Struck a nerve there huh?..
complete lie, Reagan did no such thing.
what he did do, because Saddam was new and unknown and Iran had established themselves as our enemy was to supply Saddam during the first half of the war limited military assistance in the form of satelite imagry of Iranian military dispostions and troop concentrations. Assistance ended when Iraq's use of chemical weapons is confirmed.
we also sold some helicopters early on, not alot but some and it was the United States Intelligence that identified Iraq’s Ministry of Trade’s Technical and Scientific Materials Import Division as the front for Iraq’s germ warfare program in 1988 I think. Bio-Weapons manufacturing is easy to disquise because it can be made from legitimate products like feed, yogurt, fertilizer, powdered milk, and dozen of other legitimate products.
This is about like blaming Uhaul or whatever store sold Tim McVeigh Fertilizer for the bomb he set off in Ok. City.
Then again, this is just another example of the idiocy of moral relativism. Say we did supply Saddam and were this Evil Nation under Reagan you hate like Cafferty? Since Truth isn't fixed and of one's individual perspective and different for everyone, there's nothing wrong with the use of Chemical Weapons by Saddam OR if your false claim that we supplied them also isn't "wrong", rather its Relative and no different than any other action.... under this view, which is self-refuting every single time its employed.
sadly this is what is taught in our school system and Univerisities today.
It is in fact a stupid mis-statement from McCain, and you should expect to see it in Obama commercials in the coming months. Probably in the context of a statement that the US has lost leverage of "the moral high ground" to intervene diplomatically in a case like this. That is almost indisputably true in terms of the ability of the US to mobilize allies and foes. Whether it has any practical impact in this case - other than possibly emboldening Russia - is dubious, IMHO. But, that is political capital that was spent with our actions in Iraq, and it's silly to deny it. It's also silly to write the scripts for your opponent in a high-stakes election.
It is in fact a stupid mis-statement from McCain, and you should expect to see it in Obama commercials in the coming months. Probably in the context of a statement that the US has lost leverage of "the moral high ground" to intervene diplomatically in a case like this. That is almost indisputably true in terms of the ability of the US to mobilize allies and foes. Whether it has any practical impact in this case - other than possibly emboldening Russia - is dubious, IMHO. But, that is political capital that was spent with our actions in Iraq, and it's silly to deny it. It's also silly to write the scripts for your opponent in a high-stakes election.
you've got to be kidding, its not the same by a long shot. To suggest:
US removing Saddam Hussein is the same as Russia invading Georgia is ludicrious. Its only useful politically because people are philosophically stupid and blind.
here's a hint/analogy: having sex with a Child and having sex with an adult are not the same thing. the actions may appear the same, but they are not the same morally. however, this analogy is the road moral relativism will eventually take us down.
removing an Outlaw regime legally to foster a free democracy is not the same as invading a free democracy to foster Dictorship and recreat the former Empire. The actions may look the same but there are vast distinctions. Placing the USA, Russia, Georgia and Outlaws like Saddam on the same moral Playing field like Cafferty does is Insane.
Good try there bozo. Yeah, lets lump all the Ron Paul Republicans and anti-war left together. Thats great. I really appreciate being told I hate this nation.
Maybe I should lump you in with people like Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeild.
Russia needs to be condemed for what they are doing. How is this Americas fault anyway?
Attack Obama over here and everyone freaking loves it. Say one bad thing about McCain, who is ALSO A DOUCHE, and these guys go nuts. Um...HELLO...they are both worthless.
I deleted it - I am trying not to stir the pot - I'd like to be a valued commenter, not the one liner.....
Though maybe I can get another sign on and call myself Second Account for Making Jokey Comments.
complete lie, Reagan did no such thing.
what he did do, because Saddam was new and unknown and Iran had established themselves as our enemy was to supply Saddam during the first half of the war limited military assistance in the form of satelite imagry of Iranian military dispostions and troop concentrations. Assistance ended when Iraq's use of chemical weapons is confirmed.
Background info from History News Network, based on disclosure of national security documents: Did the United States Supply Saddam with Biological Weapons in the 1980s?
