News Why is the US/UK at war with Iraq?

[JohnDubYa]

Didn't answer the question

Never said I did. And the same goes for the rest of my responses. Besides, you never answered my question either. ("Are you sure we haven't found any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq?")

Your comments were structurally similar to those of JohnDubYa,

Hmmm... I don't recall relying on future events to prove any statements.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Hmmm... I don't recall relying on future events to prove any statements.

I have an idea...let's start a new thread just to find out if this is true...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[JohnDubYa]

I have an idea... why don't you admit that you have no good reason to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for oil or imperialism? The evidence doesn't support your statements. We are paying more now for oil than before the invasion.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

I have an idea... why don't you admit that you have no good reason to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for oil or imperialism?

Ok, you ready? Here goes: "I have no good reason to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for oil or imperialism."

Does that make you feel better? I hope so, because you seem really angry and uptight. Anyway, I'm not going to fight with you. Life's too short, and we're never going to agree on anything anyway. I'm tired and it's late, so I'm going to bed. Have a nice evening, OK?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Sweet dreams.

 

[Prometheus]

They call this Truth by Prophecy, and it's a fallacy.

You are mistaken in your use of pronouns. You say "they" so that we will think that someone of merit is involved. In truth, it is not some anonymous they but you who is calling it a fallacy, and you are using Truth by Propehcy as your hook to get people to believe you.

In other words, your reasoning is faulty and worthless. You cannot justify opinions by referring to events that haven't occurred.

That you consider this the sole source of her intent is a fallacy on your part, in my opinion.

I fail to see how we got any oil out of this deal, or gained any territory. I think your views are heavily tainted by an anti-Republican attitude.

What kind of fallacy are you using? Surely you have a name for it when others speak this way. The fact that you fail to see something is completely irrelevant, and you know it. Bush had numerous goals for the venture in Iraq. He seems to be failing miserably. You ignore what his purpose was, and look upon his failure as proof that he never had the intentions in the first place. Perhaps your views are heavily tainted by a pro-Republican attitude. Is that not at least as likely?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I wonder if Bush himself remembers what his true mix of purposes was. He's very much a spur of the moment guy, who can't be bothered with analysis. Various of his advisors had different motives, but I think very much the leading one was to stand tall and top the successful Afghanistan campaign with something bigger and better. Remember "Shock and Awe"?

 

[Gokul43201]

You can't disarm the world by war...because there will be no world left. Dozens of, if not over a hundred, countries have missiles. Should we go to war with India and Pakistan for wanting to sell missiles to 3rd-world countries?

I know this is really old, but I just saw it, and I strongly object.

Dear Dan,

Please show me any evidence you have that India has sold (or wanted to sell, whatever that means) missiles to 3rd world countries. I will even accept rumor.

And the US has sold (often just given away) more weaponry to 3rd world countries than probably the rest of the world put together.

Does being a 3rd world country automatically qualify it as a rogue state or a dangerous entity ?

 

[Ethanol]

3rd world countries and missiles

Uncle Sam says afghanis are terrorists, we said yes. Uncle Sam says iraqis have got weapons of mass destruction, we don't speak up a word in iraq's favour.Uncle Sam says israel isn't terrorist, we remain quiet. Uncle Sam says we want terrorists, we say OK. Uncle Sam says give us your airbases we want to attack afghanistan, we give them that too. Uncle Sam says fight afghanis in WANA(a mountain terrain), we say 'your wish, our command'.
But who has the right to rule us and tell us that our Nuclear scientists were terrorists.Uncle Sam says Dr. Qadeer Khan should be imprisoned we asy Ok again.Do you Know why because might is right. After Pakistan conducted nuclear research with AbdulQadeer Khan he was prosecuted in various countries for the theft of researchof the Developed countries but what he really transferred to Pakistan was just knowledge. Might is right. the world works on the principle.Where are WMD(weapons of mass destruction) that Iraq possessed?Those were just WMD(words of mass deception) by Uncle Sam. Where is Osama Bin Laden? Where is the democracy that was promised to Iraqis? Truly Third World deserves the Gallows by the mighty developed countries. Why? Because they are still not rising against the tyranny.If we want to produce electricity by nuclear plant then why are we stopped? Because no one wants us to be developed. If we were developed whom would the Developed rule?And your words are right Gokul being 3rd world does not qualify us to be spanked. It does not suggest that we are dangerous.But it does suggest that we could be suppressed easily.


