So where were the anti-war protesters during the 90s?

[The Laughing Man]

Clinton sent the military to take action against many foes during the 90s, yet not a peep was heard from the anti-war protesters. Why? In the 8 years under Clinton, the military was far more active than it was in the 30 years before he entered office. In light of that fact, who's the real warmonger? Why weren't anti-war protesters calling for Clinton to be impeached for "war crimes?"

[Rubia Warren]

:eek: I KNOW! I mean, all of those innocent women and children who probably were killed in all those air strikes and stuff, well, that was okay, 'cuz Bill felt their pain.:thumb:

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 08:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68794#post68794)
La Rubia:

:eek: I KNOW! I mean, all of those innocent women and children who probably were killed in all those air strikes and stuff, well, that was okay, 'cuz Bill felt their pain.:thumb:

The only thing Clinton felt was Monica.

[Socrates]

Similarly, judging by the leftist media reports, the problem of homelessness disappeared overnight after Klinton was elected.

[kiwimac]

Listen maties,

I was involved and so were many of my firends in protests about the Clinton-era bombings. Why don't you damn conservatives grow-up! If you put half as much energy into making the world a better place as you do into attacking people based on their perceived political motivations then we'd be living in a sodding paradise!

As for Bill Clinton & Lewinsky, GOOD ON HIM! at least he didn't need to bomb countries to ruins in order to prove he had testicles!@

Kiwimac

[GrayPilgrim]

No he bombed them b/c he tried to cover his inability to contol said testicles!

[Rubia Warren]

:rofl:

[Ryokan]

The differnce between Clintons dedication to protecting Americans from terrorism vs. Bush is striking. 1 tylenol factory vs. 2 terror states.

[Captain Ochre]

Children killed in NATO bombing of Bosnia.

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/sded.htm

More civilian dead, and allegations of war crimes.
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/shown.htm

No mention of Clinton! If anybody died who wasn't supposed to, it was probably NATO's fault. Slick Willy would have had nothing to do with it.

"By the end of the 78-day air offensive, they believed they had "overwhelming evidence" to demand the criminal prosecution of the leaders of the United States, Britain and other alliance countries, as well as NATO's senior military commanders."
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/ataking.htm

Clinton mentioned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Paint up some new signs, Peaceniks!
Where were your "impeach Clinton" signs when it could have mattered?
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/sclint.htm

I wonder if VP Al Gore was "out of the loop"? :hrm:

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 03:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69005#post69005)
GrayPilgrim:

No he bombed them b/c he tried to cover his inability to contol said testicles!

BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Perfect. Absolutely perfect response. :thumb: :cheers:

[geochron]

One might equally ask where the pro-war supporters were in the 80s, when Saddam was using chemical weapons on his citizens and otherwise torturing them in the ways it has now become fashionable to see as evidence of ultimate evil. In some cases we know the answer - Rumsfeld, for instance, was in Baghdad shaking Saddam's hand. I wonder if he's going to cut his hand off?

I was campaigning for our governments (including the US, but also UK, France and the other major players) to stop propping him up. Back then, that made me a whining leftist agitator of the sort so demonised on this site. Ultimately the Republican presidency vetoed a Congressional motion to impose sanctions on Iraq.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 10:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76321#post76321)
geochron:

One might equally ask where the pro-war supporters were in the 80s, when Saddam was using chemical weapons on his citizens and otherwise torturing them in the ways it has now become fashionable to see as evidence of ultimate evil. In some cases we know the answer - Rumsfeld, for instance, was in Baghdad shaking Saddam's hand. I wonder if he's going to cut his hand off?

I was campaigning for our governments (including the US, but also UK, France and the other major players) to stop propping him up. Back then, that made me a whining leftist agitator of the sort so demonised on this site. Ultimately the Republican presidency vetoed a Congressional motion to impose sanctions on Iraq.

Hmmm, we've got another who likes to lay out the insinuations via unsubstantiated assertion, leaving the reader to connect the scattered dots--hopefully in the manner the author had wished.

Give us the dates of the handshakes, of the killing of citizens by the Iraqi government, and an overview of the climate in the Middle East at the time, if you dare.

[geochron]

None of these things are exactly hidden away.