The transfer of Anthrax and other biological agents to Iraq seems to be much more problematic than the supply of chemical weapons.
in the Globalized world this most certainly does extend internationally, goods don't just magically get from point A to Point B in Trade Routes. Certain regimes are completely opposed to our way of life which is maintained by Trade among other things....
bringing democracy vs. dictorship is being pointed out because of the vast Distinction guys like Cafferty are either too stupid to see or bias against pointing out(for political reasons). I saw this clown on TV in the airport the other day making the claim the "US can't do anything because we 'invaded' Iraq, a Sovereign Nation", which calling Saddam sovereign is ridiculous enough, much less ignoring the distinctions which is doing nothing more than Aiding the Evil of Russia's actions.
Classics and Military Historian, Victor Davis Hanson got to the root of this in his article yesterday:
now if you are ready to abandon Globalism(by extension Capitalism), Technology, dismantle our cities and go back to the way of life from Centuries ago....Or magically get the world to agree with our Princples. Then perhaps we can abandon ship, since it wouldn't be needed.
I'll give Paul a pass since he has a family emergency but not Lew Rockwell and Code Pink. They are both hand wringing America in this and not Russia. It speaks Volumes.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/
There is alot of this type of Idiocy over there, all the way down to the lie that Saddam had a "Sovereign Nation"(to which I just emailed Mr. Libertarian Ayn Rands view on that)....not to mention the fact of the Cease Fire Agreement he agreed to.
Absolutely nothing condeming Russia, and Autocratic despotic nation recreating their Evil Empire. Nothing about so called "War Declarations" and other legalisms, and citing things that don't really exist like "International Law" not to bash Russia but to bash Bush and "neocons".
Rockwell is a Lunatic.
IT SPEAKS VOLUMES! paticularly coming from a blog that has "Anti-War" at the top of his site.
Your claims of moral relativism seem a bit morally relative to me. If it's appropriate to remove outlaw regimes to foster free democracy, it doesn't follow that Saddam was the first and best target. There were/are several better targets in the world (think nuclear). Of course, that sort of ignores the fact that we did NOT invade Iraq to remove a dictator. How many morally rationalizing backflips do we have to do to justify "establishment of democracy" after concluding that our original objective was either already accomplished or not even on the table?
Your claims of moral relativism seem a bit morally relative to me. If it's appropriate to remove outlaw regimes to foster free democracy, it doesn't follow that Saddam was the first and best target. There were/are several better targets in the world (think nuclear). Of course, that sort of ignores the fact that we did NOT invade Iraq to remove a dictator. How many morally rationalizing backflips do we have to do to justify "establishment of democracy" after concluding that our original objective was either already accomplished or not even on the table?
moral relativism is placing the USA, Russia, Georgia and Saddam on the Same Moral Playing field, no distinctions. Every regime is the same with same intentions...in this case.
try reading the actual Iraq War Resolution, there are 20 plus 'reasons' for the War. The first of which was whatever Sovereignty Saddam had(I'd argue none) he signed away when he signed the Cease Fire Agreement to remain in power. He then violated this agreement repeatedly for over a decade before Hostilities resumed. What hardly anyone today seems to know(thanks to our media) is that it was a Continuation of the first war which never Ended.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/...002-2.html
not to mention Clinton and the Unamious Vote of the Senates policy of "Regime Change in Iraq", also cited.
Russia did none of this, and their intentions are quite different.
the mere fact nobody seems to want to criticize Russia is telling enough.
Tell the family members who lost loved ones over this BS that it was worth the blood...You must be totally daft if you really believe that "winning" could ever be a possibility in that hell hole of region...Come on GG...you are much smarter and much logical than that. I think you have let your emotions and misguided patriotism blind you this time.
One nation invading another is the same no matter the degree of moral justification. The fact of tanks, weapons and troops rolling across political borders is completely irrelevant to morals, just like a table is no more moral than a chair. edit: The political reasons behind the decision to invade are what are subject to moral judgements.
McCain's mistake is not qualifying his statement to any degree - but coming five years off of a major invasion of another sovereign nation that he supported, he set himself up for ridicule by polemicists. I happen to believe that the notion of sovereignty in the context of kings and dictators is cruel and bankrupt, but nevertheless it has its place in world affairs.
In this entire argument, you have never acknowledged what McCain actually said, and you don't seem to comprehend that he included no qualification in his argument and invoked no moral principle whatsoever to even imply that military action is sometimes moral. His quote would have been more sensibly attributed to Noam Chomsky or any other host of moonbats.
