Text 10108, 73 rader
Skriven 2009-03-12 09:01:00 av Dave Drum (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av John Fitzgerald
Ärende: Re: ETHICS: ON/OFF
==========================
-=> JOHN FITZGERALD wrote to DAVE DRUM <=-

 JF>  Saddam Hussein had a history of genocide attempts and other such
 JF>  attrocities against various people in the region, yet he's blindly
 JF>  defended by many also.  Partisan ethics.

 DD>  Two things to keep in mind, oh illogical one.
 DD>  1. No one (that I know of) ever said Saddam was a nice guy.
 DD>  2. The US has no legal brief to be the world's policeman.

 JF>   Two things to keep in mind, oh pointless one:

 JF>  1. Many I know of have defended Saddam as if he was some harmless
 JF>     stooge under Bush, but who regarded him as a "threat to security
 JF>     in the region" during Clinton's terms in office.

 DD>   However, I was never one of those.

 JF>   So you do think Saddam was a dangerous and unstable dictator, and it
 JF> was wise to take him out, or do you still think he was a threat but
 JF> could care less about taking definite action against this tyrant and
 JF> sponsor of terrorism then?

Do, please, learn to understand what you read. I never said, nor implied, that
I thought anything of the sort. Saddam was a threat only to the people of Iraq
and his immediate neighbours. And his govenrment was pretty stable ... no
matter how harsh his tactics to keep it that way.

Saying that George III invaded his country and deposed him under false
pretenses is not defending Saddam. It is slamming one of your heroes ... The
despised George Walker Bush (failed) 43rd President of the United States.

 JF>  2. No one was talking about a 'world's policeman'  when Clinton sent
 JF>    cruise missiles into Baghdad, or when he went into Bosnia and Haiti.

 DD>   When did Clinton "go into Haiti"? Please provide
 DD>   dates of invasion. Bosnia I have already addressed
 JF>       ... as it was part of an UN action not a unilateral
 JF>       AMerican deal.

 JF>     So the US shouldn't act unless we have the UN's permission?

Didn't say, nor imply that. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

 JF>     I believe the point (you brought up, and which) you now seem to be
 JF> avoiding is the US being the world's cop.   If you object to Clinton's
 JF> war's -along- with Bush's on that platform, fine.   As for Haiti, you
 JF> can find that info out for yourself.  Right now the issue is 'world
 JF> cop', you know, the point you brought up, oh distracted one.

Clinton had *NO* wars. Nor did Dubya Dubya Three. FDR was president when the
last US war began. Harry Truman finished it up after Ol' Franklin snuffed it.

The troops to Haiti deal was the threat of an invasion - as I said. Troops who
ended up in Haiti were not invaders. Rather, they went there to "help train
police and rebuild the Haitian nation".

"It was not until after Haitian intelligence learned that American paratroopers
would be boarding their aircraft within an hour for the beginning of the
invasion that a last minute deal was reached. Showing skillful negotiating
powers the U.S. team appealed to President Jonassaint, who was willing to sign
the agreement and prevent the military invasion, while allowing the military
leaders to save face. The day after the agreement was signed American troops
came ashore in Haiti under the command of Lieutenant General Hugh Shelton to
help train police and rebuild the Haitian nation. A few weeks later leaders of
the Cedras government left the country and Aristide returned on October 15,
1994, as agreed to in Carter-brokered agreement." 

http://tinyurl.com/haititroops

... Big surprise ... even your blood type is negtive.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)