• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraq, a chapter in the story of dead Liberals conscious

Do you support the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of the Iraqi regime?

  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .
S

stan1990

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2018
Messages
875
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iraq was a sovereign country and United Nation member. A coalition led by the U.S and Britain invaded the country after years of sanctions. The consequences of the American invasion: Over one million Iraqi children died between 1991-2003 from malnutrition and disease, a minimum of 100 thousand Iraqi civilians killed, infrastructure destroyed, Weapon of mass destruction used with long term future consequences on the environment and the health of Iraqis, infant mortality rose sharply and the list could go on. Madeleine Albright answered with a cold face in one of her interviews that the death of 500 thousand Iraqi kids is worth it. The son like the father, how you could kill over 100 thousand Iraqi civilians and not called a war criminal.

What happened to Iraq over the phony claim of weapons of mass destruction was a tragedy. However, no American or British officials stand a trail on any related charges. But Iraq wasn't the first or the last country in the Middle East by the arrogance of Western ignorance. I stand in distaste for liberals that are busy defending liberal principles like freedom of speech, Quality life for woman and rights for minorities including homosexuals; meanwhile, voiceless on the crimes committed by their governments all over the world. Liberals are ready to defend Iraqi gays and lesbians rights but won't condemn the crimes committed in Iraq by Western coalition toppled the regime there.

To be a Liberal is to accept the others and to love for others what you love to yourself. As an example, Liberals criticize the veil of a Muslim woman's because they are forced to wear it. The preconceived idea that Liberal had about Islam and woman rights is wrong. If a woman according to Liberal principles is free to choose her dressing code, why criticize a Muslim woman chose to wear a Veil or Hijab or spend a day on the beach wearing Burkini? Liberal need to start criticizing their own principles before they do criticize others.

End
 
Last edited:
stan1990 said:
Iraq was a sovereign country and United Nation member. A coalition led by the U.S and Britain invaded the country after years of sanctions. The consequences of the American invasion: Over one million Iraqi children died between 1991-2003 from malnutrition and disease, a minimum of 100 thousand Iraqi civilians killed, infrastructure destroyed, Weapon of mass destruction used with long term future consequences on the environment and the health of Iraqis, infant mortality rose sharply and the list could go on. Madeleine Albright answered with a cold face in one of her interviews that the death of 500 thousand Iraqi kids is worth it. The son like the father, how you could kill over 100 thousand Iraqi civilians and not called a war criminal.

What happened to Iraq over the phony claim of weapons of mass destruction was a tragedy. However, no American or British officials stand a trail on any related charges. But Iraq wasn't the first or the last country in the Middle East by the arrogance of Western ignorance. I stand in distaste for liberals that are busy defending liberal principles like freedom of speech, Quality life for woman and rights for minorities including homosexuals; meanwhile, voiceless on the crimes committed by their governments all over the world. Liberals are ready to defend Iraqi gays and lesbians rights but won't condemn the crimes committed in Iraq by Western coalition toppled the regime there.

To be a Liberal is to accept the others and to love for others what you love to yourself. As an example, Liberals criticize the veil of a Muslim woman's because they are forced to wear it. The preconceived idea that Liberal had about Islam and woman rights is wrong. If a woman according to Liberal principles is free to choose her dressing code, why criticize a Muslim woman chose to wear a Veil or Hijab or spend a day on the beach wearing Burkini? Liberal need to start criticizing their own principles before they do criticize others.

End
Click to expand...

All Saddam had to do was comply fully with the agreements he made after getting his pee pee slapped in Kuwait.
 
Fledermaus said:
All Saddam had to do was comply fully with the agreements he made after getting his pee pee slapped in Kuwait.
Click to expand...

invading Kuwait was a mistake. It was a trap. His ego prevents him from withdrawing from Kuwait. However, all of that doesn't change the fact that he got American green light to invade Kuwait from the American April Glaspie.
 
stan1990 said:
Iraq was a sovereign country and United Nation member. A coalition led by the U.S and Britain invaded the country after years of sanctions. The consequences of the American invasion: Over one million Iraqi children died between 1991-2003 from malnutrition and disease, a minimum of 100 thousand Iraqi civilians killed, infrastructure destroyed, Weapon of mass destruction used with long term future consequences on the environment and the health of Iraqis, infant mortality rose sharply and the list could go on. Madeleine Albright answered with a cold face in one of her interviews that the death of 500 thousand Iraqi kids is worth it. The son like the father, how you could kill over 100 thousand Iraqi civilians and not called a war criminal.