Uncle Sam says "India and Pakistan, no more fighting". Why would America want our friendship. If 3rd world countries like us become friend who would Uncle Sam sell his weapons to?

P.S. I'm in the favour of indo pak friendship. If the fighting ends the two nations will put their strenghts to development rather than each other's destruction and maybe they won't be regarded rogue.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Let me guess: You read The Guardian and Al Jazeera for your information too, right?

At least TRY to examine the situation a little more objectively.

 

[Ethanol]

Let me tell you that I read neither of the papers. I am a national of Pakistan and have good enough information on what is going on in the heads of my nation. Even though the dictator of ours is in favour of the US an average Pakistani does not think that we should support US in the so called war against terrorism. Every one has the right to freedom and I think Abe Lincoln of yours said that. When you attack Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq they are sure to fight back. If US really wanted to throw Saddam off, there was an easy way. You could have just helped his enemies by arms or something. And might i remind Americans that their partial success in Afghanistan is due to Pakistan. Afghanis are a warrior nation and they would still not give up and i fear that this time they will also be the reason for Pakistan's destruction cause they are our friends no more.

P.S. If you think saddam was bad to his general public then why are Iraqis fighting back and was there a terrorist attack on the Deputy prime minister of Iraq today even though Prime minister is leveling the path to democracy.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I am a national of Pakistan and have good enough information on what is going on in the heads of my nation.

So where do you get your news? You didn't answer the question.

Even though the dictator of ours is in favour of the US an average Pakistani does not think that we should support US in the so called war against terrorism.

How many Pakistani nationals were killed in the World Trade Center attack? Exactly.

Pakistan is home to some of the most extreme religious bigotry in the world. It is little surprise that they would not support the US' attack of Afghanistan.

If US really wanted to throw Saddam off, there was an easy way. You could have just helped his enemies [buy] arms or something.

Oh, you mean Israel?

Or Iran? (Oh yeah, that would be a smoooooooth move considering our experience getting involved between those two countries.)

So which enemies are you referring? The Shi'ites? They had no chance in Hell of overthrowing Saddam. Hell, they didn't even have an organized militia!

And might i remind Americans that their partial success in Afghanistan is due to Pakistan. [No one has suggested otherwise.] Afghanis are a warrior nation and they would still not give up and i fear that this time they will also be the reason for Pakistan's destruction cause they are our friends no more.

Well, I hope you have kept the powder dry.

P.S. If you think saddam was bad to his general public then why are Iraqis fighting back and was there a terrorist attack on the Deputy prime minister of Iraq today even though Prime minister is leveling the path to democracy.

Fundamentalist Islam's wierdness is well-documented. If there is one thing we have learned in the war, the enemy we face acts very strange. There is no doubt that we saved many of these people's lives from Saddam's clutches, but they turned on us anyway. Again, this is partly due to religious bigotry.

And anyone that doesn't think Saddam was "bad to his general public" is insane. You need to see some of what he did to his people in Iraq. When you see video clips of wailing Iraqis pulling bones out of the dirt, what do you think happened? Did these mass graves occur because of avalanches? The stories of inhuman cruelty have been told countless times. These people are not making this up.

In my opinion, of all dictators that we have witnessed in the past two centuries, Saddam eclipses them all in terms of sheer cruelty. And that goes for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Baby Doc...

And don't think we could have waited for him to pass on. His sons were no better. Uday, especially, was a sheer pyschopath who carried out some of his father's more gruesome murders. Ask former members of his Olympic teams (well, if any have survived).

By the way, coming from Pakistan, what is your view on religious freedom and civil rights? What is your average citizen's views? Care to explain the contents of the following links?

http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/6.24/001128-honor.html
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/pakistan/reports/honour/overview.html

"At the end of July, however, the upper house of Pakistan's Parliament rejected even a highly watered-down version of a resolution condemning honor killing."

Nice country.

 

[Pyrovus]

Fundamentalist Islam's wierdness is well-documented. If there is one thing we have learned in the war, the enemy we face acts very strange. There is no doubt that we saved many of these people's lives from Saddam's clutches, but they turned on us anyway.

Yeah, I guess it is pretty strange that people don't like the Americans after having relatives blown to pieces by American bombs.

In my opinion, of all dictators that we have witnessed in the past two centuries, Saddam eclipses them all in terms of sheer cruelty.

Yes, definitely in your opinion, rather than in fact. Saddam was a complete amateur compared to the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Hitler came very close to succeeding in systematically annihilating the entire Jewish race - he managed to kill 6 million, in case you've forgotten. He slowly starved them to death, used them for slave labour and sadistic medical experimentation. Saddam's worst atrocities pale in comparison. It says a lot about your case that you need to exaggerate Saddam's evil in order to justify the war. It is utterly ridiculous to claim that Saddam is the worst dictator in two centuries, but hardly a surprising claim considering all the others; Saddam has nukes, he's planning to commit suicide by launching an attack against America, he has ties with a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists who want him dead. Next thing we'll find out is that Saddam was a lightning weilding demigod who was plotting to turn everybody on Earth into frogs with his evil magic powers handed to him by Satan. Sure, Saddam was bad, but there's about a dozen people worse than him that I don't see us attacking.

And don't think we could have waited for him to pass on. His sons were no better. Uday, especially, was a sheer pyschopath who carried out some of his father's more gruesome murders. Ask former members of his Olympic teams (well, if any have survived).

Uday was not Saddam's designated successor; his excesses were so great that even Saddam felt he was a liability. And you're assuming that one of Saddam's sons would be able to hang onto power after Saddam's death. The upheaval following the death of Saddam would have been the point at which the regime would have been at it's most vulnerable, and most susceptible to a coup de'tat far less bloody than the American "if in doubt, bomb them" approach" which prevailed.

 

[kat]

And you're assuming that one of Saddam's sons would be able to hang onto power after Saddam's death. The upheaval following the death of Saddam would have been the point at which the regime would have been at it's most vulnerable, and most susceptible to a coup de'tat far less bloody than the American "if in doubt, bomb them" approach" which prevailed.

This is a really BIG assumption.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Counterfactuals make for empty discussions.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Yeah, I guess it is pretty strange that people don't like the Americans after having relatives blown to pieces by American bombs.

Except that isn't necessarily the population we are fighting. Al Sadr's father and two brothers, for example, were killed by Saddam Hussein, not George Bush. In fact, the only reason he was able to come out of hiding was George W. Bush' ousting of Saddam Hussein. He owes every bit of religious freedom he has to Bush.

How much religious freedom did the Shi'ites have before the US invasion? How much do they have now?

Yes, definitely in your opinion, rather than in fact. Saddam was a complete amateur compared to the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Hitler came very close to succeeding in systematically annihilating the entire Jewish race - he managed to kill 6 million, in case you've forgotten.

Read my post -- I said in terms of sheer cruelty, not numbers. The manner in which Saddam was directly involved in torture and cruel killings is far more severe than Hitler or Stalin. Other than the Night of the Long Knives, I am not sure Hitler ordered the killing of anyone (but was certainly responsible for it). If anything, only Stalin comes close to such personal involvement in killing.

Saddam would have made a perfect NKVD chief for Stalin.

And you're assuming that one of Saddam's sons would be able to hang onto power after Saddam's death. The upheaval following the death of Saddam would have been the point at which the regime would have been at it's most vulnerable, and most susceptible to a coup de'tat far less bloody than the American "if in doubt, bomb them" approach" which prevailed.

I think Saddam's sons knew exactly how to retain power once the old man died. kat is right, you are making a big assumption. No, make that a pollyanna assumption. Should foreign policy rest on such grandiose wishes?

 

[Pyrovus]

I think Saddam's sons knew exactly how to retain power once the old man died. kat is right, you are making a big assumption. No, make that a pollyanna assumption. Should foreign policy rest on such grandiose wishes?

Allow me to clarify:
Any regime is at it's most vulnerable following the death of it's leader. The successor has no guarantee that everyone will automatically support him; rival factions will want power for themselves. The successor will begin with a much smaller power base than his predecessor as a result. It is at this point that a popular uprising is most likely to succeed. I wasn't suggesting that we just sit and hope that Qusay's government will collapse of it's own accord. I was suggesting that it would have been far wiser to be patient and wait for the inevitable point in which the regime is weak, in which covertly support a coup de'tat against the regime, rather than hastily acting brazenly and taking the option that requires the least thinking.

Read my post -- I said in terms of sheer cruelty, not numbers. The manner in which Saddam was directly involved in torture and cruel killings is far more severe than Hitler or Stalin. Other than the Night of the Long Knives, I am not sure Hitler ordered the killing of anyone (but was certainly responsible for it). If anything, only Stalin comes close to such personal involvement in killing.

So, because Hitler was far better at covering his tracks than Saddam, he wasn't as bad? And he certainally had his share in direct involvment eg having many of the conspirators in the July 1944 bomb plot hung with piano wire and videotaped for his amusement.

 

[kat]

Allow me to clarify:
Any regime is at it's most vulnerable following the death of it's leader. The successor has no guarantee that everyone will automatically support him; rival factions will want power for themselves. The successor will begin with a much smaller power base than his predecessor as a result. It is at this point that a popular uprising is most likely to succeed. I wasn't suggesting that we just sit and hope that Qusay's government will collapse of it's own accord. I was suggesting that it would have been far wiser to be patient and wait for the inevitable point in which the regime is weak, in which covertly support a coup de'tat against the regime, rather than hastily acting brazenly and taking the option that requires the least thinking.

The U.S. was at a point where there was increasing pressure to drop sanctions, the regime was weak because of sanctions and the military that was parked at it's door. The option was act while they were weak, drop sanctions and continue to monitor and engage on a regular basis with a military precense (which wasn't winning us any points either), or withdraw, drop sanctions... It appears Bush took your advice and acted while they were weak. Either way, there still would have been a need deal with outside interference, as there is now.

 

[Prometheus]

In my opinion, of all dictators that we have witnessed in the past two centuries, Saddam eclipses them all in terms of sheer cruelty. And that goes for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Baby Doc...

And you wonder why many people do not take you seriously.

Now, you are going to argue that it depends on what the defintion of witness is, aren't you. Perhaps you will stop being so cruel and provide us with your definition for what constitutes cruelty.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I wasn't suggesting that we just sit and hope that Qusay's government will collapse of it's own accord. I was suggesting that it would have been far wiser to be patient and wait for the inevitable point in which the regime is weak, in which covertly support a coup de'tat against the regime, rather than hastily acting brazenly and taking the option that requires the least thinking.

Yeah, I can see the Left supporting this kind of action. :(

First of all, it is wishful thinking that anyone was going to rise up against the Husseins, especially Uday with his Shred-O-Matic. Second, Saddam may not have died for another 20 years for all we know. (I am sure there were some in the 1970s that said we should have done the same with Castro.) If such is the case, how many people would have died in Iraq to Saddam's brutality and the United Nation's economic sanctions? Could they number in the millions?

So, because Hitler was far better at covering his tracks than Saddam, he wasn't as bad?

I don't recall saying anything about Hitler covering his tracks. Nor did I even imply it.

And he certainally had his share in direct involvment eg having many of the conspirators in the July 1944 bomb plot hung with piano wire and videotaped for his amusement.

Videotaped? Yeah, Hitler used to drop in a VCR tape and watch executions. His favorite was the "Many Faces of Death" series (when he wasn't watching The Brady Bunch).

By the way, I see your tactic: You are trying to make it appear as if I am discounting Hitler's atrocities. Nice try. I am saying that there was a sadistic bent to Saddam that not even Hitler and Stalin shared (although they came close, especiallly Stalin).

 

[JohnDubYa]

And you wonder why many people do not take you seriously.

Have you answered the question about JFK yet?

Now, you are going to argue that it depends on what the defintion of witness is, aren't you. Perhaps you will stop being so cruel and provide us with your definition for what constitutes cruelty.

I think the term is well understood.

Now, about JFK...

 

[Ethanol]

You do know lots about Pakistan ofcourse.But let me tell you a simple normal man does not get easily involved in politics in the country. Do you know why there was not a single protestor about the rejection of the new law about honor killings? Simple. I can bet no woman would actually know what is happening in the upper house! The sole problem in our country is the lack of education and greed of money. I explored the given sites. Those brothers and cousins are actually told from childhood that they r far superior to girls. Most of the families want boys. I myself have just one brother and v r three sisters but like i said education is a big factor my parents never discriminate among us children. The women in rural areas are so brainwashed that they feel honorbound to serve their husbands who r good for nothing scoundrels.

Our own maid's husband drove her out of home with 5 kids and no means of living. My mom says she should have kicked him out of his house, took over everything and make the kids go away with him. he would have returned in 2 days for the lack of responsibility he had.

As for the honor killings let me reveal to you that honor ih usually not involved in it. Those who kill their sisters and wives do it for the sake of money. they actually do not wnt their inhertitance to be shared with these females. this was the case for brothers. Men usually kill their wives to marry a new one or somehow they feel that divorce is not a good way to separate from a woman so better kill her or she will marry another man which those insane people do not like.

there is a vast history of honor killings. Usually parents do not put down the names of daughters for inheritance. I think they do them a favour. at least they do not lose their lives that way. However as a citizen of Pakistan I feel that Law and order should be maintained strictly. The main problem is the chieftains of tribes. they are honored not because they are intelligent of something. they are nominated due to their money and property. I strictly believe that this is a big reason for the underdevelopment of my country furthermore these chieftains are directly involved in the crimes against women. They rape the women and then get them slaughtered.
I once suggested to my parents that they have enough money to buy another property but they said that property is the worst reason for dispute in families.
My grandpa owned some agricultural land which was to be divided among dad and his two brothers but my father refused to take it and the other two of his brothers are still fighting over it. It is really a matter of education.

You actually said that Pakistan is a place of religious bigotry. Let me tell u my father is a shia and my mother is a sunni i.e. they belong to the two major sects in Pakistan that were involved in the fightings against each other. I've never seen them row about it.

 

[Prometheus]

Have you answered the question about JFK yet?



I think the term is well understood.

Now, about JFK...

Don't cry so loud, dubya. I repsonded to you. You never read my posts, and you wonder why you don't know what I have said.

Quit crying long enough to read my post and respond to it. You are sounding like a broken record, again.

 

[Prometheus]

I think the term is well understood.

Well, we are all excited for you. If you think so, then everybody should just recognize what you mean. You have no need to explain yourself, because you think that everyone should just know, somehow, what you mean.

Nice move on your part to avoid saying anything, again.

 

[JohnDubYa]

The sole problem in our country is the lack of education and greed of money.

When you have a sizable portion of the country willing to kill their own daughters, your problems run much deeper than education and money. Trust me.

You actually said that Pakistan is a place of religious bigotry. Let me tell u my father is a shia and my mother is a sunni i.e. they belong to the two major sects in Pakistan that were involved in the fightings against each other. I've never seen them row about it.

I see. And would I have community support if I opened a Jewish bookstore?

I am not impressed with your anecdote about your mother and father (both Muslims) being able to get along as an example of religious tolerance.

By the way, here is the State Department's evaluation of religious freedom in Pakistan. Not too good.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14026.htm

 

[Prometheus]

Trust me.

Trying to sound like the other Dubya, I see. Do you really expect this to work?

 

[Pyrovus]

The U.S. was at a point where there was increasing pressure to drop sanctions, the regime was weak because of sanctions and the military that was parked at it's door. The option was act while they were weak, drop sanctions and continue to monitor and engage on a regular basis with a military precense (which wasn't winning us any points either), or withdraw, drop sanctions... It appears Bush took your advice and acted while they were weak. Either way, there still would have been a need deal with outside interference, as there is now.

The regime was still internally strong, even though it was militarily weak. I was suggesting that it would be wiser to wait for an opportunity to destroy the regime from within, rather than a clumsy use of external force. Undermining the regime from within would most likely have been much more economical in terms of resources required (for instance, I highly doubt it would have required tying up 10^5 troops), and in terms of lives lost. Any new government formed would be far more likely to have the support of the people than one imposed by force (for some reason people don't tend to like having foreign powers telling them how to run their country). The point here is that Bush, instead of attacking Mr bin Laden's criminal organisation when it was weak after taking a massive pounding in Afghanistan, chose instead to unnecessarily fight a war on two fronts in order to pursue a personal grudge against a toothless tyrant. And in so doing he has delivered Mr bin Laden a propaganda victory he could have only dreamed of, by launching an unprovoked attack on a Muslim country. So not only has it allowed bin Laden's mob to regroup while the heat's off them, it has handed to him on a platter a large number of new recruits. Bush's action is about as logical as if the US in 1945, seeing that Japan was on it's knees, had decided to forget about Japan for a while and go and invade Spain.

It is wishful thinking that anyone was going to rise up against the Husseins, especially Uday with his Shred-O-Matic.

Just because they're brutal doesn't make them politically street-smart. Let us remember that Qusay's and Uday's power came not from their own efforts and abilities, but from who their father was. Once Saddam died, their position would have been most precarious, and their brutality would have become a liability. All other powerful figures in the regime would have reason to be afraid of either of the Hussein kids taking power, for as potential rivals they would be very likely to end up with a tour of the inside of Uday's mincing machine. As a result they would be likely to move against the Hussein brothers while they have the chance.

I don't recall saying anything about Hitler covering his tracks. Nor did I even imply it.

I'll try again.

Read my post -- I said in terms of sheer cruelty, not numbers. The manner in which Saddam was directly involved in torture and cruel killings is far more severe than Hitler or Stalin. Other than the Night of the Long Knives, I am not sure Hitler ordered the killing of anyone (but was certainly responsible for it). If anything, only Stalin comes close to such personal involvement in killing.

You're arguing that because Hitler preferred to avoid directly ordering killings in order to keep his hands clean, this makes him less sadistic than somebody who does the same stuff but on a much, much smaller scale but takes direct involvement in it. Hitler pioneered assembly line cruelty. He wasn't content merely with having a few enemies of the regime tortured, he also had entire populations systematically exterminated by very slow means, simply because he believed that they were untermensch. Does that fact that he didn't choose to oversee a concentration camp as a hobby detract from the brutality of his actions? Saddam's cruelty pales in comparison. The SS made Saddam's secret police look like the Salvation Army. Why don't we compare, for instance, how Saddam and Hitler dealt with troublesome ethnic minorities? Saddam dealt with the Kurds by attacking them with poison gas and killing thousands of them. Hitler dealt with the Jews by having them systematically rounded up, tortured, had medical experiments performed on them and either worked them to death or executed them by putting them in gas chambers. Unlike Saddam with the Kurds, Hitler attempted to exterminate the whole lot of them. Maybe you should read a bit about the Third Reich to get some idea.

By the way, I see your tactic: You are trying to make it appear as if I am discounting Hitler's atrocities.

By trying to claim that Hitler was not as bad as Saddam, that is indeed what you are doing.

 

[JohnDubYa]

You're arguing that because Hitler preferred to avoid directly ordering killings in order to keep his hands clean, this makes him less sadistic than somebody who does the same stuff but on a much, much smaller scale but takes direct involvement in it.

That's right. My argument is based around the word "sadism," which implies getting a thrill out of cruelty. "Sadistic" is not the same as "cold-blooded." All three were indifferent to human suffering, but that isn't the point.

If you had one of Saddam's Shred-O-Matics, with a prisoner sentenced to death, I doubt neither Hitler nor Stalin would have had the stomach to lower the prisoner into the machine.

I am sure Hitler couldn't have done it. I don't even think he could have ordered it. If someone had done it, he probably wouldn't have fretted over it, however. It wasn't like he was a nice guy.

