The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq

"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to security here at home."

"QUESTION: On that point, what evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on September 11th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for the bombings taking place in Iraq? What evidence can you present?

And also, are you saying, sir, that Al Qaida in Iraq is the same organization being run by Osama bin Laden himself?

BUSH: Al Qaida in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. "

Still trying to make the connection between Al-Queda in Mesopotamia, which did not exist in Iraq till 2004.

No votes yet

I don't understand why this is even in contention. We have screwed this whole thing up so badly that we will be fighting Al Qaida forever at this point when we could have had them isolated in Afganistan and perhaps dealt a death blow to the leadership there. Instead, we invaded Iraq and spread the cancer throughout Iraq and now all over the Islamic world. Our stupidity has created a cause c

It's got electrolytes!

"When I say your dumb name, please stand up briefly, but then quickly drop to your knees and forsake all others before me." -Ignignokt

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Saddam was a vicious, some would say 'evil,' man who used chemical weapons on his own people, allowed his sons to torture and maim those who opposed him - or for no reason whatsoever, kidnapped and killed people and buried them in mass graves

That's exactly why our corporatocracy loved Saddam. Our history is full of propping up dictators who keep their people down, in exchange for large World Bank and IMF loans, as long as we get access to their resources. But then Saddam didn't play the oil game...

Check out our interview with John Perkins, best-selling author where we discuss the corporatocracy, here

The U.S. as was the case when Saddam Hussein was repressing people also supported Pinochet.

I knew the strict constructionist, already, and you avoided the question.

And until the day that the concept of strict constructionist is applied the U.S. will still support dictators and the people of the countries involved will look at the U.S. and wonder why.

And this implies that some are okay to support.

"...the question - just an answer you didn't like."

You presume too much.

It is all discussion, that's all.

So, which countries are okay to support then?

When I was a kid, and heard stories from my dad about World War II it was one of the reasons I began to read books about the war starting when I was about eight. When I was around 11 or 12 I read a short history about World War II that talked about the scope of the war, especially in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was our enemy. I couldn

Old South End Broadway

The support being given is economic, military to countries including; Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and others.

The support also comes in ways through not taking a stand against the policies of the countries, with regards to human rights and or using the countries police and military to torture people for the war on terror.

Candidate Paul makes a policy statement that is long on words but short on substance.

Is there some reason you're specifically interested in Isreal, considering all the financial 'support' we give to so many foreign governments?

Only in that it's such a key player in the powderkeg that's the Middle East and I can't think of a country we support more from a military standpoint, sometimes, as with last summer's violence in Lebanon, with semi-controversial consequences.
On a side note, knowing you're a Ron Paul supporter, I was curious as to your opinion of this topic posted on Toledo Talk:,0,31322...

Maybe our President should have a little chat with the Bush family friend Prince Bandar and we can include the Saudis along with the Iranians and Syrians in importing "terrorists" to Iraq.

by the conservative-leaning columnist Kathleen Parker:

As a poster on Lancaster Online notes--"Without attacks, $178 B. With attacks, $730 B. That's a couple hundred billion reasons to attack the U.S., for real, or in a Constitution-ending false flag operation."

A bit dated but the costs are probably higher, now.

Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US

"n ways that don't require funds or 'in-kind' donations or commitments of U.S. resources."

And I guess this means, like the arms that were supplied to Suharto so he and his government could round up people in East Timor and gun them down?

Personally I think we need to follow the Albright Doctrine more. The problem I do have with the Iraq War is that we have allowed it to deter us from acting in other regions of the world such as the Sudan.

I am not a big fan of Ron Paul. I don't believe an isolationist policy has ever saved lives. In fact I believe that freedom comes both at a price and with an obligation. The price is heavy and the obligation is always a burden.



...well, they're good for you! ROFL, handbanana!

Pete, good people will come to different conclusions about Iraq - and I'm not going to dispute anything you say or believe about our involvement over there...

But, I do have to question you when you say:

"Saddam was doing a pretty good job of keeping all his religious and political foes down. We should have pinned a medal on him and wished him good luck instead of hanging him."

Saddam was a vicious, some would say 'evil,' man who used chemical weapons on his own people, allowed his sons to torture and maim those who opposed him - or for no reason whatsoever, kidnapped and killed people and buried them in mass graves. WE didn't hang him - the new Iraqi government did - and for reasons which were made clear during his trial. Yes, he kept his foes down - usually face down in a grave.

Say what you will about the U.S., our decision to fight in Iraq, the way things are going...but please do not say that a madman like Saddam deserved a medal. That would be like saying that Hitler, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot deserve a medal for 'keeping their foes down.'

...our reaction to Saddam (and other dictators) was not the point of my comment...HIS actions don't deserve praise and certainly shouldn't qualify for any type of 'medal'. I hope that you'll agree with this point.