What happened to Iraq over the phony claim of weapons of mass destruction was a tragedy. However, no American or British officials stand a trail on any related charges. But Iraq wasn't the first or the last country in the Middle East by the arrogance of Western ignorance. I stand in distaste for liberals that are busy defending liberal principles like freedom of speech, Quality life for woman and rights for minorities including homosexuals; meanwhile, voiceless on the crimes committed by their governments all over the world. Liberals are ready to defend Iraqi gays and lesbians rights but won't condemn the crimes committed in Iraq by Western coalition toppled the regime there.

To be a Liberal is to accept the others and to love for others what you love to yourself. As an example, Liberals criticize the veil of a Muslim woman's because they are forced to wear it. The preconceived idea that Liberal had about Islam and woman rights is wrong. If a woman according to Liberal principles is free to choose her dressing code, why criticize a Muslim woman chose to wear a Veil or Hijab or spend a day on the beach wearing Burkini? Liberal need to start criticizing their own principles before they do criticize others.

End
Click to expand...

Of all the idiotis "liberals are poopyhead" posts we see here, this is one of the most ridiculous one. Liberals fought against Iraq invasion, the right wing scum in this country called us terrorist sympathizer and we should get out. Liberals point out all the time how horrible it is that our troops go around the world killing so manyh brown people destroying lives

Its cons that cheer on the loss of life, or excuse it as "oh, its war" with such disregard for human life
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Of all the idiotis "liberals are poopyhead" posts we see here, this is one of the most ridiculous one. Liberals fought against Iraq invasion, the right wing scum in this country called us terrorist sympathizer and we should get out. Liberals point out all the time how horrible it is that our troops go around the world killing so manyh brown people destroying lives

Its cons that cheer on the loss of life, or excuse it as "oh, its war" with such disregard for human life
Click to expand...

?????????????????
 
Fledermaus said:
April Glaspie gave no "green light" for invasion. That is a lie.
Click to expand...
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
Click to expand...

Do you defend the west against everything it does?

Glaspie admitted she made a mistake here.

Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!
Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)
Click to expand...

For the record, here is the transcript:

APRIL GLASPIE TRANSCRIPT

Did she say "Go on the US supports your invasion of Kuwait"? No, she didn't. But she explicitly stated the US had no interest in the coming conflict and that it was not part of our concerns, until it was. She inadvertantly green lighted Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
 
Obscurity said:
Do you defend the west against everything it does?

Glaspie admitted she made a mistake here.



For the record, here is the transcript:

APRIL GLASPIE TRANSCRIPT

Did she say "Go on the US supports your invasion of Kuwait"? No, she didn't. But she explicitly stated the US had no interest in the coming conflict and that it was not part of our concerns, until it was. She inadvertantly green lighted Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
Click to expand...

So we agree. NO GREEN LIGHT FOR INVASION.
 
Fledermaus said:
So we agree. NO GREEN LIGHT FOR INVASION.
Click to expand...

No, we don't agree. Because her tacit admission the US has no interest in the Kuwait conflict is a green light in the mind of the aggressor.
 
Fledermaus said:
Yes. We do agree. NO GREEN LIGHT.
Click to expand...

No, we do not agree. She didn't say "Go ahead and invade Kuwait."

She said "We don't care if you invade Kuwait."
 
Fledermaus said:
When did she state that?

"We don't care if you invade Kuwait."

When and where?
Click to expand...


We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.

That's her quote. To someone like Hussein, this is a green light. I realise to folks like you it's not one thing unless it meets all definitions of it, like in this case.

