Sec's new threads......

[Tom]

Tom asked and Sec dodged this question:

"BTW, just thought of this - you werre whinning last week about the slavery issue in Sorry Arabia. I assume (sorry, lsbets....can't help myself!) you are against anyone sending in troops to fight slave traders, or the use of any type of force to free existing slaves. Would that be correct?
I mean, the Iraq's living under terror and repression was not a reson to help them.

Just WHEN does a lib think it is time to help others?"

OK, Sec....here is a thread all for you. Since this was a topic near and dear to you ( or in the daily talking points, whichever....) how about discussing it further in this brand-spankin/new thread?

[Secretariat]

Tom asked and Sec dodged this question:

"BTW, just thought of this - you werre whinning last week about the slavery issue in Sorry Arabia. I assume (sorry, lsbets....can't help myself!) you are against anyone sending in troops to fight slave traders, or the use of any type of force to free existing slaves. Would that be correct?
I mean, the Iraq's living under terror and repression was not a reson to help them.

Just WHEN does a lib think it is time to help others?"

OK, Sec....here is a thread all for you. Since this was a topic near and dear to you ( or in the daily talking points, whichever....) how about discussing it further in this brand-spankin/new thread?

Well, since I did address it somewhat in the previous thread I'll post it again for you.

"As to the "slavery" in Sadui Arabia, it is despicable. Yet, we buddy up to them. No consistency in our foregin policy. None. Was their "slavery" in Iraq before the pre-emptive invasion? I've yet to see it. There was a dictatorship with human rights abuses as in many countries including Saudi Arabia. We obviously did not go to war based on human rights violations or we'd have gone to war with many countries. We went to war primarily based on a flawed WMD assessment according to the Bush's first speeches and Powell's testimony to the UN or as Tenet said, its a "slam dunk" "

But I'll elucidate further:

You state;

"I assume (sorry, lsbets....can't help myself!) you are against anyone sending in troops to fight slave traders, or the use of any type of force to free existing slaves. Would that be correct?
I mean, the Iraq's living under terror and repression was not a reson to help them.

Just WHEN does a lib think it is time to help others?""

First off, I am not against sending troops to fight "slave traders", but I beleive in building an actual coalition and working within the UN to do it so WE DON'T FOOT ALL THE BILL to remedy all the world's problems. We've got slavery in a variety of places in the world.

The first thing you do is EXACTLY what the Bush adminstration intially did and condone it as Rice stated emaphatically. However, when the slavery is exposed, you don't "waive" it as Bush did and then continue with business as usual with the violator. We were NOT conducting business with Iraq with "business as usual". Yes, Iraq had human rights violations, so did Saudi Arabia but we do nothing agaisnt them, so does Israel have human rights violations, in fact they are still in violation of UN Security Resolution 242 for over 40 years, yet this is one of the pretexts Bush used to invade Iraq, that he was in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions. But i'm digressing.

I'm all for using American troops to help end slavery abroad. But one doesn't rush to all out war as the first solution to problems. This is one of the reasons I supported Bush's father on his decision to initially defend Kuwait in the first Gulf War. It was defending an ally, and it was a true international coalition including Muslim countries in the fighting ,and it was sanctioned by the UN. Saddam was isolated in that war, and it was highly successful.

Perhaps you can post the "slavery" issues that were occurring in Iraq. Because I can post the "slavery" issues in Saudi Arabai. In fact the WH has done a pretty good job of posting them themselves if you go back to June.

I guess i see war as a last resort rather than a first one. after all Bush ran on the US not being the world's policeman, and don't say 911 changed everything because the slavery and human trafficking in Saudi Arabia "precedes" 911. it's what i've said previously about him.

GW is not an evil man. He's a religious man, a man who espouses values. He is just indifferent to the plight of some, and then hypocritically uses others to further his political agenda.

[Tom]

So you will only help people if everyone else does too.

The world turned it's back on the Iraqi's in favor of huge sums of money from oil for food - so you think it would have been the right thing to do to leave them under Sadamm.

Thank you.

[Secretariat]

I thought you were interested in discussing slavery and human trafficking in Saudi Arabia? I should have known better. I guess you now believe there was slavery in Iraq.