2
   

What ABout Saddam

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 07:25 pm
Re: What ABout Saddam
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I believe that US has paid for any involvement it has had with Iraq pre '91, the weapons, & anything else you wish to throw blame at the US for.


I believe the Iranians, the Kurds and the Iraqis have paid and are still paying for any involvement the US had with Iraq.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 07:25 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
LoneStarMadam, JFK fought in a war sure. And he had no intention of fighting a Vietnam war. Maybe the two things are connected? Maybe the assassination and his National Security Action Memorandum No. 263 are connected?

He did order troops to Vietnam, unfortunately, he died before the withdrawl could be accompolished. So, yes, he did understand war, & apparently believed it the right thing to do in sending those troops to Vietnam. His plan was to withdraw some troops, not all.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 07:38 pm
Re: What ABout Saddam
old europe wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I believe that US has paid for any involvement it has had with Iraq pre '91, the weapons, & anything else you wish to throw blame at the US for.


I believe the Iranians, the Kurds and the Iraqis have paid and are still paying for any involvement the US had with Iraq.[/quote
How far back do you want to go with that, back to when the Iranians stormed the US Embassy & held Americans hostage for over a year?
You blame us for the massacre of the Kurds & the many thousands of Iraqis that Saddam had butchered?
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 07:39 pm
Re: What ABout Saddam
LoneStarMadam wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Should he have been left to wantonly kill & maim thousands of Iraqis, his sons to rape & pillage? Should saddam be put back in power?
If yes to these questions, why?
If no, why?
Will you trust the Baker/Hamilton Commission report?


Should the US be held accountable for the CIA assassination attempts of Qassim and their involvement in providing Hussein with his arsenal of weaponry, including the means to develop chemical weapons that were eventually to have been used against the Kurds.

Should the US also be held accountable for maintaining and continuing to support Hussein during and after the gassing?

Should the Iraqis be allowed to create an ad hoc tribunal to try the Bush administration for war crimes committed on their own soil, committing atrocities and killing and raping innocent civilians?

If no, why?

1. So, Saddam did have WMD's? I wish you'd tell your brethern about that.
2. Should Milosovich have been allowed to bring charges against Bill Clinton, like he wanted to do?
3.
I believe that US has paid for any involvement it has had with Iraq pre '91, the weapons, & anything else you wish to throw blame at the US for.


Obviously you know that the response to 1 lies in 3.

If you are attmepting to equate Clinton's (mistaken) bombing of a Chinese embassy with the war crimes being committed by the US in Iraq today, then yes, Clinton should have been tried.
But that's an awfully difficult parallel to draw.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 07:41 pm
Re: What ABout Saddam
candidone1 wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Should he have been left to wantonly kill & maim thousands of Iraqis, his sons to rape & pillage? Should saddam be put back in power?
If yes to these questions, why?
If no, why?
Will you trust the Baker/Hamilton Commission report?


Should the US be held accountable for the CIA assassination attempts of Qassim and their involvement in providing Hussein with his arsenal of weaponry, including the means to develop chemical weapons that were eventually to have been used against the Kurds.

Should the US also be held accountable for maintaining and continuing to support Hussein during and after the gassing?

Should the Iraqis be allowed to create an ad hoc tribunal to try the Bush administration for war crimes committed on their own soil, committing atrocities and killing and raping innocent civilians?

If no, why?

1. So, Saddam did have WMD's? I wish you'd tell your brethern about that.
2. Should Milosovich have been allowed to bring charges against Bill Clinton, like he wanted to do?
3.
I believe that US has paid for any involvement it has had with Iraq pre '91, the weapons, & anything else you wish to throw blame at the US for.


Obviously you know that the response to 1 lies in 3.

If you are attmepting to equate Clinton's (mistaken) bombing of a Chinese embassy with the war crimes being committed by the US in Iraq today, then yes, Clinton should have been tried.
But that's an awfully difficult parallel to draw.

No, clintons wanton killing of thousands of innocent people in Bosnia. I suppose you'd forgotten about that, right?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 07:45 pm
"While America was selling WMD to Iraq, Reagan was also telling Saddam to increase his brutal campaign against the Iranian fundamentalist regime, even while Iraqi poison gas was falling on Persian battlefields. The Reagan presidency made America complicit in Saddam's war crimes.' http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0613-03.htm
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 07:53 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
"While America was selling WMD to Iraq, Reagan was also telling Saddam to increase his brutal campaign against the Iranian fundamentalist regime, even while Iraqi poison gas was falling on Persian battlefields. The Reagan presidency made America complicit in Saddam's war crimes.' http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0613-03.htm

Commondreams? Why not just go to the daily kos or democrat underground? Commondreams is every bit as biased as are the "Freepers", i don't read any of them.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 07:54 pm
at least saddam was the only nut killing his own people, now there are at least three groups doing it

plus the removal of saddam and the subsequent exposing of his impotent weapons program has just made iran that much more dangerous
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 07:58 pm
djjd62 wrote:
at least saddam was the only nut killing his own people, now there are at least three groups doing it

plus the removal of saddam and the subsequent exposing of his impotent weapons program has just made iran that much more dangerous

Then you believe that saddam should be put back in power? Just one man killing thousands is much better tha 3 groups killing them?
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 08:05 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
djjd62 wrote:
at least saddam was the only nut killing his own people, now there are at least three groups doing it

plus the removal of saddam and the subsequent exposing of his impotent weapons program has just made iran that much more dangerous

Then you believe that saddam should be put back in power? Just one man killing thousands is much better tha 3 groups killing them?


i don't believe he should be back in power, but that wasn't the principle reason for the war, now a huge power vaccum has been created, and no mater what the administration would have us believe, there's a better chance of the usa becoming a socialist workers paradise, before iraq becomes the model of democratic reform
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 08:06 pm
LoneStar, what else would you say but an attack on the messenger. haha. Of course the history in the article is well documented. Published in the mainstream worldwide. Rummy shaking hands with Saddam as Reagan's envoy and Reagan's removal of Iraq from the rogue nation's list occurred after Saddam had used WMD. Then Reagan opened doors for American corporations to sell Saddam lethal substances and the percursers needed to make WMD. I suppose though that you justify Reagan's selling of WMD to Saddam after he used WMD.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 08:07 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
You blame us for the massacre of the Kurds & the many thousands of Iraqis that Saddam had butchered?


Wait, let me think about this for a second...

Someone gives weapons, know-how and plans for attack to dictator. Dictator uses weapons, know-how and plans to kill hundreds of thousands of people he perceives to be a threat.

Do I blame the someone who gave the weapons, know-how and plans to the dictator?

Yes, I do.

But don't worry. I spread the blame evenly. I blame all the western countries and corporations who supplied Saddam, not just the US.

What about you? What do you think? Everyone innocent, Saddam is the only one to blame?
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 08:09 pm
old europe wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
You blame us for the massacre of the Kurds & the many thousands of Iraqis that Saddam had butchered?


Wait, let me think about this for a second...

Someone gives weapons, know-how and plans for attack to dictator. Dictator uses weapons, know-how and plans to kill hundreds of thousands of people he perceives to be a threat.

Do I blame the someone who gave the weapons, know-how and plans to the dictator?

Yes, I do.

But don't worry. I spread the blame evenly. I blame all the western countries and corporations who supplied Saddam, not just the US.

What about you? What do you think? Everyone innocent, Saddam is the only one to blame?


now now, old europe, we all know guns don't kill people, people kill people

or more specifically people with guns kill people :wink:
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 08:10 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I believe the Iraqis have answered with their first truly free vote. Don't you agree?


One of the problems is precisely the Iraqis' first free vote. The government they've elected is controlled by the Shia majority. They along with the Kurds control the oil producing regions of Iraq. Both of these factions have, as of yet, refused any kind of oil-revenue sharing deal with the oil-less Sunni. The freely elected government of Iraq that we support is repressing a minority people in Iraq.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9482/iraq_and_oil.html#6
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 10:11 pm
djjd62 wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
djjd62 wrote:
at least saddam was the only nut killing his own people, now there are at least three groups doing it

plus the removal of saddam and the subsequent exposing of his impotent weapons program has just made iran that much more dangerous

Then you believe that saddam should be put back in power? Just one man killing thousands is much better tha 3 groups killing them?


i don't believe he should be back in power, but that wasn't the principle reason for the war, now a huge power vaccum has been created, and no mater what the administration would have us believe, there's a better chance of the usa becoming a socialist workers paradise, before iraq becomes the model of democratic reform

The principle of this thread is about whether saddam should be back in power or not.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 12:19 am
W's action were illegal. As with illegal wiretaps evidence from illegal sources must be discarded so must W's actions be nullified. W had no right interfering with the sovereignty of another nation.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:09 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
djjd62 wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
djjd62 wrote:
at least saddam was the only nut killing his own people, now there are at least three groups doing it

plus the removal of saddam and the subsequent exposing of his impotent weapons program has just made iran that much more dangerous

Then you believe that saddam should be put back in power? Just one man killing thousands is much better tha 3 groups killing them?


i don't believe he should be back in power, but that wasn't the principle reason for the war, now a huge power vaccum has been created, and no mater what the administration would have us believe, there's a better chance of the usa becoming a socialist workers paradise, before iraq becomes the model of democratic reform

The principle of this thread is about whether saddam should be back in power or not.


That isn't a principle, it's a silly false dichotomy and a dumb way to try to make people who don't agree with you look bad.


I say TRY.


Nobody ever argued (except his own clique which benefitted from him, and, presumably governments like those including that of the US which supported him at different times for their own ends) that there was anything good about him. But, in terms of the people you are quite fallaciously attempting to attack, I think you will find it hard to pretend there is support for him. You are merely attempting a slightly different version of the usual daft "If you don't support Bush, you support terror" nonsense.

