New Grave Sites in IRaq

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: conjur
Nice of EagleKeeper to cut off the part that shoots holes in his attempts to justify the invasion after-the-fact.

That killing of the Kurds occurred when Saddam was a "good guy" and the Reagan administration was funnelling all sorts of aid and intelligence his way.

I did not trying to skew the information. Just pasted the headline.

Better to try and get people to read the article and form their own discussions.

However, Saddam continued the Kurdish extermination well after he became the "bad" guy.

Proof?

And, you were definitely attempting to elicit a compassionate response toward justifying the war.

Proof - Search for 1991-1994

Justification of the war is not the intent. It is those that say the Saddam was not such a bad guy and we should have left him alone.

Just like the Balkans/Africa and other places where people were/are being exterminated for their race only.

One should not complain about genocide in one place vs another.

"Search for 1991-1994" is your proof? Sorry, try again.

 

[imported_Tango]

Nobody ever thought Saddam was a good guy. Too bad this wasn't the reason why for the invasion.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Tango
Nobody ever thought Saddam was a good guy. Too bad this wasn't the reason why for the invasion.

The Propagandist would have never gotten authorization to use force, if necessary, on the basis of atrocities that occurred while Saddam was an ally and add'l atrocities that occurred due to the U.S. encouraging rebellions but stepping aside and allowing Saddam's forces to slaughter those involved.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond

Vietnam was a failure because it was run by politicians, not military leaders. If it had been run by generals and commanders, we would have won, no doubt.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I'm sure I don't need to explain to anyone why that's so dasm funny!!!



A true classic.

BWAHAHA

Why is it so funny? It's TRUE that the Vietnam was was run by politicians. It's well documented that, in particular, Johnson wanted to be involved in ALL the gritty details.

That aside, I'm still not sure we'd have won, given that China was feeding troops to the Communist North.

Jason

What's so funny???

Just replace "Vietnam" with "Iraq".

Iraq was a failure because it was run by politicians, not military leaders. If it had been run by generals and commanders, we would have won, no doubt.

Or are you going to "revise" history on that point too?

Listen, I know you're old, but Iraq is too early to call a *failure*. Taking into account that recent news has been *decent* coming out of Iraq might be a start. Taking into account that no one EVER knows the true scale of success or failure on a war effort for many YEARS after the conflict has begun and ended, your comments illustrate yet again that your gloom-and-doom worldview clouds your ability to see or THINK clearly.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond
Please explain what Saddam had to do with any of the "multiple" attacks you mention. Especially 9/11.

From what I've read in every report that's been produced so far, Saddam had NOTHING to do with any of the attacks. Do you have some information that the U.S. government hasn't seen? You should send it to the White House. Bush needs it desperately.

Add to that the fact that there were no "terrorists" in Iraq before the U.S. invasion and you have exactly no excuse for attacking Iraq, a nation that not only DIDN'T attack the U.S. but in fact a nation that COULDN'T attack the U.S. even if it wanted to.

It also seems as though you don't keep up with the news. A report was released this week that states Saddam didn't move any weapons from Iraq. The only conclusion left after no WMD was found in Iraq and after no WMD was moved from Iraq is that the WMD simply didn't exist. Yet people keep insisting on making the erroneous connection. Dick Cheney for example. And you.

Same old ridiculous excuses. Same old phony excuses. In case you haven't heard, it's all been proven false. All lies. No matter how many times you and Cheney keep repeating them.

You must not keep up with the news, either, BBond, because that same report made it very clear that Saddam THOUGHT he had WMD's and that his own military MISLEAD him to keep him happy.

Of course, you don't have to tell the WHOLE story any more than you usually do, just the part that makes you look like you actually have a clue, which you don't.

Jason

Did Bush find any WMDs in Iraq or not? Did Iraq "move" their WMDs or not?

No WMDs. No reason to invade Iraq. All the rest is BS.

Unless you're really serious about this "humanitarian" thing. In which case I suggest Bush is responsible for more dead Iraqi civilians than Saddam.

When do you propose to effect regime change?

BVLLSHIT. I don't give a sh1t WHAT Bush's reasons were. The fact that Saddam was MURDERING thousands of Iraqi citizens for no crimes at all is REASON ENOUGH. Whether it was BUSH'S reason or not is another discussion (and yes, I agree it was NOT his primary concern), but it does not eliminate the fact that there were and are LEGITIMATE reasons for the removal of Saddam Hussein and his little bastard tyrant sons from power.

