection.
The same happened in Lebanon a short time ago when the Druze leader, Walid Jumblatt, switched sides and now supports Hizbullah. Under Bush 43 he perceived the US and Saudi-Arabia as Lebanon's most trusted allies.
Meanwhile, the King of Jordan is trying to repair Obama's mess in Jerusalem:
"The economic challenges have also not helped in prioritizing the peace process," he noted. "Having said that, I know very well that Obama and his administration are extremely committed to the two-state solution and moving the process forward. But they've had other things to deal with."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3871919,00.html
Not that the King doesn't also lie a lot:
King Abdullah of Jordan on Wednesday urged the international community to intervene in order to prevent "Israel's provocative actions in the occupied Palestinian territories, which are intended to change Jerusalem's identity."Abdullah met Wednesday afternoon with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, after which the royal palace issued a harsh condemnation against Israel. "We cannot keep quiet in face of the Israeli steps that are meant to change the status quo in Jerusalem and cleanse it from its Arab citizens – both Muslims and Christian," the statement read.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3864228,00.html
He doesn't seem to remember that Jerusalem was a Jewish city before Jordan invaded it in 1948 or that the issue is not Israel cleansing Jerusalem of Arabs but the PLO's demand to cleanse the city of Jews.
But this is the usual strategy of the Arabs, I'm afraid. Try something and then accuse Israel of trying it.
@ Leauki, like I said....
life's too friggin' short...
In that case you shouldn't bother making assumptions about subjects you don't understand.
You can waste as much time studying actual history as you can reading conspiracy theories.
Unfortunately that is just affirmation of my point on Obama. His incompetance is getting too obvious for even the sycophantic MSM to cover up.
But the legend of Obama improving relations with US allies remains believed.
Is it actually impossible to disagree with everything Bush 43 did and recognise Obama is not exactly improving relations with US allies?
Will we even see Obama stand next to a British Prime Minister announcing common policy as equals?
Because of the propaganda wing of the democrat party. There is still a vast majority of folks who get all their news from the 6 o'clock shows on ABC, NBC, and CBS.
Did you mean Russian Prime Minister?
I think if Obama ever stands next to the Russian Prime Minister announcing a common policy it will be Russia's policy.
My statement was made with sarcasm, yours is true regardless of the intent.
A love fest.
Get a room.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