Your claims of moral relativism seem a bit morally relative to me. If it's appropriate to remove outlaw regimes to foster free democracy, it doesn't follow that Saddam was the first and best target. There were/are several better targets in the world (think nuclear). Of course, that sort of ignores the fact that we did NOT invade Iraq to remove a dictator. How many morally rationalizing backflips do we have to do to justify "establishment of democracy" after concluding that our original objective was either already accomplished or not even on the table?
moral relativism is placing the USA, Russia, Georgia and Saddam on the Same Moral Playing field, no distinctions. Every regime is the same with same intentions...in this case.
That is ONE example of moral relativism. I gave you another example.
Iraq War Resolution notwithstanding, it is patently disingenuous to ignore the fact that WMD led the charge of justification for invasion.
Nobody? Are you serious?
There's nothing wrong with criticizing Russia's actions, and it's come from a number of American sources, but I think we have to acknowledge that our credibility on the world stage (like it or not, that's where this conversation is relevant) is diminished because of our actions in Iraq.
and why did Iraq first take place? because they invaded Kuwait(to seize their land), the international community banned together and condemen them and the US led the mission, which did not Seize Land. Who did Georgia invade, and where are the Resolutions?
What about the Normandy Invasion?
there are clear distinctions here.
Here is the full quote from the press conference with some context
again, Saddam invaded Kuwait(a Soveriegn nation) to acquire land and the world responded. Saddam was the agressor, not the USA. Russia is playing the role of Saddam, if anyone here.(and honestly they are testing us/world to see how much they can get away with first). The US in response along with our allies acquired no land whatsoever in Iraq. a point lost on the Left.
my point, because this is Cafferty and I've seen him earlier this week making this moral equivalence(before McCain's quote) and the Left in general have was to jump on it for the stupidity of what they are suggesting. I could care less about McCain, already holding my nose to vote for him, he's not the best of politicians obviously and does set himself for stuff like this to be taken out of context.
Nobody? Are you serious?
There's nothing wrong with criticizing Russia's actions, and it's come from a number of American sources, but I think we have to acknowledge that our credibility on the world stage (like it or not, that's where this conversation is relevant) is diminished because of our actions in Iraq.
its really not, read the resolution. WMD got played up in some speeches because it was the narrative created in the 90's and something everyone beleived around the world and Saddam insisted he had up till the war resumed. Doug Feith details in his book how in reality WMD was down the list of reasons for removing Saddam and finishing the conflict he started.
again, it was Saddam who Invaded a Nation to Aquire Land and not the USA! the US is in no way shape or form on the same level as Russia.
if any "standing on the world stage" which is b.s. to begin with, is hurt its due soley to a brainwashed public from a war that was Politicized by the Side who did much to start it throughout the 90's.....now you have the absolute LIE that the US started the War against Iraq and many fools still think it was to "steal their Oil and Land", which is exactly what Russia is attempting to do.
Here is the full quote from the press conference with some context
again, Saddam invaded Kuwait(a Soveriegn nation) to acquire land and the world responded. Saddam was the agressor, not the USA. Russia is playing the role of Saddam, if anyone here.(and honestly they are testing us/world to see how much they can get away with first). The US in response along with our allies acquired no land whatsoever in Iraq. a point lost on the Left.
my point, because this is Cafferty and I've seen him earlier this week making this moral equivalence(before McCain's quote) and the Left in general have was to jump on it for the stupidity of what they are suggesting. I could care less about McCain, already holding my nose to vote for him, he's not the best of politicians obviously and does set himself for stuff like this to be taken out of context.
It's obviously helpful to provide the full context. I, and I presume others, have been pretty lazy at looking at the quote out of context. The error is in inadequately crafting his speech to avoid just that kind of "sound bite". It's usually only in politics that a single sentence outlives and outshines the salient points. The fact that the speech in context is sensible has almost no bearing on the political impact of that one sentence.
It appears that the real conservatives on this board already did so, and in good measure.
Classic. 
As I pointed out, the President used the same phrase in his presser remarks. I don't have a link though. I saw it on the tube.
The resolution is somewhat immaterial in this discussion. The greatest mistake that was made in the Iraq war was by the administration in not adequately convincing the US public of the need to go to war. Contrasting the statements out of the US Executive Branch to the speeches that Tony Blair made in front of Parliament was really striking. The public face of the administration was that WMD was the primary reason for going to war with Iraq. Tony Blair put much more emphasis on Sadaam's abuse of the Iraqi people, his support for regional terrorism, and his constant flouting of international agreements. The US administration made the political decision to simplify the case to the American people and over-emphasize WMD in making the case. It was a mistake at the time, and the failure to find subsequent stockpiles in the amounts that world intelligence agencies had expected proved that error to be much more damaging.