She didn't say "Here's a green light to invade kuwait." She said "We have no opinion on your conflict with Kuwait."

Your thinking is inflexible and creates entirely too much deniability.
 
Obscurity said:
We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.

That's her quote. To someone like Hussein, this is a green light. I realise to folks like you it's not one thing unless it meets all definitions of it, like in this case.

She didn't say "Here's a green light to invade kuwait." She said "We have no opinion on your conflict with Kuwait."

Your thinking is inflexible and creates entirely too much deniability.
Click to expand...

In other words it is a lie that April stated "We don't care if you invade Kuwait."

We have no opinion =/= "We don't care if you invade Kuwait."
 
Fledermaus said:
In other words it is a lie that April stated "We don't care if you invade Kuwait."

We have no opinion =/= "We don't care if you invade Kuwait."
Click to expand...

In other words, you did exactly what I said you'd do, and your inflexible thinking leads to rigid, black and whitism. So no, we do not agree. Do you think Saddam would have knowingly invaded Kuwait had this ****ing idiot said to him "We will not abide you invading Kuwait."

I doubt it. Hussein was insane but he wasn't stupid.

Moreover, perception is key here. To Hussein, no opinion = green light, and that's all that matters.
 
stan1990 said:
Iraq was a sovereign country and United Nation member. A coalition led by the U.S and Britain invaded the country after years of sanctions. The consequences of the American invasion: Over one million Iraqi children died between 1991-2003 from malnutrition and disease, a minimum of 100 thousand Iraqi civilians killed, infrastructure destroyed, Weapon of mass destruction used with long term future consequences on the environment and the health of Iraqis, infant mortality rose sharply and the list could go on. Madeleine Albright answered with a cold face in one of her interviews that the death of 500 thousand Iraqi kids is worth it. The son like the father, how you could kill over 100 thousand Iraqi civilians and not called a war criminal.

What happened to Iraq over the phony claim of weapons of mass destruction was a tragedy. However, no American or British officials stand a trail on any related charges. But Iraq wasn't the first or the last country in the Middle East by the arrogance of Western ignorance. I stand in distaste for liberals that are busy defending liberal principles like freedom of speech, Quality life for woman and rights for minorities including homosexuals; meanwhile, voiceless on the crimes committed by their governments all over the world. Liberals are ready to defend Iraqi gays and lesbians rights but won't condemn the crimes committed in Iraq by Western coalition toppled the regime there.

To be a Liberal is to accept the others and to love for others what you love to yourself. As an example, Liberals criticize the veil of a Muslim woman's because they are forced to wear it. The preconceived idea that Liberal had about Islam and woman rights is wrong. If a woman according to Liberal principles is free to choose her dressing code, why criticize a Muslim woman chose to wear a Veil or Hijab or spend a day on the beach wearing Burkini? Liberal need to start criticizing their own principles before they do criticize others.

End
Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself. Liberals do, indeed, criticize the veil if a woman if forced to wear it. If she chooses to do so of her own volition, they do not.

You should try thinking things through before posting this [clown tricycle honk] nonsense.
 
Obscurity said:
In other words, you did exactly what I said you'd do, and your inflexible thinking leads to rigid, black and whitism. So no, we do not agree. Do you think Saddam would have knowingly invaded Kuwait had this ****ing idiot said to him "We will not abide you invading Kuwait."

I doubt it. Hussein was insane but he wasn't stupid.

Moreover, perception is key here. To Hussein, no opinion = green light, and that's all that matters.
Click to expand...

Was there a green light?

No.

Flexible thinking must mean (to you) blame others for a "green light" where there was none.
 
Fledermaus said:
Was there a green light?

No.

Flexible thinking must mean (to you) blame others for a "green light" where there was none.
Click to expand...

So what do you call what she said to him?
 
Fledermaus said:
That there was no opinion. That does not mean invade your neighbor. There is a wide range of things Saddam could have done. Embargo, Legal recourse, etc.
Click to expand...

We have no opinion on your arab-arab conflicts, like the one with kuwait.

What do you think that means? What does it imply? What does it say to a brutal warmonger?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom