[Pete Pranger]

Originally posted by 350HP930
Well, we haven't started burning down iraqi villiages in masse or summarily exectuing iraqis just yet but kidnap and torture are a hell of a start.

Any proof of these claims? Or was this just another inflammatory accusation? Arresting, detaining and interrogating prisoners is not what you describe.

And just in case you don't remember, when the puppet state we helped create and 'advise' didn't suit us well enough we assinated the president of that 'democratic' country.

Here we go again. You weren't very specific, so I will assume you are referring to Ngo Dinh Diem. He was overthrown by the south Vietnamese when it was discovered that he was considering negotiating a deal with Hanoi and clashing politcally with the Buddhists. This was encouraged by Kennedy and his admin and it was the result of some very bad decisions by Kennedy. But of course anything goes when you are trying to prove a point. Look why don't we start a "vietnam-why did we do it" thread, because your "facts" are a little shaky here.

jin·go·ism n.
Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.

Thank you for turning my attempt at a little levity into an assault on my intelligence. Rule number one in debate, when you have an indefensigle position hurl insults to show ultimate superiority. You've got that one down pat I see.
How about this definition:
jin-go-istic adj.
A description of anothers values that you don't agree with. Usually offensive.
That is more accurate in the context in which you used it.

As I said when it comes to their educational system of puplic and private schools for men and women alike, especially for those who can afford it iraq was very much like the US.

Oh, identical. Colleges just abound in areas where individual freedoms are non-existent. I wonder what the political science department looked like? 2 classes one entitled "Saddam's view of Iraq (and if you disagree I will have you put through a wood chipper-but hey, it's not as bad as being blacklisted)". The second class just had a room full of Baathists insisting that you take the other class.

Well, unless our current regime can get congress and the UN to rubber stamp such an action it would be illlegal to attack any of iraq's neighbors, but just like with Nixon and Cambodia Bush doesn't have to let a little illegality stop him from doing what he wants.

Again, blah, blah, blah. Time to start another thread. We can have a sub topic on how Iraq is NOT like Vietnam.

I think you need to invest in a dictionary or use the following site more often; http://dictionary.reference.com/search

re·gime n.
A form of government
A government in power; administration
A prevailing social system or pattern.
The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen.

Again, thank you for attempting to show your supposed intellctual superiority. However if that were the case, you would have been able to actually understand my point. I didn't give a definition of "regime", I simply explained the CONTEXT to which it is usually applied. Unless of couse you are a presidential candidate trying to discredit our current administration. Or you.

There are several neighborhoods I can drop you off right here in Tampa where I am sure you couldn't even walk even a couple blocks without meeting several people who you would like to deprive you of your rights.

So, now you are comparing an illegal criminal element in a lawful society to state sponsored oppression. Has anyone ever explained the differences between apples and oranges?

Once again, you need to invest in a dictionary or maybe learn about little about other countries on one of our own government's web sites. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html

Zi·on·ism n.
A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

Here we go again. I didn't DEFINE zionism, but allow me to give you the current context in which it is used "(Z)ionist used to mean those who worked towards the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Now it means Jewish supremacy pure and simple. Kind of like white supremacist only kosher." "In defense of Anti-Semitism" by E.J.Steele 2/15/2003. (a member of ZOG). I was perhaps hoping that you didn't want to use the term in that context and I was just warning you that the original intent of that word has forever been changed.

At least people who were not opposed his regime didn't have to worry about being persecuted. Here in the US we just create things like black lists and boycots to destroy people who oppose the US regime instead of just throwing them in the chipper like Saddam would.

Oh, my god not the "blacklist or boycott" I'll have the chipper please, feet first if you don't mind..............
Besides, he was only murdering the dissenter. That's okay, freedom is overrated anyway

Hah, how about you list some of Teddys accomplishments on civil rights and I will agree that while setting up some nice hunting reserves he did help to preserve a lot of great real estate. I could care less if he was republican or democrat but I am more concerned with the attrocities committed under his command during the Spanish American war and the many other military 'interventions' he instigated as president of the US.

Again, you missed my point. T.R. was among other things the first president to disregard the idea of "color". He was the first to have a black man eat dinner at the white house and he actually had the audacity to invite the same man and his wife to a dinner party. He also appointed the first black postmaster (a woman none the less). I said he "opened the door" to civil rights and that he did.

Once again your complete lack of knowledge of the subject you want to be so opinionated about is sad, really sad. If you care to learn, here is a place to start.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2002/0923monster.htm

http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/IraqLott.html

I read those two links and this is what I surmised: The MSNBC link supports the presidents actions in Iraq and dismisses your claim in all but conjecture. "No single policy maker or administration deserves blame for creating or at least tolerating a monster. Many of their decisions sound reasonable at the time....America's past stumbles while embarassing, are not an argument for inaction in the future. Saddam probably is the "grave and gathering danger" described by president Bush."

The editorial written by Eric Margolis of the Toronto Sun is at best as you describe a "factiod" But not entirely true. It assumes too many things, and is too full of opinions to be considered reliable. I had a classmate many years ago write a paper using the National Enquirer and the Globe as sources. Just because it is in print, don't make it a fact.

Actually, Pol Pot like much of the misery in the area was a direct result of the US actions in Cambodia. Once again I suggest that you read up on the rise of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

You will find that experts agree that the rise of Pol Pot was directly tied to the destabilizing effect of the overt and covert wars the US was waging in the area had on cambodia.

I will take a minute to touch on this comment. Your "experts" are wrong. Henry Kissinger has compared this concept to the holocaust in Germany as a direct result of our bombing of Berlin. This is yet another case of the left bending history to it's own purposes. I have no doubt that this nonsense was taught to you, as it was to me, but the truth is out there if you want it. And no it's generally not in the textbooks. Agian, if you want to debate vietnam, bring it on.

Pete