...didn't address the actions of our government. I did address the fact that Pete said Saddam should get a medal for keeping his foes down.

Regardless of our reaction to Saddam, Pinochet, or any other dictator, we (individually and as a nation) should not praise such actions by anyone - and we should not be saying that people like Saddam (and Pinochet) deserve medals. THAT was the point of my comment - and I hope that you'll agree with it.

...the question - just an answer you didn't like. You asked if I thought we should support such dictators...I didn't limit my answer to just 'such dictators.' I said I think we support a lot of governments we shouldn't. Which means, since you didn't seem to understand, all kinds of governments, including such dictators...

there is no 'simple' answer to the question, hence the generalities.

One only needs to look at the ground work laid, axis of evil and all that.

A trigger event is needed to justify the action.

Candidate Paul also made a comment that because of the U.S. actions in the 20th century have caused or brought close to home terrorism to the U.S. but what he failed to mention is there were also events earlier that also laid the ground work for resentment.

...I think we can 'support' countries friendly to us in ways that don't require funds or 'in-kind' donations or commitments of U.S. resources. I also think that, when the executive branch has negotiated treaties that congress has ratified, we need to adhere to the terms of such agreements.

I know that Isreal is not a NATO country, but I don't know if we have any treaties or agreements with them that detail any commitments to them. So, with that question out there, it's hard for me to be more specific.

Isreal has proven to be a friend to the U.S. and, as a democracy, it makes political sense to maintain that friendship. Friendship is, of course, a two-way street. But friendship doesn't always mean 'financial' even though, it today's world, it seems money is the way our government shows such friendship.

This may not be the answer you were looking for, but I think it's a very complicated issue not easily translated to a forum such as the two of us would be able to have a very interesting, but long, discussion on it. :)

As for the TT post, I'm a Ron Paul fan...I haven't yet decided who I'll support for president. I strongly admire his adherence to his philosophy and the way he votes - as well as his analysis of issues which result in his positions. I don't always agree with him, but that's to be expected of anyone, especially presidential candidates. I've been busy this weekend, so I haven't listened to the actual exchange to see if the 'reporting' of it is accurate...

To paraphrase Henry Kissinger, geopolitics is not dictated by a fixed set of rules (e.g., ethics) but is instead goal-oriented and limited only by practical exigencies. The circumstances of a sovereign country's internal stance toward its own people is its own business and is a concern only when the actions of that government have a deleterious effect on our own country.

Our problem is that the powers-that-be persuade us into believing that it is ethics that drive our foreign policy considerations. I personally believe that the ethics you cited, that, "Saddam was a vicious, some would say 'evil,' man who used chemical weapons on his own people, allowed his sons to torture and maim those who opposed him - or for no reason whatsoever, kidnapped and killed people and buried them in mass graves", were in fact only a pretext for a policy decision that had nothing to do with Saddam being an evil man.

The US has had plenty of examples of evil that it could have gone after: the gulags of the USSR, torture and the "disappearings" in Chile during the Pinochet years, but it never did. Why? Because it didn't fit into the geopolitical, the Realpolitik view of the government. Let's face it, our government does not bring down other governments because those governments kill their own citizens. It does it because it is politically advantageous to do that. We didn't invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was "evil". We did it because we thought we could get something from it.

Your other point, Maggie, that "WE didn't hang him - the new Iraqi government did", is just ridiculous. Do you really think for a moment that the current Iraqi government is NOT a puppet government and pretty much beholden to what we order? I don't think we can slip out of this one so easily by pointing the finger at the other guy. We ARE the other guy.

I do agree and have never commented in any way shape or from that way and do you agree that we as a nation should not be supporting dictators as those listed and the present crop for our national and international interests.

OK, thanks for your answers.

...point, Pete - and I don't disagree with the premise.

But I go back to what I was taught when I was younger...It doesn't make a difference who is doing it - if it's wrong, it's wrong. The fact that our government did or did not address other evils doesn't justify the act of addressing or not addressing this one. Many will agree with you that just because someone is doing something evil in another country does not mean that we become a self-appointed policeman to pass judgment. Our actions are one thing - Saddam's actions are another.

So, whether or not we use the actions of tyrants to political advantage, it doesn't change the fact that they are tyrants whose actions should not be condoned.

Saddam does not deserve a medal, reward, accolades or any other type of praise for the things he did.

...strict constitutionalist when it comes to such things - 'avoiding foreign entanglements' is the phrase I like a lot (probably a reason why I'm partial to Ron Paul). I think we do a lot of 'supporting' on a foreign relations basis that we shouldn't...

I think we do a lot of 'supporting' on a foreign relations basis that we shouldn't...

Does this include Israel?

...if you don't mind...

Is there some reason you're specifically interested in Isreal, considering all the financial 'support' we give to so many foreign governments?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.