Nobody? Are you serious?
There's nothing wrong with criticizing Russia's actions, and it's come from a number of American sources, but I think we have to acknowledge that our credibility on the world stage (like it or not, that's where this conversation is relevant) is diminished because of our actions in Iraq.
its really not, read the resolution. WMD got played up in some speeches because it was the narrative created in the 90's and something everyone beleived around the world and Saddam insisted he had up till the war resumed. Doug Feith details in his book how in reality WMD was down the list of reasons for removing Saddam and finishing the conflict he started.
It really is - and the fact that people are Monday morning quarterbacking this to say that WMD was down the list is irrelevant. You even acknowledge that it was being "played up in some speeches" (Colin Powell at the UN anyone?). The overwhelming amount of discussion coming from the administration was focused on WMD, and for good reason. It was a terrible threat and was an excellent way to build bi-partisan support in both Congress and with the general public. I'm not saying it wasn't a realistic fear, and at the time, with the information being presented, it WAS a compelling argument. Just don't try to tell me that WMD weren't leading the parade.
The current conversation IS taking place on the world stage, and so you have to take perception into account. If you want East Timor to criticize Russia, you have to accept that East Timor may also have a certain perception of the US that would cause them to call us (or our President, or a candidate) hypocritical.
The resolution is somewhat immaterial in this discussion. The greatest mistake that was made in the Iraq war was by the administration in not adequately convincing the US public of the need to go to war. Contrasting the statements out of the US Executive Branch to the speeches that Tony Blair made in front of Parliament was really striking. The public face of the administration was that WMD was the primary reason for going to war with Iraq. Tony Blair put much more emphasis on Sadaam's abuse of the Iraqi people, his support for regional terrorism, and his constant flouting of international agreements. The US administration made the political decision to simplify the case to the American people and over-emphasize WMD in making the case. It was a mistake at the time, and the failure to find subsequent stockpiles in the amounts that world intelligence agencies had expected proved that error to be much more damaging.
Oh I agree, although its hindsight of course. and at the time it wsa the only thing everyone agreed to across the aisle and in the 'international community" all the way to Saddam himself(publicly). It opened up a pandora's box that has hurt, paticularly with the type of media we have that suddenly became uninterested in a decades worth of their own reporting.
I agree with Kissenger on this and try my best to make these points myself. in public speeches(PR Arena) should've emphasized as much as the WMD, the Terrorist ties and support and simply sold resuming Hostilities and "regime change" on the fact that after 9/11 we could no longer allow another Rouge regime that to remain in power. It would've sold fine, instead they opened themselves up for attack, although some WMD were found but not what they claimed to be going for specifically. Since then they should've emphasized in Public speeches repeatedly Al-Qaeda's top leaders calling Iraq the "greatest battle of importance" to them.
even Howard Dean recognized Saddam as an "Outlaw Regime", I figure they never guessed what the left would get away with politically at the time.
McCain's a political doofus, no doubt. His quote isn't really my problem so much as Cafferty and what they are suggesting/implying.
How dare you insult Wolfowitz like that. He has at least shown brief periods of mental capacity when confessing the motivations of suicide terrorism.
Your claims of moral relativism seem a bit morally relative to me. If it's appropriate to remove outlaw regimes to foster free democracy, it doesn't follow that Saddam was the first and best target. There were/are several better targets in the world (think nuclear). Of course, that sort of ignores the fact that we did NOT invade Iraq to remove a dictator. How many morally rationalizing backflips do we have to do to justify "establishment of democracy" after concluding that our original objective was either already accomplished or not even on the table?
If it's appropriate to remove outlaw regimes to foster free democracy, it doesn't follow that Saddam was the first and best target. There were/are several better targets in the world (think nuclear). Of course, that sort of ignores the fact that we did NOT invade Iraq to remove a dictator. How many morally rationalizing backflips do we have to do to justify "establishment of democracy" after concluding that our original objective was either already accomplished or not even on the table?
again, there are over 20 something "original objectives". Up near the top was "Regime Change in Iraq". official US Policy since 1998! cited repeatedly in the War Resolution, along with the many references to Saddam's Terrorist Ties.
how many Nuke power states have ever been taken out? not possible for obvious reasons. Saddam was widely considered to be one of the worst if not the worst of Regimes in the world. That was bipartisian view until around 2003 when the Dems began to politicize the war and make Saddam into a saint.
don't listen to me, listen to the 1992 Al Gore Criticized the first Bush for signing the Cease Fire with Saddam instead of removing him from power......why???? because of Saddam's known Terrorist Ties!!!!!!! which is why he was a "State Sponsor of Terrorism" throughout the 90's, why he offered Bin Laden Assylum in 1999 for example and why WTC bombers from the 93 attack fled to Saddam/Iraq....for Safety! (ALSO MENTIONED IN THE WAR RESOLUTION!!!)
geez, inform yourselves.
1992 Al Gore:
Your condescension would be irritating if it wasn't so baseless. And the fact that you have to reach 16 years back actually makes my point. This isn't about the widely acknowledged badness of Saddam, it's about the arguments forwarded to justify the action. Re-printing my point above re WMD...
you stated that "removing a dictator" was not one of our objectives when it clearly was and laid out as such, starting with Official US Policy of Regme Change in Iraq. Passed 97-0 by the Senate and signed by Clinton. There were mulitple reasons, and it was partly sold around his WMD of course as well as the fact he was a State Sponsor of Terrorism and he had repeatedly violated cease fire agreements for over a decade, each time a case to resume the war which we finally did.
I don't have to go back to just 1992, although it makes the point about leaving Saddam in power and the view on that by the Dems at the time and the entire time they had power in the 90's. Had Bush allowed saddam to remain in power after the UN process was over and effectively thumbing his nose at us the 1992 Al Gore on a wide Scale would've been out in force calling Bush "Derelect in Duty" and citing the Facts for once.
you stated that "removing a dictator" was not one of our objectives when it clearly was and laid out as such
That's not exactly true - I said that we did not invade Iraq to remove a dictator. After not getting him the first time, I think it was pretty clear that Saddam's removal would have had to be AN objective. What I should have said (and I hope was clear in my following posts) was that we didn't invade Iraq ONLY to remove a dictator. The primary selling point to the American Public and the world (as I think you at least partially agree) was WMD.
I'm fine with criticism/condemnation of Russia's actions. But I think playing Chicken Little with morals is at least as dangerous as the actual threat of moral relativism.
Yep...You got it right. Being the Police either "of the world" or "at home" is all about...breaking down doors. Force is the core element of government.
I can make an argument for religion. Especially since some of the nastiest governments in history were a marriage of government and extremeist religion.
Huh? Didn't Georgia invade Ossetia, territory that is predominately full of Russian citizens and officially independent.
One could argue that Russia has the moral high ground over the U.S.:
Russia was at least attacking another country to protect its own citizens whereas the U.S. invaded a country that was no threat to it and had in the past been an ally. What U.S. citizens were we protecting? Saddam hated Al-Qaeda because of his ethnic group and he keep the Iranians in line. How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died because of our invasion?
All Russia did was respond to an attack (possibly involving ethnic cleansing) against its citizens. It had been declared the official peacekeeper for the region by the U.N. Russia hasn't taken over the country or overthrown its government. They've only made sure the Ossetia can't be attacked again.
Democracies can be just as immoral as dictatorships. Dictatorships are just more efficient.
Remember: "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." 
America just needs to stay at home and stop being the "world police." We're wasting tax money and killing people for no reason. Let's just park the navy around the U.S. and Canada and tell the world to F*** Off. We'll just sell them crap and let them deal with their own problems. We'll be much wealthier and much safer. Who are we to say we know what's best for everyone else?
According to who? No one in the UN has recognized that South Ossetia is independent of Georgia.
Rationalization, ignorant of key facts, and blind support for isolationism in an age of globalization. You really have taken the cake.
Both sides in this conflict have acted like idiots, but Russia isn't exactly defending itself or its citizens and Georgia isn't exactly a blameless victim of Russian expansionism.
According to who? No one in the UN has recognized that South Ossetia is independent of Georgia.
Taiwan isn't officially reconized as an independent nation either, & we certainly wouldn't support mainland Chinese efforts to retake the islands.
This part I agree with completely.