Stalin, possibly. At no time did he ever display any respect for human life. But such cruelty was unknown to his persona. However, his NKVD shot, starved and worked to death millions of people under Stalin's direct orders, so it is anyone's guess how personally he could have become involved in killing.

Saddam? I am sure he would have had no problems performing the execution. None, whatsoever. I think he would have enjoyed it.

Have you ever seen the character played by Joe Pesci in Casino? Remember when he crushed the thug's head in the vise? That's the essence of Saddam's character.

Hitler pioneered assembly line cruelty.

By the time Hitler came to power, Stalin had already intentionally starved to death 5 million Ukrainians. If anything, Saddam resembles Stalin more in his paranoia and iron grip on his country.

By trying to claim that Hitler was not as bad as Saddam, that is indeed what you are doing

So let me carry your argument to the next step, since I can now guess where you are going: I must hate Jews, right? Is this how the strategy is supposed to unfold?

 

[klusener]

bringing up an aging topics, sorry...

john i have a question for you, buddy... what would you say to the 11793 - 13802 innocent iraqi civilians killed by the US army? don't respond to me, but think about what you would say to a child who has just lost his father and mother in an US air strike..

 

[JohnDubYa]

what would you say to the 11793 - 13802 innocent iraqi civilians killed by the US army? don't respond to me, but think about what you would say to a child who has just lost his father and mother in an US air strike..

First of all, where did you get your figures?

Now to answer your question, I would say the following:

"We are terribly sorry about what happened to your family, but some day you will hopefully understand that innocent people often die in order for others to live free and peacefully. Many peaceful German and Japanese civilians died during our air raids, but over their relatives understood. I hope you will as well. May the Lord look over you in your time of sorrow."

Heh, heh. How did you like that last line I threw in there? Pretty clever, no?

 

[Gokul43201]

Have you ever seen the character played by Joe Pesci in Casino? Remember when he crushed the thug's head in the vise? That's the essence of Saddam's character.

And this deep understanding of Saddam's inner psyche comes from ?

 

[JohnDubYa]

You're right. We shouldn't judge him. After all, he may be a nice guy. Hitler too.

 

[JohnDubYa]

More seriously, I watched the video with the "informant" reading off the names of supposed conspirators. Everyone in the room knew what it meant to have a "yes" attached to his name. And as the men cried for compassion, Saddam's amusement just heightened. To me, his expressions told me that he was a particularly sadistic individual.

Keep in mind also that of the three -- Hitler, Stalin, Saddam -- only one actually tried to kill a man. And which leader would that be?

 

[Dissident Dan]

So, bush says that we went into Iraq to "liberate" Iraqis. He was very gung-ho about it. So why isn't he so gung-ho about going into Sudan?

 

[JohnDubYa]

I guess he figures we have enough on our hands right now. Would he be right?

Frankly, I don't care why Bush went into Iraq. He did. And whatever his motives, it was a good thing.

 

[Smurf]

Theres a few Key differences between Stalin and Hitler, and Saddam.

1. Saddam was a strong partner with the CIA and US government for many years and only went sour during the Kuwait war (persian gulf war to you yanks).

2. Most of Saddam's 'Terrorist Acts' were done with US and/or CIA support.

3. Saddam never killed anyone without outside (western) pressure and/or support.


and the big 3 are Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Saddam doesn't come close to their body counts.

 

[Smurf]

More seriously, I watched the video with the "informant" reading off the names of supposed conspirators. Everyone in the room knew what it meant to have a "yes" attached to his name. And as the men cried for compassion, Saddam's amusement just heightened. To me, his expressions told me that he was a particularly sadistic individual.

This means nothing, your opinions are that of a typical westerner who's morals have been twisted and shaped by the media to the government and corporates whim.

 

[Adam]

Frankly, I don't care why Bush went into Iraq. He did. And whatever his motives, it was a good thing.

So which part was good?

• The thousands of corpses?
• The destruction of Iraq's infrastructure?
• The theft of Iraqi oil?
• The massive profits for Bush, Cheney, and their friends?
• The dead US troops?
• The complete loss of international trust of the US administration?
• The global impression that the US administration has turned governing a nation, going to war, and killing thousands of people into nothing more than a business opportunity?

