Log In | Register
SCOOTERDMAN
Holding up his trousers with extension cords
Articles Posted: 91; Links Seeded: 114
Member Since: 1/2006Last Seen: 10/19/2009
Member Since: 1/2006Last Seen: 10/19/2009
30 Comments
PrintShould Bush Senior hang for long-standing support of Saddam?
News Type: Opinion — Fri Jan 5, 2007 8:30 PM EST
Live Poll
Should George H.W. Bush be tried by the Iraqi Government for his support of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s?
- Yes.68%
- No.32%
Total Votes: 22
Deal with the devil: The right hands of Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein, seen here clasped. The year was 1983. The American government supported Hussein's savage rule and barbaric tactics in the 1980s. Their support stopped when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990.
advertisement
An interesting timeline of events for you to consider in the wake of Saddam Hussein's execution:
March 16, 1988: Saddam Hussein carries out the worst of several recent chemical attacks on his own countrymen, Kurds residing in the city of Halabja. Thousands are killed. (Source: US State Dept)
October 1989: President George Bush, in a top-secret National Security Decision says the following:
"Normal relations between the U.S. and Iraq would serve our long-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The U.S. should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behavior and increase our influence with Iraq ... We should pursue, and seek to facilitate, opportunities for U.S. firms to participate in the reconstruction of the Iraqi economy." (Source: Discovery Times)
October 6, 2005: President George W. Bush, speaking at the National Endowment for Democracy says:
"Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account." (Source: The White House )
Being that Saddam's atrocities were no secret in 1989, when then-President Bush reinforced the United States' long-standing support for Saddam Hussein, and given his son's dualistic approach to the War on Terror ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."), should George W. Bush not prosecute his own father for his support of terrorist activities?
Or, perhaps more appropriately, should not the Iraqi government, run by Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani — who felt firsthand the sting of Saddam's chemical weapons — prosecute former President Bush and other US officials for their support of Hussein during his reign of terror? Considering our president has established that the War on Terror will not merely focus on al-Qaeda but also its catalysts, should the Iraqi government not take a similar approach in seeking justice for the crimes committed under Hussein?
Discuss.
20 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- ScooterDMan's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: none
- Public Discussion (30)
- Public Discussion (0)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
11
{"commentId":461358,"authorDomain":"scooterdman"}
For a more thorough account of US involvment in the Hussein regime, see the Discovery Times' timeline here.
{"commentId":461358,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"scooterdman"}
- 3 votes
#1 - Fri Jan 5, 2007 8:32 PM EST{"commentId":462392,"authorDomain":"comsen"}
Since when does wanting normal relations with a country and wanting to do business with them make them an ally? This is a poor rationale to use to hang someone.
{"commentId":462392,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"comsen"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":462682,"authorDomain":"adambecker"}
I'm fairly certain ScooterDMan does not, in fact, want to see Bush senior hanged. More likely, he wants Bush junior's hypocritical, nonsenical dividing of the world to end.
But I've been wrong before.
{"commentId":462682,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"adambecker"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":462760,"authorDomain":"scooterdman"}
{"commentId":463387,"authorDomain":"comsen"}
then prosecuting and hanging that same dictator 20 years later for those very crimes
Iraq prosecuted and executed this "dictator". The US invaded and apprehended Husein for multiple reasons, not just the one you mentioned.
{"commentId":463387,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"comsen"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":463436,"authorDomain":"scooterdman"}
{"commentId":461549,"authorDomain":"pody"}
Interesting argument. It won't happen of course-- but yes, I absolutely agree.
It would seem that the elder Bush should be opposed to his son's policies-- that is, he should actually have some sense.
{"commentId":461549,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"pody"}
- 4 votes
#2 - Fri Jan 5, 2007 11:37 PM EST{"commentId":461562,"authorDomain":"scooterdman"}
{"commentId":461750,"authorDomain":"MastaBaba"}
Hear hear!
{"commentId":461750,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"MastaBaba"}
- 1 vote
#3 - Sat Jan 6, 2007 4:21 AM EST{"commentId":461896,"authorDomain":"frankblack"}
All of the Bush Crime Family members should hang so that the world can purge their filth from the human gene pool.
{"commentId":461896,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"frankblack"}
- 1 vote
#4 - Sat Jan 6, 2007 10:45 AM EST{"commentId":461927,"authorDomain":"scooterdman"}
{"commentId":461938,"authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
How humane. With an attitude like that, how can you claim any moral superiority to them?
And anyone here knows I am no Bush supporter, so shut that trite line of argument up before it even comes up.