Go ahead, BBond, defend MURDERERS and tell us all how they had every right to SLAUGHTER innocent Iraqi's who did nothing more than have OPINIONS. Go ahead and tell us all how it's alright for them to IMPRISON CHILDREN, because after all, they were "Sovereign".

You show more and more just what a selfish prick you are and how little concern you have for ANYONE but yourself, no matter what that means. Typical old fart.

Jason

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Justification of the war is not the intent. It is those that say the Saddam was not such a bad guy and we should have left him alone.

Sorry, I just have to ask. Who is this?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond
McWar, you rank among the most intellectually challenged people I have ever had the misfortune to interact with.

Which is really funny when you consider what an intellectual *gnat* BBond is

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Tango
Nobody ever thought Saddam was a good guy. Too bad this wasn't the reason why for the invasion.

You're right, it *is* too bad it isn't the primary reason the administration chose to tout. It's too bad because, unlike WMD's, it's incontrovertable, proven, factual and guaranteed in writing by the blood of the thousands of corpses unearthed since we invaded.

Jason

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: sandorski
Still trying to Justify?

It was *already* justified. That Bush and company failed to use this as the PRIMARY reason to take Saddam out isn't our fault, nor are their failures to do so justification for leaving a murderous dictator in power.

Jason

so, if i crash my car into your garage (which was in need of renovation) and in the process wreck your family truckster, should i be commended for helping you get your renovation project underway.... cuz regardless of intent, i was helpful... and sometimes losses must be sustained for the grea....blah blah blah

That may be the most silly analogy I've ever heard. Have you been taking Conjur lessons? We're not talking about wrecked cars or broken garage doors, we're talking about the CORPSES of MURDERED human beings, who probably ended up in that ditch because they had the gall to hold a DISALLOWED OPINION.

It's an entirely different ball of wax, and I find your lack of regard for the violated rights of these people to be offensive and repugnant.

Jason

not a lack of regard, just a lack of confidence in the american quick fix.

i thought it was a good analogy.

 

[MCWAR]

posted by DragonMasterAlex

Quote:
Go ahead, BBond, defend MURDERERS and tell us all how they had every right to SLAUGHTER innocent Iraqi's who did nothing more than have OPINIONS. Go ahead and tell us all how it's alright for them to IMPRISON CHILDREN, because after all, they were "Sovereign".

You show more and more just what a selfish prick you are and how little concern you have for ANYONE but yourself, no matter what that means. Typical old fart.

Jason
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Most liberalism is rooted or should I say sold the same way most cons are sold. You play on peoples selfishness. "What about me?" "Whos gonna take care of me?" "What do I get out of it?" Says the liberal. And the typical response is "I'll take care of you" "I feel your pain"...
Why would you expect any thing more from a lib?

 

[impeachbush]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Tango
Nobody ever thought Saddam was a good guy. Too bad this wasn't the reason why for the invasion.

You're right, it *is* too bad it isn't the primary reason the administration chose to tout. It's too bad because, unlike WMD's, it's incontrovertable, proven, factual and guaranteed in writing by the blood of the thousands of corpses unearthed since we invaded.

Jason

is it impossible for you to look at the whole picture? Saddam was a bad guy, a murderer, etc etc,etc., but how many countries were worse off at the time? How many countries severly violated human rights AND had/developing NUKES (most powerful WMD known yet) at the time we attacked iraq? What will it take to deprogram you and others of the presidents propaganda? I'm not asking you to become a liberal, democrat, left, you name it, all I'm asking for you to do is stop looking directily into the sun and claiming there is nothing there. Many in your party are doing just that. Better late than never, but at least they are coming around. This isn't about politics, its about pure common sense. Get ahold of yourself and stop being a tool!

 

[MCWAR]

"One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain"

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: MCWAR
posted by DragonMasterAlex

Quote:
Go ahead, BBond, defend MURDERERS and tell us all how they had every right to SLAUGHTER innocent Iraqi's who did nothing more than have OPINIONS. Go ahead and tell us all how it's alright for them to IMPRISON CHILDREN, because after all, they were "Sovereign".

You show more and more just what a selfish prick you are and how little concern you have for ANYONE but yourself, no matter what that means. Typical old fart.

Jason
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Most liberalism is rooted or should I say sold the same way most cons are sold. You play on peoples selfishness. "What about me?" "Whos gonna take care of me?" "What do I get out of it?" Says the liberal. And the typical response is "I'll take care of you" "I feel your pain"...
Why would you expect any thing more from a lib?

Do either of you actually think for yourselves or just read the talking points and smile happily?

DragonMasterAlex.....give some examples of what you are doing to help those in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, the Balkans or even here in America to end their plights of torture, hunger, ethnic cleansing and the such. Or is this just lip service that you have repeated enough that you actually believe it. Bush did good for the Iraqis, Bush did good for the Iraqis, Bush did good for the Iraqis. I support Bush, I did good for the Iraqis. I support Bush, I did good for the Iraqis. I support Bush, I did good for the Iraqis.

You do realize that more women and children have been killed by U.S. weapons since the war began that were killed by Saddam, right? Is that what you consider an improvement for them?

McWar....you do realize that it is the GOP that taps into people's selfish nature right? Can you say tax breaks for the "vast majority" of the people? Can you say corporate welfare?

As for being taken care of....Let's see...which party is trying to "take care of" the American people? Why it's the GOP again!!

You can't see a boob for a millisecond during the Super Bowl. Fine the infidels.
You can't choose to have an abortion. Bomb the clinics!
You can't pull the feeding tube. Circumvent the constitution!!

Just let us have total control of the government and WE will take care of you and make sure that you have the moral guidence that WE think that you should have. WE will make sure that the corportations have the tax breaks and funding so that they can keep there costs down for you. WE will determine which countries need to be invaded when they are less of a threat than a dozen others.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond
Please explain what Saddam had to do with any of the "multiple" attacks you mention. Especially 9/11.

From what I've read in every report that's been produced so far, Saddam had NOTHING to do with any of the attacks. Do you have some information that the U.S. government hasn't seen? You should send it to the White House. Bush needs it desperately.

Add to that the fact that there were no "terrorists" in Iraq before the U.S. invasion and you have exactly no excuse for attacking Iraq, a nation that not only DIDN'T attack the U.S. but in fact a nation that COULDN'T attack the U.S. even if it wanted to.

It also seems as though you don't keep up with the news. A report was released this week that states Saddam didn't move any weapons from Iraq. The only conclusion left after no WMD was found in Iraq and after no WMD was moved from Iraq is that the WMD simply didn't exist. Yet people keep insisting on making the erroneous connection. Dick Cheney for example. And you.

Same old ridiculous excuses. Same old phony excuses. In case you haven't heard, it's all been proven false. All lies. No matter how many times you and Cheney keep repeating them.

You must not keep up with the news, either, BBond, because that same report made it very clear that Saddam THOUGHT he had WMD's and that his own military MISLEAD him to keep him happy.

Of course, you don't have to tell the WHOLE story any more than you usually do, just the part that makes you look like you actually have a clue, which you don't.

Jason

Did Bush find any WMDs in Iraq or not? Did Iraq "move" their WMDs or not?

No WMDs. No reason to invade Iraq. All the rest is BS.

Unless you're really serious about this "humanitarian" thing. In which case I suggest Bush is responsible for more dead Iraqi civilians than Saddam.

When do you propose to effect regime change?

BVLLSHIT. I don't give a sh1t WHAT Bush's reasons were.

I guess some people don't even need to drink the Kool-Aid. They're already gone on their own.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Tango
Nobody ever thought Saddam was a good guy. Too bad this wasn't the reason why for the invasion.

You're right, it *is* too bad it isn't the primary reason the administration chose to tout. It's too bad because, unlike WMD's, it's incontrovertable, proven, factual and guaranteed in writing by the blood of the thousands of corpses unearthed since we invaded.

Jason

The corpses of people killed by Saddam when the U.S. encouraged them to rebel against Saddam but stood back and watched them be slaughtered? Or the corpses of people Saddam killed when Saddam was actively supported by the Reagan administration?

 

[Infohawk]

"Saddam must have been no threat to anyone"

Nice strawman Mr. Elite.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Passions
Don't worry EagleKeeper, the libs only care about protecting their own women and children. To them, this war is over oil and not people.

They have no hearts. :brokenheart:

what about the starving, dying, jobless AMERICAN people who could be fed, clothed, and treated with a fraction of the iraqi spendathon.

I would really like to see these people who are dying and starving in the United States.

Our idea of starving is missing lunch.

As for your idea to erect another Social institution. Keep it to yourself.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Passions
Don't worry EagleKeeper, the libs only care about protecting their own women and children. To them, this war is over oil and not people.