The use of chemical weapons by Iraq on its own citizens is one of the key pieces of evidence used by the allies to justify the recent war - have you been kidnapped by the Mysterons for the last 6 months? Here's a report, August 25th 1988 was one date, it seems. Back then he was our man.

http://www.phrusa.org/research/iraq/winds.html

And here's a picture of the handshake

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0212/S00074.htm

My bad, it was the Iranians Saddam was using chemical weapons against at the time. His using them on Iraqi Kurds came later. Both were equally criminal, of course.

The Middle East at the time, gosh is there room? Iran had recently got rid of the Shah, imposed on them after the US helped depose the previous elected government. Rightly or wrongly the Shah was seen by us as 'our' man in the middle east, even though his regime had something of a bad reputation for the activities of his secret police.. The US public were surprised that the subsequent Iranian government was anti-American because their government's support for the oppressive Shah had gone down the memory hole. To oppose this anti-American (and clearly lunatic) Iranian government the US was keen to bolster the secular (but equally lunatic) Saddam Hussein. His development and use of chemical weapons in the 1980s was not seen by anyone in the US administration as a problem warranting action, though it is now widely seen as evidence of the ultimate evil of his regime.

You may like to think he didn't start torturing people until after he stopped being our boy. By all means, go ahead.

[Socrates]

:em7:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Cute pic, but it's easily a fake.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Yesterday @ 04:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76321#post76321)
geochron:

One might equally ask where the pro-war supporters were in the 80s, when Saddam was using chemical weapons on his citizens and otherwise torturing them in the ways it has now become fashionable to see as evidence of ultimate evil. In some cases we know the answer - Rumsfeld, for instance, was in Baghdad shaking Saddam's hand. I wonder if he's going to cut his hand off?
Nah, when it comes to human rights violations or terrorism, the pro-war supporters only come out when they get scared that they'll have to pay a bit extra at the pump or that they might get a bomb on their own doorstep. That's about the only time they give a fake hoot about the unfortunate state of foreign nations.

[Ryokan]

Because of course the anti-war side cares and has so much to say about the excesses of foriegn powers.:hrm:

Most people don't care about people they have never met and unlikely to be able to help.

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 09:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76877#post76877)
geochron:

None of these things are exactly hidden away.


Just so you know, I did some initial research of my own that made me suspicious of your claims. That's why I asked you to substantiate them, so I don't end up with a straw man by using events other than those you intended to cite.



The use of chemical weapons by Iraq on its own citizens is one of the key pieces of evidence used by the allies to justify the recent war - have you been kidnapped by the Mysterons for the last 6 months? Here's a report, August 25th 1988 was one date, it seems. Back then he was our man.

http://www.phrusa.org/research/iraq/winds.html

And here's a picture of the handshake

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0212/S00074.htm


Okay, that's what I thought. Saddam gasses his own citizens in 1988, and you claim that Rumsfeld shaking hands with S. Hussein in 1983 is indicative of approval for the use of chemical weapons.
From your second link, above:
Five years before Saddam's now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam and Washington.

I guess that I'll probably have to face up to that fact that when I had S.W. over for my birthday in the fifth grade I was implicitly approving his later attempt to murder his wife in cold blood.
Is that the message, huh?



My bad, it was the Iranians Saddam was using chemical weapons against at the time.


Well, good, you caught the gaffe without actually needing my help.



His using them on Iraqi Kurds came later. Both were equally criminal, of course.


Both were after the supposedly incriminating handshake.
March 1, 1984: First confirmed use of chemical weapons by Iraqis against Iranians to repel offensive in Majnoon marshes.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-iraqprofile-history,0,7547063.htmlstory

So, you screwed up doubly. Bummer.
Iraq was judged (probably correctly) as the lesser of two evils (between Iran and Iraq). Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran was condemned by the Administration, and let's not forget the other party who was using chemical weapons during the time of the war: Iran. It was not inconsistent, imo, to simultaneously condemn Iraqi use of chemical weapons and assist the Iraqis against Iran.
Would you care to take the contrary position?



The Middle East at the time, gosh is there room? Iran had recently got rid of the Shah, imposed on them after the US helped depose the previous elected government. Rightly or wrongly the Shah was seen by us as 'our' man in the middle east, even though his regime had something of a bad reputation for the activities of his secret police.. The US public were surprised that the subsequent Iranian government was anti-American because their government's support for the oppressive Shah had gone down the memory hole. To oppose this anti-American (and clearly lunatic) Iranian government the US was keen to bolster the secular (but equally lunatic) Saddam Hussein. His development and use of chemical weapons in the 1980s was not seen by anyone in the US administration as a problem warranting action, though it is now widely seen as evidence of the ultimate evil of his regime.