Oh, I know. It's the removal of a bad man, right? Was it worth the things listed above?

Once again: Would it be worth it if it was your own family splattered all over the neighbourhood for Bush's profit?

 

[Smurf]

Saddam never killed anyone without support from a western government/faction. He was a pawn in a larger game.

Remove the source.

 

[JohnDubYa]

So which part was good?

* The thousands of corpses?
* The destruction of Iraq's infrastructure?
* The theft of Iraqi oil?
* The massive profits for Bush, Cheney, and their friends?
* The dead US troops?
* The complete loss of international trust of the US administration?
* The global impression that the US administration has turned governing a nation, going to war, and killing thousands of people into nothing more than a business opportunity?

Your question is loaded. When you ask a reasonable question, I will answer.

Oh, I know. It's the removal of a bad man, right? Was it worth the things listed above?

I realize this shakes your foundation, but Saddam was more than a bad man. And yes, it was worth it for reasons you did not list.

Once again: Would it be worth it if it was your own family splattered all over the neighbourhood for Bush's profit?

Again, loaded question.

 

[JohnDubYa]

This means nothing, your opinions are that of a typical westerner who's morals have been twisted and shaped by the media to the government and corporates whim.

Let me guess, these corporations are all controlled by Jews, the entire Iraq War was a Zionist conspiracy, Saddam wasn't really so bad, yadda, yadda, yadda.

How close did I get, Smurf?

Frankly, I think it's hilarious that the US, according to Smurf, supported Saddam in his quest to rid his party of traitors. I guess the US trained the informant to rat out those that betrayed the Ba'ath Party. Or maybe the US trained Saddam's bodyguards to shoot political prisoners with revolvers.

Smurf, you should take your comedy act on the road.

 

[Adam]

Your question is loaded. When you ask a reasonable question, I will answer.

I realize this shakes your foundation, but Saddam was more than a bad man. And yes, it was worth it for reasons you did not list.

Again, loaded question.

Of course the questions are loaded. With truth. Sometimes that can be painful and frustrating for those whose personal sense of order relies upon clinging to falsehoods. However, nothing in the questions was incorrect or misleading in any way. They are quite straightforward.

 

[Adam]

I guess the US trained the informant to rat out those that betrayed the Ba'ath Party. Or maybe the US trained Saddam's bodyguards to shoot political prisoners with revolvers.

Why not? They trained Osama Bin Laden.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Of course the questions are loaded. With truth. Sometimes that can be painful and frustrating for those whose personal sense of order relies upon clinging to falsehoods. However, nothing in the questions was incorrect or misleading in any way. They are quite straightforward.

Adam, I am going to ask you a loaded question... loaded with truth. I suppose this question will be painful and frustrating for you because of your personal sense of order relies on clinging to falsehoods.

Are you ready? Here goes...

Why are you stupid?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Why not? They trained Osama Bin Laden.

What did they train him do? How do you know this? Be specific.

 

[Smurf]

The CIA trained osama and fellow terrorists to fight the soviets in the 70s

 

[Smurf]

Adam, I am going to ask you a loaded question... loaded with truth. I suppose this question will be painful and frustrating for you because of your personal sense of order relies on clinging to falsehoods.

Are you ready? Here goes...

Why are you stupid?

Dont go insulting people just because they have a different opinion than yourself, that comment says more about you than him.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Dont go insulting people just because they have a different opinion than yourself, that comment says more about you than him.

You missed the point completely --- that loaded questions cannot be answered and should not be answered. The fact that Adam would look upon such a question as an insult displays the inherent fallacy of a loaded question. After all, I was just asking a question, right? After all, he should be able to just answer the question, right? What's the harm in just merely asking a question?

 

[JohnDubYa]

The CIA trained osama and fellow terrorists to fight the soviets in the 70s

You only answered one of my questions. The other was "How do you know this?"

I am not saying you are wrong. But I would like to see your point validated by a credible source.

 

[Smurf]

some interesting reading for you

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0802662.html