{"commentId":461938,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":461899,"authorDomain":"tschreck"}
while i'll agree that sr. bush did some bad things in his day i will defend him in one regard..
i am of the opinion that he did the things he did with a genuine concern for what he thinks is best for the nation and that each step along the way he considered the ramifications of his actions over the long term.
he may have made some mistakes, but his intentions i think were at that time in the best interest of the american people first and foremost.
that is why he didn't go to baghdad in the 1st gulf war. he knew that once there, the end game had a zero percent chance of a favorable outcome.
lil' w on the other hand, does not have america's best interest at heart, but rather the best interest of a very small group. he does not have a lick of the wisdom of his father and he seemingly could give a poop about the "piece(s) of paper" that this once great country was founded upon.
judging bush sr. in hindsight is not, in my opinion, the correct thing to do.
judging lil' w with regards to his demonstrable disregard for laws of this land in the present is another thing entirely.
{"commentId":461899,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"tschreck"}
- 5 votes
#5 - Sat Jan 6, 2007 10:49 AM EST{"commentId":461921,"authorDomain":"scooterdman"}
{"commentId":461945,"authorDomain":"tschreck"}
i think that sr did sometimes did things that he knew were "bad" but in his own context they were the right thing for the people of america. remember, sr. was a CIA man for a long time and understood the intricacies of the application of policy. for instance, i'm sure he knew saddam was a ruthless dictator but he might have also known what we know now, that iraq could only be held together by such power. when reagan sent rummy there in the early 80's, part of his plan was to help stabilize the region. that was also in the best interest of our nation.. at that point it had only been 10 years since an oil embargo had crippled the us and shown us that we were indeed very vulnerable to the politics of oil.
all this really means is that a stable mid-east is good for the usa..
that being said, i must challenge one aspect of your reply.. there has been no credible evidence that iraq had anything to do with terror attacks against the usa, i am confident that lil w knew this fact well but did not care. iraq has NEVER been threat to the usa.. never.. not when reagan was in office, not when sr. was in office, not until w created the situation in iraq that is present day, did it become a threat to us. w created the mess that is iraq, sr. by no stretch of the imagination, had anything to do with a terrorist, or even someone harboring a terrorist when he did what he did in iraq.
i guess what i'm saying is that i don't buy the notion that saddam had anything to do with invoking or promoting terrorism against the united states. the current situation where people assert that iraq is now a hub of terror and constitutes a clear and present danger to the united states is a creation that belongs to no one but the w.
{"commentId":461945,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"tschreck"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":462362,"authorDomain":"marc"}
tschreck
iraq has NEVER been threat to the usa.. never.. not when reagan was in office, not when sr. was in office, not until w created the situation in iraq that is present day, did it become a threat to us.
So can we assume you believe a plot to kill the US President by Saddam, and responded to by Clinton's bombing campaign, wasn't a threat to the US? If so why not?
Can we also assume you believe members of the US Navy (pilots specifically) and US Air Force are exempt from US citizenship and as such when they were under constant threat of being shot down (and actually being shot at) during the sanctions/no-fly era Iraq those acts didn't constitute a "threat to the US?"
Can we also assume Saddam's financial and spiritual support for Palestinian suicide bombers never threatened to kill and maim US citizens either visiting Israel or there on vacations.
Sorry tschreck, "never" doesn't seem to fit reality.
{"commentId":462362,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"marc"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":462390,"authorDomain":"tschreck"}
Full Throttle-
So can we assume you believe a plot to kill the US President by Saddam, and responded to by Clinton's bombing campaign, wasn't a threat to the US? If so why not?
its funny you bring this up.. more and more evidence is coming to light that saddams' involvement in this alleged plot is "implausible"..
Can we also assume you believe members of the US Navy (pilots specifically) and US Air Force are exempt from US citizenship and as such when they were under constant threat of being shot down (and actually being shot at) during the sanctions/no-fly era Iraq those acts didn't constitute a "threat to the US?"
i would call this a treat to our military, oddly enough, this threat took place where exactly? oh yes.. over iraq.. far away from sovereign american soil. easy to avoid that "threat".. keep in mind that our military is VERY good at what they do and the likelihood of a shootdown was very low. our pilots and their tactics are the best there are.
Can we also assume Saddam's financial and spiritual support for Palestinian suicide bombers never threatened to kill and maim US citizens either visiting Israel or there on vacations.
i think you can assume that this is a problem for and IN israel, not the united states. i have yet to find an example of a palestinian blowing up anything here in the usa. now if a us citizen choses to walk unprepared into a war zone, i'll have to defer to darwin as to the outcome. palestinians targeted people there that they considered their oppressors, collateral damage is to them as inconsequential it is to us in iraq present day. sure it would be nice to avoid it, but the mission comes first.
so, you have detailed a couple of corner cases and one threat that in all likelihood never existed in the first place.
i'll stand by my original statement.
{"commentId":462390,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"tschreck"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":462421,"authorDomain":"scooterdman"}
{"commentId":462456,"authorDomain":"tschreck"}
well then Scooter-
i understand your point of view now and agree in part. sometimes presidents have to stand on the side of the lessor of evils but again i do not feel i know enough of the details in the back story of it all to pass anymore judgment than that. i still feel that the elder bush was looking for an ally in the middle east to establish the stability he felt was desperately needed. in retrospect he seemed to have not made the best choice. the relationship between saddam and reagan / bush was quite complex and it is unfortunate that it worked out as it did. saddam did something that no one else could do then and probably still can't.. he kept the tribal war that is the history of the people who now occupy the land called iraq at bay. he did so by being willing to do what others were not. these acts eventually, as you well know, cost him his life. was the elder bush an accessory to these crimes? i don't think so directly, and i think more he was a victim of the circumstances perhaps complicated by a "misoverrestimation" of his own knowledge regarding the culture and history of the people in that area and what it would take to stabilize the region.
does this excuse him? i don't know, but im sure he might be thinking about his mistakes and if he is indeed a beleiver he may well be worried about what st. peter will have to say to him when that day comes.
sometimes surviving is its own death sentence.
{"commentId":462456,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"tschreck"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":462746,"authorDomain":"scooterdman"}
{"commentId":462755,"authorDomain":"scooterdman"}
{"commentId":462061,"authorDomain":"dknighton"}
I can't believe people here are actually suggesting and supporting the notion that an 80+ year old man, fresh off a second hip-replacement, needs to hang for political decisions made 18 years ago. And you wonder why people refer to you as "nutroots"? Personally I think the current Iraq war was a mistake of epic proportions, and perhaps Bush Jr. will be made accountable, but suggesting that his father has a date with the gallows is absurd. You're generalizing the actions of a President, taken over a decade ago, and playing them against the words of his son in a global climate that is entirely different today.
{"commentId":462061,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"dknighton"}
- 3 votes
#6 - Sat Jan 6, 2007 1:30 PM EST{"commentId":462376,"authorDomain":"marc"}
dknighton
I can't believe people here are actually suggesting..........
That's what happens when that history is viewed in a vacuum and fueled by their current anti-Iraq war beliefs.
They ignore, or have no contextual reference to that time period. Like many countries do at various times, the US at that time supported what was then considered by most as the lesser of two evils: Saddam vs the Mullahs that had kidnapped dozens of Americans and held them for over a year.
The reality was the US policy was based on the notion that support for Saddam against a superior Iranian army would result in a stalemate. agree or disagree, in fact that's what happened.
{"commentId":462376,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"marc"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":462463,"authorDomain":"scooterdman"}
{"commentId":462686,"authorDomain":"adambecker"}
I can't believe people here are actually suggesting and supporting the notion that an 80+ year old man, fresh off a second hip-replacement, needs to hang for political decisions made 18 years ago.
If you hadn't said 80+, I wouldn't have known if you were talking about Bush Senior or that spry young Saddam.
{"commentId":462686,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"adambecker"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":462133,"authorDomain":"stephentyler5"}
dkighton, you are on the right track, but it is worse than that. They would hang him for his opinion!! In what way did Bush Sr. PERSONALLY act on behalf of Saddam? The problem with the folks here is that they don't know the history of their own opinions, much less the history of the Middle East. You know, they are the same folks that raged on for 10 years in favor of dropping sanctions against Saddam for the sake of the Iraqi children.
{"commentId":462133,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"stephentyler5"}
#7 - Sat Jan 6, 2007 2:41 PM EST{"commentId":462231,"authorDomain":"Raymont"}
{"commentId":462508,"authorDomain":"TomB1002067"}
Maybe we should hang Nixon for making nice with an awful country (human rights-wise) lke China. Opps, we can't; he passed on already. I think Bush 41's decision was practical in nature.
{"commentId":462508,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"TomB1002067"}
- 1 vote
#9 - Sat Jan 6, 2007 8:31 PM EST{"commentId":462658,"authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
The premise, in question form:
Being that Saddam's atrocities were no secret in 1989, when then-President Bush reinforced the United States' long-standing support for Saddam Hussein, and given his son's dualistic approach to the War on Terror ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."), should George W. Bush not prosecute his own father for his support of terrorist activities?
My answer is no. The president has to base his decisions on what is best for the country. The idea during H.W.'s tenure was that a strong leader, i.e. Saddam, could bring stability to an unstable area. The idea, once presented by FDR is a very concise way was: He may be a son of a @!$%#, but he's our son of a @!$%#. (No, FDR was not talking about Saddam but another dictator the U.S. supported.)
W is acting on the belief that a free, democratic society will not be a threat to other free, democratic societies, thus the change in foreign policy. This change does not make H.W. guilty of crimes he never committed.
To suggest that H. W. should hang for the crimes committed by another, just because he supported what he thought was the best route for America, is asinine.
Let me put this another way. If you see this as feasible, is it not a valid argument then to suggest that Clinton should hang for his repeated support of Yassar Arafat? Same situation, different names.
{"commentId":462658,"threadId":"65896","contentId":"508310","authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
- 4 votes
#10 - Sat Jan 6, 2007 11:11 PM EST{"commentId":462754,"authorDomain":"scooterdman"}
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"65896","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
