How come??

[PatPatriot]

Rush is on today talking about the number killed in the tsunami. And it is nothing to sneeze at with 200,000 being a distinct possibility.

But when the number of people killed under Saddam is looked at, it is a far higher number. While the outrage on the tsunami is high and justifiable so, where is the outrage over the killing of innocents ordered by Saddam?

 

[bblight]

Where's the liberal outrage over the tens of thousands murdered in the Sudan?

Could it be that all of these people were people of color, and therefore not worthy of being noticed.

 

[GAMEFACE]

Big money grab here, the needy only get 2 out of every 10 US dollars. I'd put a stop payment on the check now and send MREs, water and cots.

 

[PatPatriot]

This is more tragedy celeb too.

you'll be seeing concert from bono...hollywood starting their own benifits and not knowing where the moneys going and not even caring,so long as their name is associated with the tragedy.

 

[xpanda]

You're probably right on that last point, Pat. Hollywood annoys me to no end.

As for your original question: where was YOUR outrage in 1988 when the bulk of these Saddam-annointed murders were occuring with Daddy Bush's knowledge? Being 18 and drunk at the time, I scarcely noticed. Fifteen+ years later and at least I can see the irony in the right's new moral outrage at an incident once chalked up to smart geopolitics.

The tsunami disaster is today, right now. I do hope you're not suggesting that people back off on their relief efforts to balance the "outrage" in your eyes.

 

[Marco]

I think the world is more in tune with massive disasters such as the tsunami than they are with what some dictator does.....maybe because the dictator spreads out the victims over his tenure it's not noticed as much?

 

[JinnRikki]

Hmmm, read somewhere about Saddam gassing some Kurds. Not much made of that then. Who was the president then?

 

[docmercer--banned]

Patriot:

Sandra Bullock shelled out ONE MILLION dollars today ... how much has Limbaugh contributed?

JINN .... it was Bush #41 .. who told the Kurds to rebel and the USA would back em and then Bush pulled out and left em defenseless ...

 

[JDeuce]

See, Pat...

You've gotta look at it through lefty glasses...

Basically...the left thinks America gets involved in too much, then they claim we don't get involved enough.

In other words, they think we should only do whatever it is they say we should do, and that would pretty much preclude doing anything in our own interests.

 

[docmercer--banned]

Meanwhile, King of the "Mission Accomplished" Sat Idle for 4 Days:

Bush vacations — again
[font=arial,sans-serif]by Les Payne
[font=arial,sans-serif]Link to Article[/font]

[font=arial,sans-serif]On the morning of the fourth day, the president spake.

The voice defending the United States from charges of being niggardly with its tsunami aid was indeed that of President George W. Bush. From the ranch at Crawford, Texas, the cowboy-in-chief went into his defensive crouch. The TV caption said "Western White House," which is to say: presidential vacation. Late December, as all of August, means vacation, come hellfire or tsunami.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=8 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 bgColor=#eeeeee><TBODY><TR><TD><!-- BEGIN BURST! CODE --><!-- /* Copyright 1997-2003 BURST! Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. (Version 1.0F) */ --><!-- END BURST! CODE --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The Sunday tsunami knocked out 12 nations following a 9.0 earthquake that jolted the floor of the Indian Ocean so violently that it shuttered the very rotation of our planet. Inland villages, to say nothing of the ones beachfront, were shredded clean to the bone, from Indonesia all the way west to Somalia.

The death toll has spiked above 100,000, with untold lives never to be accounted for by mankind. The ravenous sea has swallowed hundreds, and perhaps thousands, who could have been accounted for only by others who now have no one to account for them. Winds off some of the tsunamis were clocked over 500 mph, pushing avalanches of waters 40 feet high. Sri Lanka and Indonesia were double-barreled as the waves ripped the shorelines of India, Thailand and Mogadishu (the last some 3,000 miles from the epicenter).

Some 72 hours passed before President Bush changed his vacation clothes to address the catastrophe.

The first words from the wealthiest nation on earth had come from his administration promising $15 million in assistance. This initial insult in our name rose to $35 million in the face of charges from a United Nations official that America was being "stingy." Secretary of State Colin Powell rode out to counter the "stingy" charge only to have his white steed splattered with mud. Concerned Americans who see themselves as citizens of the world noted that, since the onset of this most calamitous natural disaster of our time, President Bush had remained both out of sight and silent.

Under Bush, this steel-helmet republic is spending $87B-plus to wage an unprovoked war against an Arab state whose plight under siege is hardening the hearts of Muslims against this increasingly evangelical White House. Western nations also look askance at Bush's with-us or agin'-us approach to world diplomacy. The Sept. 11 attacks offered a chance for the United States to lead a united front against terrorism orchestrated by Osama bin Laden. This time, the earthquake-tsunami afforded an opening for statecraft.

The U.S. war president could have doubled as a missionary of peace and compassion, with a respectable tsunami-aid package and a few timely words. He could have extended an olive branch to the world's largest Muslim country, in Indonesia, as well as to the Hindu-Islamic-Buddhist populations of Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Somalia and the rest.

It is tempting to conclude that some sinister White House policy is at play here. Would Bush have reacted so slowly had the victims not been primarily brown-skinned? The answer may lie in the president's shocking immobility when his chief of staff informed him that a second jet plane had crashed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. What the nation apparently has saddled itself with is a sitting president who, left alone, is incapable of responding rationally to unscripted events.