Apparently condemning the use of chemical weapons by Iraq doesn't count as "action". What does count as action, according to you?



You may like to think he didn't start torturing people until after he stopped being our boy. By all means, go ahead.

Saddam Hussein was a stinker from the get-go. The only legimate use you can get out of "our boy" in the above is to suggest that Iraq was used by the US to check Iran, and that we gave some support (including technology and planning assistance) toward that end.
IMO, your use of the term "our boy" seems intended to tar US administrations with approval of barbaric acts. Is that aspect of your tone unintended, or not?

[geochron]

I guess that I'll probably have to face up to that fact that when I had S.W. over for my birthday in the fifth grade I was implicitly approving his later attempt to murder his wife in cold blood.
Is that the message, huh?


I don't know, did you carry on having him over after he'd murdered his wife? Or are you saying that the US stopped supporting Saddam when he committed war crimes. I don't think you are.

You see no inconsistency in supporting Saddam while he is attacking his neighbour, using chemical weapons on Iranians and gassing his own citizens (which we continued to do through the invasion of Kuwait), then telling us that these events are evidence of just how exceptionally evil he is? These events are all part of Tony Blair's repeated mantra. But at least Tony Blair's party were the opposition when we supported him. In the US the Bush regime is essentially the same people as back then, so the history needs some pointing out, I think. Also, perhaps we should examine the credentials of the people we currently support and wonder if their present use of torture or development and possession of WMD is a warning sign of things to come.

I'm less impressed than you by US condemnation of chemical weapon use that is not backed up by withdrawal of actual support. The Palestinian authority routinely condemns suicide bombings, but we expect changes of behaviour rather than words from them. In this case, we don't consider it action since they have influence and don't use it.

Do you have a reference for Iranian use of chemical weapons? The Israelis assert that Iran started their development programme in 1983 as a response to Iraq's previous use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. But wait! That was before 1984, how can this be? I wonder what 'confirmed' means in this context?

More google work for you, looks like! ;)

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 06:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77675#post77675)
geochron:



I don't know, did you carry on having him over after he'd murdered his wife?


The presentation that I responded to consisted of a claim that Rumsfeld shook hands with a guy who was known for using chemical weapons on folks.
You have no problem with that misrepresentation, if you'll pardon me for drawing you back toward the context temporarily?



Or are you saying that the US stopped supporting Saddam when he committed war crimes. I don't think you are.


Good for you, with the thinking part. Maybe that explains why you didn't carry over the rest of my post--the part that would serve to clarify my position on that.
Of course, that makes your unpunctuated question gratuitous and gives rise to a suspicion that you play the same insinuation games as several others who frequent the vitual halls of the Political Science wing.



You see no inconsistency in supporting Saddam while he is attacking his neighbour, using chemical weapons on Iranians and gassing his own citizens (which we continued to do through the invasion of Kuwait), then telling us that these events are evidence of just how exceptionally evil he is?


In the broader context, no, it's not inconsistent. It is consistent with our policy of opposition to Iran. Lesser of two evils, and all that. Of course, you would know that from my previous post--or would you?



These events are all part of Tony Blair's repeated mantra. But at least Tony Blair's party were the opposition when we supported him. In the US the Bush regime is essentially the same people as back then, so the history needs some pointing out, I think.


Since when is Rumsfeld was chummy with a chemical weapons user! He was the US' "boy"! history? It's nothing but spin. By all means look at the history, but don't commit obvious chronological errors while swinging around the tar brush.



Also, perhaps we should examine the credentials of the people we currently support and wonder if their present use of torture or development and possession of WMD is a warning sign of things to come.


Okay, but don't change the subject. :smile:



I'm less impressed than you by US condemnation of chemical weapon use that is not backed up by withdrawal of actual support.


Oh? How impressed am I?



The Palestinian authority routinely condemns suicide bombings, but we expect changes of behaviour rather than words from them. In this case, we don't consider it action since they have influence and don't use it.


On the contrary, the words of the Palestinian Authority would have been considered action if they had been consistent in both English and Arabic (for example). The versions for Palestinian consumption have been equivocal.
There is a potential parallel in "dual-use" technologies, but the case would have to be better than mere insinuation.



Do you have a reference for Iranian use of chemical weapons? The Israelis assert that Iran started their development programme in 1983 as a response to Iraq's previous use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. But wait! That was before 1984, how can this be? I wonder what 'confirmed' means in this context?