Nor is anyone arguing that Saddam should be put back in power.

So...at one time the US decided it was in their interests to arm and support a vicious dictator.

Then the US decided it was no longer in their interests to do so any more, and that it was in their interests to invade Iraq.

I, and most of the people you attempt to attack here would likely disagree with both notions.



The US attacks Iraq, aided by a few idiotic governments, such as my own.

As a result of this attack, Saddam is no longer in power.


This appears to be one good which has come from this sorry mess, although history is long, and there is no telling as yet whether or not he will be replaced in the mediumn term by something better ( a consummation devoutly to be wished) or by something worse.

Now...if you are seriously interested in deposing vicious dictators, how do you think we might achieve this with less damage to the thin fabric of international law which was rearing its fledging head?

How might we decide whether armed intervention against such dictators is justified or not? You appear to believe it is...what are your ethical bases for this? What is your evidence for the efficacy of such intervention? And what are the criteria for determining efficacy? (eg...do we say it is efficacious up until the number of deaths in ridding a country of a dictator equals the number under the dictator, or some other criterion?)What factors do you take into account?

Eg...once we say that countries can invade each other to get rid of regimes which harm their peoples, then on what basis do we say to one country "You're wrong...this is not a case where you can invade" and to another "Yep, go ahead"? Perhaps you can imagine that motives might not always be utterly pure and simple? That there may be some repercussions from deciding that it's ok to invade people if we think it is a good idea?

How do you think we might determine reasoned, just and practical criteria for action against such dictators?

How might we muster support from a real collection of countries if we deem such an endeavour appropriate?

What sanctions ought there to be against countries which prop up such regimes in what they believe to be in their strategic interests, since I believe you will agree that arming and financing these monsters, as many in the west, including the US, have habitually done is not a good start?

How might we enforce sanctions against superpowers which wilfully support such regimes, then dump them again, with dizzying speed, as super and medium powers including the US are wont to do?


These are but a few of the multiplicity of issues that come to mind.


I will be interested in reading your proposal, if you decide to stop pursuing silly would be tricks, and address the issue in a meaningful way.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 01:48 am
You want to debate your views, start a thread. I will debate mine, thanks.
For someone that thinks this is a silly question/thread, you sure posted a tome, dlowan.
I see nobody will admit to wanting Saddam back in power but offer instead, it's Bush's fault, it's Americas fault.
I say this, coulda, shoulda, woulda doesn't hack it, we're there, whether you think it's legal or not doesn't matter. You want to run the country, run for office, you want to blame America &/or Bush, go for it, it doesn't change a dammed thing. This thread is not about the war, nor Bush, nor anybody but saddam.
BTW-dlowan, When i read in the first few words of a post to me, a personal attack, I don't bother reading much of the rest of the post. You want to try again without a confrontational manner, I might answer.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 02:09 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
You want to debate your views, start a thread. I will debate mine, thanks.
For someone that thinks this is a silly question/thread, you sure posted a tome, dlowan.
I see nobody will admit to wanting Saddam back in power but offer instead, it's Bush's fault, it's Americas fault.
I say this, coulda, shoulda, woulda doesn't hack it, we're there, whether you think it's legal or not doesn't matter. You want to run the country, run for office, you want to blame America &/or Bush, go for it, it doesn't change a dammed thing. This thread is not about the war, nor Bush, nor anybody but saddam.
BTW-dlowan, When i read in the first few words of a post to me, a personal attack, I don't bother reading much of the rest of the post. You want to try again without a confrontational manner, I might answer.



Try addressing the issue of your false argument.

Why should people admit to an obvious lie for the sake of your strawman?

If you want less confrontation, then be more reasoned and rational.

And stop with the pathetic


Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes



Good lord, YOU to wail re confrontation.


BTW, it was your silly argument that was attacked, not you.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 06:11 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
djjd62 wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
djjd62 wrote:
at least saddam was the only nut killing his own people, now there are at least three groups doing it

plus the removal of saddam and the subsequent exposing of his impotent weapons program has just made iran that much more dangerous

Then you believe that saddam should be put back in power? Just one man killing thousands is much better tha 3 groups killing them?


i don't believe he should be back in power, but that wasn't the principle reason for the war, now a huge power vaccum has been created, and no mater what the administration would have us believe, there's a better chance of the usa becoming a socialist workers paradise, before iraq becomes the model of democratic reform

The principle of this thread is about whether saddam should be back in power or not.



no, the priciple of this thread is to salve the conscience of the friends ofbush, it's a way to say hooray, we did a good thing, now leave us alone about the WMD and the iraq 9/11 theory already

the bush folks seem to see this as a great and noble cause, but's let's face facts, if 9/11 had not happened the saddam would still be killing and the taliban would still be running afaghanistan

i would feel better about this mess if it were happening in 1991 when it should have happened, as it is this knee-jerk incursion has become a lame-duck clusterf*ck
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What ABout Saddam
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/01/2023 at 03:41:59