They have no hearts. :brokenheart:

what about the starving, dying, jobless AMERICAN people who could be fed, clothed, and treated with a fraction of the iraqi spendathon.

I would really like to see these people who are dying and starving in the United States.

Our idea of starving is missing lunch.

As for your idea to erect another Social institution. Keep it to yourself.

How very Christian of you.


You want to see the starving in America? Stop by a soup kitchen, homeless shelter, etc.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I would really like to see these people who are dying and starving in the United States.

Our idea of starving is missing lunch.

As for your idea to erect another Social institution. Keep it to yourself.

Here's a start. Some 31 million Americans, mostly children, have a very different idea of hunger.

Management of Hunger in the United States

A conference in February 2000 sponsored by FNS, America?s Second Harvest and the National Child and Adult Care Food Program Forum discussed how to reach the 31 million Americans who experience food insecurity or physical hunger. Several speakers were concerned about the fact that in a booming economy several million households are experiencing food insecurity. One reason given for this increase in hunger is the decrease of food stamp recipients. Since this is a federal program operated by state and local governments, regulations, applications and restrictions vary form state to state. For example, the application form in Ohio is over 30 pages long which acts as a deterrent to those with limited education or time. Another reason given for this increase is the welfare reform law of 1996. This law has created a population called the working poor. This group of people run out of money before the next pay day and often use soup kitchens or food pantries to supplement their food supply (9).

Most individuals who use food stamps or need emergency food assistance are female (11) and the greatest percent of households with food insecurity are female headed households (12). The greatest number of clients at America?s Second Harvest network are from two high risk populations, 38% are children under 18 years old and 16% are the elderly over 64 years old (11). Geographically urban centers has the largest percent of food insecurity with hunger, but the hungry outside urban ghettos is rapidly increasing with (12) rural areas having the greatest increase. The largest growth in community hunger is found in the farming areas of the western and southern states(13).

Insufficient food or skipping meals has consequences to both the community and individuals. Some of the community consequences are: threats to community harmony, development of a two-tiered food distribution system, and a risk of reducing social and economic development. The primary consequences to the individual having food insecurity with hunger are impaired learning, increase need for health care, loss of productivity and intensified feelings of powerlessness (14). Poverty is facet of hunger and one of the leading causes of household food insecurity and individual hunger in the USA. Additional information can be obtained from several governmental websites (listed at the end of the chapter) dealing with poverty and the various food programs.

 

[impeachbush]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Passions
Don't worry EagleKeeper, the libs only care about protecting their own women and children. To them, this war is over oil and not people.

They have no hearts. :brokenheart:

what about the starving, dying, jobless AMERICAN people who could be fed, clothed, and treated with a fraction of the iraqi spendathon.

I would really like to see these people who are dying and starving in the United States.

Our idea of starving is missing lunch.

As for your idea to erect another Social institution. Keep it to yourself.

How about the starving middle class slaving each day just to keep afloat and help pay for Bush's war. Also, would not adding to the debt be considered another social institution? Doing so would allow my children a much better life for free. Might as well spend their cash while you can though.

The backlash of public opinion is going to be a bitch for those that think like this.

 

[BBond]

There are some startling facts and figures at this link which illustrate the relationship between poverty and hunger in the USA.

Hunger in the United States:

A 1995 study by Tufts University estimates that 20 to 30 million Americans are too poor to meet their monthly expenses and buy enough food to live healthy, productive lives.

In 1994 the Urban Institute in Washington DC estimated that one out of 6 elderly people in the U.S. has an inadequate diet.

In 1993, U.S. Citizens spent about the same amount on cruise ships and theme parks as the Federal Government spent on AFDC. The problem, in fact, is not a lack of money, but a series of decisions on how money gets spent. Enough money is available to end worse case poverty in a few years and enough food to provide everyone in the world with a minimally nutritious diet right now.

Childhood hunger in the United States:

In July 1999, the National Center for Children in Poverty issued a report. Following are some of their findings:

Poverty is becoming more prevalent among young people. Between 1979 and 1995, the number of children under three living in poverty in the United States grew from 1.7 million to 2.8 million, from 18 percent to 24 percent--a 33 percent increase.

Young children are more likely to be poor than any other age group, and that disparity is growing. The poverty rate for children under age three was well over double the rate for adults or the elderly in 1995.

Young children in the United States have about a 50-50 chance of escaping the risks of poverty or near poverty.

The problem of young child poverty extends far beyond the stereotypical image of the poor minority child in an urban setting. The fact that nearly half of all young children live in poverty or near poverty demonstrates that young child poverty is a mainstream problem, affecting children from all racial and ethnic backgrounds, from all types of residential areas, and from all regions of the United States.

* The rate of poverty for children under age three living in suburban areas grew by 61 percent between the late 1970s and early 1990s, whereas the rates of poverty for children in the same age group in urban and rural areas rose by 37 and 47 percent respectively.

* The poverty rate for children under age three has grown twice as fast among whites as among blacks. Although the incidence of young child poverty among whites is relatively low (15 percent) compared to blacks (52 percent), the rate of white children living under age three in poverty grew twice as fast as among blacks (36 percent versus 17 percent) between the late 1970s and the early 1990s.

* The rate of poverty among Hispanic children under age three is high (44 percent) and increasing more rapidly than among other racial and ethnic groups. It has risen by 48 percent since the late 1970s.

Children make up almost half of the population living below the Federal Poverty Line. More than 21 Percent of U.S. children under age 18, and 25 percent of children under age 6, are poor. Sixty-four percent of children under 6, who live in female-headed, single parent families are poor.

The infant mortality rate is closely linked to inadequate nutrition among pregnant women. The U.S. ranks 23rd among industrial nations in infant mortality. African-American infants die at nearly twice the rate of white infants.

A child living in a wealthy U.S. family is on average, better off financially than the typical wealthy child in any other country. At the same time, the average child in a low-income U.S. family is worse off than the average poor child in 15 other industrialized countries.

One out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night.

In the U.S. hunger and race are related. In 1991 46% of African-American children were chronically hungry, and 40% of Latino children were chronically hungry compared to 16% of white children.

Poverty is becoming more prevalent among young people. Between 1979 and 1995, the number of children under three living in poverty in the United states grew from 1.7 million to 2.8 million, from 18 percent to 24 percent--a 33 percent increase.

Young children are more likely to be poor than any other age group, and that disparity is growing. The poverty rate for children under age three was well over double the rate for adults or the elderly in 1995.

Young children in the United States have about a 50-50 chance of escaping the risks of poverty or near poverty.

The problem of young child poverty extends far beyond the stereotypical image of the poor minority child in an urban setting. The fact that nearly half of all young children live in poverty or near poverty demonstrates that young child poverty is a mainstream problem, affecting children from all racial and ethnic backgrounds, from all types of residential areas, and from all regions of the United States.

* The rate of poverty for children under age three living in suburban areas grew by 61 percent between the late 1970s and early 1990s, whereas the rates of poverty for children in the same age group in urban and rural areas rose by 37 and 47 percent respectively.
* The poverty rate for children under age three has grown twice as fast among whites as among blacks. Although the incidence of young child poverty among whites is relatively low (15 percent) compared to blacks (52 percent), the rate of white children living under age three in poverty grew twice as fast as among blacks (36 percent versus 17 percent) between the late 1970s and the early 1990s.
* The rate of poverty among Hispanic children under age three is high (44 percent) and increasing more rapidly than among other racial and ethnic groups. It has risen by 48 percent since the late 1970s.

Children make up almost half of the population living below the Federal Poverty Line. More than 21 Percent of U.S. children under age 18, and 25 percent of children under age 6, are poor. Sixty-four percent of children under 6, who live in female-headed, single parent families are poor.

The infant mortality rate is closely linked to inadequate nutrition among pregnant women. The U.S. ranks 23rd among industrial nations in infant mortality. African-American infants die at nearly twice the rate of white infants.

A child living in a wealthy U.S. family is on average, better off financially than the typical wealthy child in any other country. At the same time, the average child in a low-income U.S. family is worse off than the average poor child in 15 other industrialized countries.

One out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night.

In the U.S. hunger and race are related. In 1991 46% of African-American children were chronically hungry, and 40% of Latino children were chronically hungry compared to 16% of white children.


