THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

McTag wrote:

In't it odd how courts martial are progressing because it's not deemed acceptable to mistreat prisoners in all the various ways described, but it's supposedly okay to blow up innocent civilians. No-one is getting courtmartialled for that. But tens of thousands of innocents are dead.

This is OK if you oppose all war under any circumstances. If you do not hold to this, then you have a certain burden of proof here if you wish to be taken seriously.

The best estimates of iraqi civilians wrongfully killed during Saddam's tenure are well above 15,000/year. This of course does not count fatalities in his wars with Iran and Kuwait which were far greater. How do you deal with that?

0 Replies

It's true McTag, British history is chock full political and economic warmongering.

0 Replies

So is French and German history.

It is fashionable in Europe today to believe in the illusion that the annals of history were wiped clean sometime soon after the last wars in outposts of the French and British Empires. Now, absolved of all lingering responsibility, or even memory of past crimes, they are free to assume a spectator's viewpoint and pass summary judgement on those who are still struggling to deal with the continuing legacy of the British-French willful destruction of th Ottoman Empire and the Moslem Caliphate.

0 Replies

george

settle back and watch a bit of film

http://www.heavy.com/viral/ferrell/

0 Replies

That's a load of bollocks, George and Pan. You can't defend the current debacle by saying "war kills people" or "the British, French and Germans did a lot of bad stuff too."

And on the subject of Iraqi civilians killed by Saddam, I'm surprised you brought that up, because Rumsfeld and Reagan helped him. I deal with it by condemning it.

0 Replies

We're touchy when our country is prodded...it's human nature. I'm not defending anything...just trying to keep an open mind.

0 Replies

McTag - unless you've taken leave of your senses you will apologize for this latest statement of yours:

FYI Saddam rose through the ranks of the Iraqi torturers' corps, and is known to have tortured dogs, donkeys, and other animals - presumably for practice though if you know why please don't tell me, I'm no psychiatrist. Associating the names of President Reagan and Secretary Rumsfeld with such activities is truly beneath contempt.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

That's a load of bollocks, George and Pan. You can't defend the current debacle by saying "war kills people"...

What a strange thing to say. Of course you can. You compared collateral damage to intentional crime. Your inability, or refusal, to recognize the difference between collateral damage and intentional harm in no way inhibits anyone else's ability to be rational.

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

McTag - unless you've taken leave of your senses you will apologize for this latest statement of yours:

FYI Saddam rose through the ranks of the Iraqi torturers' corps, and is known to have tortured dogs, donkeys, and other animals - presumably for practice though if you know why please don't tell me, I'm no psychiatrist. Associating the names of President Reagan and Secretary Rumsfeld with such activities is truly beneath contempt.

Helen...

...at very least, Reagan and Rumsfeld felt comfortable in bed with Saddam while he was doing the stuff he was doing.

And...they were feeding him.

So your indignation with McTag's comment is inappropriate.

0 Replies

Frank - dogs and donkeys? Please put on your thinking cap, what was that monster expecting, information on his security by torturing those pitiful animals?????

0 Replies

On this subject, General Grant (during the Civil War, 19th century) is known to have stopped the entire Union Army's advance in order to admonish soldiers he saw beating an exhausted horse around the face and eyes so the poor animal could keep pulling their gun carriage. The general waited (and so did the entire army) until the horse had been taken off the harness, moved to a nearby farm, and properly looked after.

Yes, Frank, we ARE better no matter what any ignoramus says.

0 Replies

McTag,

What I am saying is the British and the French did a lot of bad stuff that created PRECISELY the problems we are dealing with now in Iraq and the Middle East.

You may wish to refresh yourself on the Sykes-Piqot treaty of 1915, a secret treaty in which the British and the French agreed on the division of the spoils of the Ottoman Empire after the presumed success of their imbecilic enterprise in Gallipoli and the ultimately successful one in Mesopotamia. Neither party saw fit to inform the United States of this treaty when we foolishly entered the war. Within months of the infusion of 800,000 U.S. troops into the butcher shop that was the western front, France and Britain had INCREASED their troop levels in the Middle East by over 500,000.

You may then wish to read up a bit on the actions of Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau in attempting to (1) implement this treaty, and (2) short-change each other during the pre Versailles negotiations in 1919. While you are at it don't forget to note the conflicting solemn commitments made by the British to the Zionists and the Hashemite Arab leaders before and after this infamous treaty. You can wrap it all up with a quick review of the French actions in Lebanon and Syria before and after WWII and the British actions in Iraq during the 1920s and of course their noble oversight of the Palestinian mandate.

0 Replies

All of G OB's post is factually correct, but he omits the money personally paid by Zionists to (among others) Harry Truman in addition to monies liberally distributed to European statesmen at the time of the Sykes-Picot treaty.

0 Replies

Final on that point: Kemal Attaturk walked out of the Versailles negotiations observing nobody wants Turkey in Europe. He was a very smart guy and spoke the truth, then as now.

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

Frank - dogs and donkeys? Please put on your thinking cap, what was that monster expecting, information on his security by torturing those pitiful animals?????

Helen...I am as much an animal lover as you apparently are. I think it is disgusting that Saddam Hussein did whatever he did to torture animals...just as I thing it is disgusting what so many other human beings have done in the way of torture of animals.

But NO MATTER WHAT SADDAM DID OR DIDN'T DO...Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld were in bed with him for a very long time...and they bear the responsibility McTag charged them with.

I don't want to argue with you.

But I thought it appropriate to back up McTag in this...and to offer an opinion about your indignation and contempt for what he had to say.

0 Replies

Frank - you will recall that at the time of said "support" there was a war between Iraq and Iran. It happens that I worked in Iran (Bandar Abbas naval base) while the Shah was there, and stayed on after he left - the Ayatollas had no clue on computer logistics so they kept me. It was not an easy job, but Japanese were up the coast at Bandar Shapur so I had somebody to talk to. I've also worked in other places in the area and object to complete ignoramuses making sweeping pronouncements about people and places of which they know nothing.

And yes, I love animals as you do and consider their mistreatement a guaranteed marker for savagery - sadly proven only too frequently worldwide.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

But NO MATTER WHAT SADDAM DID OR DIDN'T DO...Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld were in bed with him for a very long time...and they bear the responsibility McTag charged them with.

Frank, that's a silly contention. By that rationale, everyone whoever did business with a fiend is responsible for that fiend's deeds. We would all be guilty by your definition, so the charge would be a non-starter anyway. Your politics are blurring your reason.

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

Frank - you will recall that at the time of said "support" there was a war between Iraq and Iran.

I do know.

And I know that many other times in our nation's history, our presidents (liberal/conservative/Republican/Democrat) have hoped in bed with some of the most loathesome creatures ever to dare call themselves leaders of people.

It has never been right...and we ought to be ashamed of some the short-sighted things we have done.

But perhaps expediency was the proper course.

I'm not making a judgement on whether it was or wasn't during the time Reagan and Rumsfeld were playing footsies with Saddam Hussein...I am merely noting that it happened.

I hope some day we learn our lesson on this kind of thing...and that ouor presidents finally learn to be as indignant with the excesses of cruel dictators that serve our purposes as with those who don't.

I'll not hold my breath while waiting!

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
But NO MATTER WHAT SADDAM DID OR DIDN'T DO...Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld were in bed with him for a very long time...and they bear the responsibility McTag charged them with.
Frank, that's a silly contention. By that rationale, everyone whoever did business with a fiend is responsible for that fiend's deeds. We would all be guilty by your definition, so the charge would be a non-starter anyway. Your politics are blurring your reason.

No, Bill, you are not correct here.

My politics are not blurring my reasoning here.

McTag made a statement.

Helen took him to task for the statement.

I have merely called attention to the fact that McTag was correct in what he said.

The rest of your post is pure straw.

0 Replies

I think everyone would do well to take a deep breath...scroll back...and see what McTag actually wrote.

He was correct!

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know