Tim Blair

Well, it's nice that they're not holding up the portrait of Saddam or some ambitious cleric, but it's a little creepy to have them holding up President Bush's portrait. Maybe we should have a five-year moratorium over there on the outdoor display of individual portraits or statues of persons who are dead less than five years (e.g. no loopholes for Osama).

Yeah, that sure is *creepy*. Why they would want to honor the only head of state who actually took action to protect them from being subjected to the worst poisonous gassing of families since Auschwitz is beyond me.

This CANNOT be true....al franken bill maher bill moyers maureen dowd katie couric al hunt cnn aBC CBS NBC NPR Paul krugman patty murray and a patriotic band of several dozen say that the USA is only in iraq for...as helen thomas asked...the Ooooooooooooooiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil, Ari?

Bob says, "it's a little creepy to have them holding up President Bush's portrait."

Bob, I would love to see your point, but I can't get my head that far up my ass.

can we get some photos of this event and put them on the covers of major publications, please?

I've got three options for my next peace rally placard:

Kurds are but the running dogs of imperialist capitalism.

er, make that two, that one's maybe a tad outdated...

Kurds are the allies of the sons of pigs and monkeys.

Kurds are bought by the American hegemon, lead by the cowboy George Bush.

I like them both: very strained, not catchy, fits well on placard with 12 point type, smacks all viewers in face with ideological fervor and purity. Yes, that's it then, I shall carry them both...

Did Colin Powell apologize to the Kurds for supporting Saddam Hussein throughout their pain?

As for the non-existent weapons, they've given up the pantomime of looking for them -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-816274,00.html

"Did Colin Powell apologize to the Kurds for supporting Saddam Hussein throughout their pain?"

Apologies and were all the anti-war people could offer.

Actions were what the kurds wanted and actions were what they got.

WOW! tim, what fine investigative journalism!!!! you mean iraq had weapons back in the late 80s? damn, i knew we should have fought them back then & ordered them to destroy all their weapons after the war.

but nobody listened, so instead they continued developing weapons throughout the last 10 years, and then used them against the west in the last few months and years.

Who cares about WMD's anyway. It was the right thing to do irrespective. Its just a shame that a few poofs like WMD man need need WMD thrust in front of them in order to get some action.

1988, hey? Well now you've convinced me. Wow.

Twit.

"Our liberators are welcome," "We love America" or "Thank you President Bush". "(c) 2003 US State Department".

Ho hum, Tim. Fifteen years ago? Please. We on the left never, ever criticize the U.S. for misdeeds committed so long ago, so try to be fair.

Halabja 1988 will go down in infamy as one of the world's worst cases of a country murdering its own people in cold blood.

Here's what happened.

Some posters may think fifteen years is long enough to forget, but the Kurds will never forget what Saddam did in 1988 nor what America has done in 2003.

If the link does not work directly, click on www.kdp.pp.se then go via the In Our Memories menu link to Halabja.

For someone without WMD, Saddam sure did his best to act like he had them. Must have been a severe case of WMD-envy. He should have listened to the Left. Unless... tag, Bashir's it.

Considering it took months for anyone to find the Iraqi Air Force - buried in sand next to an air base - I'm not too worried that a few thousand 175mm Chemical Howitzer shells haven't been found yet.

Iraq is bigger than California. I bet I could hide 1000 howitzer shells somewhere in California and no one would find them. Ever.

Hell, they are still finding chemical shells from WWI.

So Saddam had WMD fifteen years ago. What's your point? How does it tie into whether or not Saddam had WMD five months ago? It almost seems like your building a strawman here Tim, and if you are, well, I for one am shocked.

hehe

If we're going to talk about the 80s, let's talk Nicaragau, shall we?

Like Tim's point, it's not particularly relevant to today's issue, but hey - it sure as hell confirms one particular regime as a bunch of evil international criminals, doesn't it?

I agree, the Soviet client state run by the Sandinistas do qualify as evil, international criminals. What was the total body count of international communism? 100 million plus?

"If we're going to talk about the 80s, let's talk Nicaragau, shall we?"

Well, we do know who the people living there voted for when they finally got the chance. Several times. And you might want to check your spelling too.

1988? please refresh my memory--was that back when America was friends with Saddam?

"Did Colin Powell apologize to the Kurds for supporting Saddam Hussein throughout their pain?"

I doubt that Saddam regarded the no-fly zone over Kurdistan and the daily duels with his air-defense missiles as "support."

dude, the halabja massacre happened in 1988, the no-fly zone over the iraqi part of kurdistan wasn't established until april 1991. in the intervening three years, the u.s. sold anthrax to iraq and gave it a $1 bill loan guarantee. maybe not unconditional support, but certainly behaviour that merits some manner of apology to the kurds.

Arrgh. WILBUR IN TYPO-SPOTTING SCANDAL SHOCK!!!

Entire viewpoint shredded by ua vs au!

Go check the archives of the International Court that condemned the US as a terrorist state (the only state ever condemned as such). Only one of the dozen judges dissented (yep, the American one)

It's all on the web.

No. Get it yourself.

The US is the largest provider of aid - food, money, military power, academic, business - on earth.

By the logic of some of these posts, the US cannot take justifiable against any nation that has previously been in receipt of its aid.

International relations is not a tit for tat game. Criminal behaviour by once-legitimate governments means that the boundaries are continually moving, the sands are always shifting.

Sometimes difficult decisions are made about nations who were previously allies and nations who previously - or currently - receive aid.

By and large, the US has made mostly correct decisions throught its history.

Unlike the scores of nations who have destroyed their own and others' populations by neglect, cruelty and outright murder.

And also unlike a large part of the world's very frightening consummated romance with communism throughout most of the twentieth century resulting in countless - countless - deaths.

Furthermore, the 1988 gassing of 5000 innocent Kurds - an ethnic minority - by a national government was part of a continuum of criminal bahaviour by that government, not an isolated incident to be forgotten because it was so long ago. A two-year-old child gassed in 1988 would be a mere teenager today if still alive.

Despite the rubbish written about the US, it stands guilty on one count only - it should have removed Saddam in 1990-1.

"Go check the archives of the International Court that condemned the US as a terrorist state..."

You still haven't looked at what I said.

The people of Nicaragua voted for the contra backed political party as soon as they could vote.

They have done so several times since.

Seeing as the people who where living there rejected Daniel Ortega, and liked the Contras more, who cares what an international court says?