The Growing Income Disparity

According to an August 1999 report from Center on Budget and Policy Priority, the top one-fifth of American households with the highest incomes now earns half of all the income in the United States. Their share has risen since 1997, while the share of one-fifth with the lowest incomes have fallen. Figures have been adjusted for inflation.
HOUSEHOLD GROUPS SHARE OF ALL INCOME* AVERAGE AFTER TAX INCOME (ESTIMATED) CHANGE
1977 1999 1977 1999
One-fifth with lowest income 5.7% 4.2% $10,000 $8,800 -12.0%
Next lowest one-fifth 11.5 9.7 22,100 20,000 -9.5
Middle one-fifth 16.4 14.7 32,400 31,400 -3.1
Next highest one-fifth 22.8 21.3 42,600 45,100 +5.9
One-fifth with highest income 44.2 50.4 74,000 102,300 +38.2
1 percent with highest income 7.3 12.9 234,700 515,600 +119.7

*Figures do not add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: Congressional Budget Office data analyzed by Center on Budget and Policy Priority

The above data from the budget office shows that income disparity has grown so much that four out of five households, or about 217 million people are taking home less than they were in 1997.These figures (adjusted for inflation) show that these households share of national income has fallen to just under 50 percent from 56 percent in 1997.

The 54 million people who make up the most prosperous one-fifth of American households saw their share of the national income grow. More than 90 percent of the increase is going to the richest 1 percent of households. These people will average $515,600 this year as compared to $234,700 in 1977.

The richest 1 percent had as much income as the 38 percent with the lowest incomes. The top 20 percent of households had slightly more income than the bottom 80 percent of households combined.

Another report issued in August 1999 by United for a Fair Economy, deals with the "growing divide" makes some interesting points. Some are listed below:

* If the minimum wage had grown at the same rate as CEO pay between 1990 and 1998, it would now be $22.08 instead of $5.15 an hour.
* CEOs at the 365 largest corporations were paid 419 times the pay of average blue-collar workers ($10.6 million compared with about $25,000), up from a 120-to-1 ratio in 1990.
* In Japan, CEOs make eight times the lowest paid factory worker. This disparity is upsetting many in Japan.
* CEO pay rose by 481 percent while worker pay rose 28 percent, just 5.5 percent more than inflation.
* The Standard and Poor's Index rose 224 percent during this period, and corporate profits rose 108 percent.

The AFL-CIO issued a study in 1999 of young American workers in which they stated:

* "Three-fourths of young workers today are not college graduates. These workers... are living in the shadows of the less popular but more glamorous up-and-coming professional; their experiences and concerns typically are ignored by the popular media and in conventional economic analysis. Their voices are rarely heard. They are in essence, the 'forgotten majority'"

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Tango
Nobody ever thought Saddam was a good guy. Too bad this wasn't the reason why for the invasion.

You're right, it *is* too bad it isn't the primary reason the administration chose to tout. It's too bad because, unlike WMD's, it's incontrovertable, proven, factual and guaranteed in writing by the blood of the thousands of corpses unearthed since we invaded.

Jason

You forget to mention the thousands of corpses the USA has "earthed" since Bush fraudently invaded Iraq.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: raildogg

I guess according to the radical leftists here (not the liberals, which I am), we should have let Saddam continue to rape, murder and brutalize Iraqis all he wanted. .

Yeah right. I guarantee you that many Conservatives would have balked at supporting the Dub's excellent adventure if he had said we were invading Iraq to save the Iraqi's instead of eliminating WMDs.

I'm sure that's true. The Socialist Left would have defended Saddam's "Sovereignty" and the Religious Right would have preferred to oppress Americans under Christian rule rather than free others from a dictator. Only the genuine Liberals (we're talking DICTIONARY definition here, not conventional wisdom definition) actually gave a damn about the oppression of Iraqi's.

Jason

Actually I think it would have to do with Racism against Arabs and Middle Easterners in general, especially after the 9/11 attacks. The feelings about Middle Easterners after 9/11 was very similar to the feelings Americans had towards the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Link

113 Kurds found in Iraqi mass grave
Women, children pulled from trenches that may hold 1,500

Another reason that he should have been removed.

Some feel that the US is committing attrocies within Iraq against the population and should not have gone there.

This seems to give a clue on the needed moral reasons on removing/eliminating leaders that promote these types of actions.

Is anyone that complains about the US actions able to justify this?

Not another one of those, "Well, OK, the original reason was wrong but HOW ABOUT THIS REASON!" threads.... Booooo.

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
don cheadle wants to know where we were when the rwandan genocide was going on.

where was our moral obligation on that one?

Nail? Meet head.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Actually I think it would have to do with Racism against Arabs and Middle Easterners in general, especially after the 9/11 attacks. The feelings about Middle Easterners after 9/11 was very similar to the feelings Americans had towards the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

Racist ? Yeah - probably, look how many were ready to 'Get them Ragheads' right after the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma -
before Mc Veigh was even caught the Redneck Posse was looking to get revenge.