The Bush schedule last week called for vacation.

The American people cannot say they weren't warned about his Advanced Vacation Syndrone (AVS). Barely six months into his first term, he dropped everything - and took a month off. Most American workers, with one-week allotments, would have still been on probation. Bush's absence almost tied Richard Nixon's record for the longest presidential stay away from the White House. Even horseback-riding, underbrush-clearing, Ronald Reagan could manage only 28 days away.

The 43rd president put the vacation record out where it poses a serious challenge for his second term. Back in the spring, prior to his August slumber, Bush had spent 40 percent of his time away from the White House, according to The Guardian newspaper, which takes note of such things. Between his inauguration and the 2004 Easter weekend, Bush had reportedly spent 233 days, or almost eight months, in 33 visits to Crawford, Texas, according to CBS News, which conducts a body watch on the president, but at a mandated out-of-sight distance. Tacking on his 78 visits to Camp David and five to the family compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, The Guardian clocked 500 presidential days spent "out of the office while in office."

The friendlier Washington Post, by August 2003, had clocked Bush with 27 percent of his presidency spent on vacation. Although, to be fair, much of this time is classified as "working vacation." Work indeed intrudes on the president's vacation schedule, as it did on Aug. 6, 2001. As reported in the 9/11 Commission Report, Bush's regular August vacation was interrupted by that CIA briefing warning that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack the United States.

The threat of an al-Qaida attack did not deter Bush from his vacation in 2001. Last week he likely slumbered through the earthquake-tsunamis. Such dedication. [/font]

[/font]

 

[JinnRikki]

You're probably right on that last point, Pat. Hollywood annoys me to no end.

As for your original question: where was YOUR outrage in 1988 when the bulk of these Saddam-annointed murders were occuring with Daddy Bush's knowledge? Being 18 and drunk at the time, I scarcely noticed. Fifteen+ years later and at least I can see the irony in the right's new moral outrage at an incident once chalked up to smart geopolitics.

The tsunami disaster is today, right now. I do hope you're not suggesting that people back off on their relief efforts to balance the "outrage" in your eyes.

The thing is that in 1988 no one cared about Kurds getting gassed. But in 2003 bush and his minions were trumpting how savage Saddam was to gas his people. How can you allow a man that would do that to his people stay in power they asked.
And now someone has to slap bush to get him out of his hammock to make a simple statement to the world.
Leader of the free world, yeah right.

 

[xpanda]

In other words, they think we should only do whatever it is they say we should do, and that would pretty much preclude doing anything in our own interests.

I can see how you would think like that.

When really all it is: most would rather see the US helping to save lives, rather than taking them.

In 1988, the US was complicit in Saddam's actions. Bad. In 2004/5, the US is helping to relieve the suffering of millions of people. Good.

You see now?

 

[JDeuce]

In 2004/5, the US is helping to relieve the suffering of millions of people. Good.

You forgot to put 2003 in there, which was when the second Iraq invasion took place. Thats part of the reason we went there.

Sometimes to arrive at peace, unpleasant incidents have to first occur. Even though some civilians have died from our attacks, we've spared more lives because of them.

Surely you're not going to claim that the US has accidentally killed more innocent civilians than Saddam would have since April of 2003?

 

[xpanda]

In 2004/5, the US is helping to relieve the suffering of millions of people. Good.

You forgot to put 2003 in there, which was when the second Iraq invasion took place. Thats part of the reason we went there.

Sometimes to arrive at peace, unpleasant incidents have to first occur. (edited to add: These "Unpleasant Incidences" may even be partly OUR fault!!) Even though some civilians have died from our attacks, we've spared more lives because of them.

Surely you're not going to claim that the US has accidentally killed more innocent civilians than Saddam would have since April of 2003?

Why bother? You've already decided that it's okay for heroes to kill innocent people. That makes them even more heroic, doesn't it? That they did the deed directly, instead of leaving it to some 'very bad bad man.'

Are you quite pissed, then, that your gov't didn't stop Saddam from gassing the Kurds, that instead they saw the opportunity in turning a blind eye? You're upset with that whole thing, are ya? Inflamed, perhaps? Can't quite believe you didn't come to their rescue soon enough?

That fifteen year wait must've been simply agonising for you.

 

[docmercer--banned]

Yep ...

the thousand upon thousands of Innocent Iraqis that have died means nothing to the Neo-Cons ....

Bush does not give a crap .. he has never shown any remorse for one single death in Iraq ... Ike wrote a letter before the launch of D Day to take full blame if things went bad ... Ike was a Commander in Chief, Bush is a fraud ... could ya picture Ike screaming, "Bring It On" or get in front of a National Audience with the banner "Mission Accomplished" in the background

Yep, the USA govt DID NOT take action when the Kurds were gassed in 1988 ... and this "we have freed the Iraqi people" is a big smoke screen to try and make Bush look good for Vietnam II

 

[PatPatriot]

where was YOUR outrage in 1988 when the bulk of these Saddam-annointed murders were occuring with Daddy Bush's knowledge? Being 18 and drunk at the time, I scarcely noticed.

Your lucky you weren't in my back seat.:105084828

 

[xpanda]

Your lucky you weren't in my back seat.:105084828

Why?? Are you that bad at it?

 

[PatPatriot]

Puhleeeze. YOUR toes would curl. :>Grin>