It means documented, and I documented my source. If you've got a source where the Israelis documented previous use of CW, then feel free to provide it.



More google work for you, looks like! ;)

You want me to document that your undocumented claim is false?
Ha.
I do research when my BoP requires it, or when I feel like it.
I always feel less like it when somebody expects me to bear what should be his BoP.

[geochron]

Ho hum.

The thread is about apparent inconsistency by anti-war protestors in their behaviour during the 90s. My post points out apparent inconsistency in advocates for war in their behaviour during the 80s. You find reasons to excuse it, I disagree that they are reasonable. I will leave it to the lurkers to decide where right lies.

Turning, mon capitan, to your exercise in internet criticism, do you not sense a note of pomposity, absurdity even, in the style you are adopting? Context is everything, after all.

Notice, dear lurkers, the first post where we are told...



Clinton sent the military to take action against many foes during the 90s, yet not a peep was heard from the anti-war protesters. Why? In the 8 years under Clinton, the military was far more active than it was in the 30 years before he entered office...

30 years before Clinton entered office was 1962, I believe (I'm not a US citizen so may have the Presidential election years a little out of sync). Hmm, is that really true? Were the 90s really more militarily active than the Vietnam war? I'm afraid I misread this and other clues on this thread and assumed we were kicking back, easing our belts and freely trading knee jerk responses. My apologies fellow forumites! Though I think in the light of the preceding posts one might indeed well ask what I originally asked...

That said, I think Saddam's involvement in torture and, yes, his use of chemical weapons that would prompt a UN investigation confirming their use (I expect you'll find the report if you do some more of your "research" :lol:) should have prevented the civilised world from supporting him even in 1983 and certainly later on in the 1980s. What exactly was it about Iran that made it so much more foul that Iraq? And, thinking that, I think we need to remind our leaders that they have sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind before.

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 09:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77810#post77810)
geochron:

Ho hum.

The thread is about apparent inconsistency by anti-war protestors in their behaviour during the 90s. My post points out apparent inconsistency in advocates for war in their behaviour during the 80s. You find reasons to excuse it, I disagree that they are reasonable. I will leave it to the lurkers to decide where right lies.


I'll simply remind the lurkers to compare the facts to the way you spin the facts.



Turning, mon capitan, to your exercise in internet criticism, do you not sense a note of pomposity, absurdity even, in the style you are adopting? Context is everything, after all.


What, in particular, did you find either pompous or absurd?
For my part, I found it absurd that a '83 handshake was adduced as evidence of being chummy with a chem weapons abuser when the documented instances of chem weapons happened after the handshake. IMO, you should be ashamed of yourself for that presentation, and perhaps that accounts for your understated attack on my style of critique--but, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for now.



Notice, dear lurkers, the first post where we are told...

[...]

30 years before Clinton entered office was 1962, I believe (I'm not a US citizen so may have the Presidential election years a little out of sync). Hmm, is that really true? Were the 90s really more militarily active than the Vietnam war?


It probably depends on the measurement criteria. In terms of the sheer number of foreign military involvements, the Clintonian rate is second to none in the past 40 years, I suspect.
That said, I can recall various protests against some of the Clinton applications for the US military. Charges that much of the anti-war rhetoric is motivated substantially by party alignment are substantially accurate, imo, but it's still a bit of a generalization.



I'm afraid I misread this and other clues on this thread and assumed we were kicking back, easing our belts and freely trading knee jerk responses. My apologies fellow forumites! Though I think in the light of the preceding posts one might indeed well ask what I originally asked...


My two cents: An argument in which facts are brought to the table and discussed rationally has the potential to benefit all of the participants. I suppose that knee-jerk reciprocity has the potential to have a cathartic effect which may be of some small benefit, but I confess that I prefer the former to the latter.



That said, I think Saddam's involvement in torture and, yes, his use of chemical weapons that would prompt a UN investigation confirming their use (I expect you'll find the report if you do some more of your "research" :lol:) should have prevented the civilised world from supporting him even in 1983 and certainly later on in the 1980s. What exactly was it about Iran that made it so much more foul that Iraq?


They took US hostages and ousted US interests without compensation (iirc). The new Iranian government was (Islamically) theocratic, which made it a less suitable partner than Iraq's secular regime.



And, thinking that, I think we need to remind our leaders that they have sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind before.

You want more North Koreas and fewer Iraqs, or what? :wink: