You know, I'm not so much into politics, I tend to read threads like this rarely. But I gotta say that it is absolutely brilliant to see an American to say something like you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceFanStan
I bow to you sire.
Printable View
You know, I'm not so much into politics, I tend to read threads like this rarely. But I gotta say that it is absolutely brilliant to see an American to say something like you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceFanStan
I bow to you sire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
you are right, they didn't but Hussein invaded Iran, or don't you remember that little temper tantrum? Hussein tried to steal the Western Oil fields of Iran and when Iran fought back with their vicious and fanatical practice of using 12 year old suicide bombers and the like, Saddam used gas. It was a war that didn't bathe either nation in glory and cost over a million dead.
The Kurds and Shiites were not killed unless they rose against Saddam eh ?? Why would they rise against him if he wasn't already persecuting them? You REALLY believe they would be left alone if they didn't have uprisings? You ever think for a second the reason they were part of guerrilla attacks on Saddam because he was using their kids for cannon fodder? I guess the rape rooms, the genocidal attacks on the Kurd's in 91, and persecution of religious ceremonies around the Shiite shrines in the south were all just fiction? Eki, quit defending Saddam Hussein!!!!! He was a dictator!!!! They persecute their people and if they cannot find someone disloyal to them, they find an excuse to make someone disloyal. Their political power and hold of fear cannot continue without a constant fear of death and reprisal for any slight. You say no nation should tell another what to do, so I guess you feel that any leader can do what he wants in the name of sovereingty? Pol pot killed a Million Cambodians because he distrusted anyone with an education. Logical thought is not a prerequesite for a dictator. Very few stay in power without a constant campaign of fear, oppression and killings. Saddam got the gold star in all three of those things and you stand there and tell me if the Kurd's and Shiites just accepted the Sunni's and Hussein were to run the nation, then everything would be fine. You really are a piece of work Eki, you would condemn everyone outside of your own nation to their own fates, for it didn't meet your ethical standard. You continue to defend a man hung a week ago for reasons that no rational human being who didn't live in Iraq can understand.
Dictators kill, rape and pillage their OWN nation first to attain and keep power. When they get bored with that, they move on, (Iran in 81, Kuwait in 90-91). This man got away with all that, and yet when asked to comply with UN he refused, thinking no one would call his bluff. Someone did.....and while we can agree Iraq is not a garden of paradise now, to defend the man who treated his own people like garbage is just not logical. HE was killing 20000 people a year in a "peaceful" Iraq. Some peace, some freedom....
Studiose's objections to the happenings in Iraq at least have reason and merit, but your steadfast defense of Saddam Hussein is just unfathomable!!!
Forgot to take your meds, eh Stan? Read what I wrote and then try to understand the difference between what I wrote and your leftist drivel. I did not suggest that things are perfect in Iraq, but stated that the Butcher of Bagdad is dead and that the Iraqi people have a democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceFanStan
Ah, that certainly justifies murder. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Mark - there are many supporters of dictators, even today. A neighbor was telling me of living in Germany in the 1950s and 1960s. He said the former SS would get together on the weekends and talk about the "good old days." Of course, Eki's position is even less justifiable, since s/he did not live in Iraq, and have the pleasure of being one of Saddam's subjects. It takes all kinds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Agwii, the funny thing is, Eki posted on the thread "Cats are brilliant" how he is against euthanasia for animals since he opposes killing. I have YET ONCE seen a post by Eki condemning Saddam. Not one. He has spent the last two years tearing Dubya apart, and lord knows there is much there to criticize on a level of competetance, but never once has Eki condemened Saddam for his killing.
Instead, he tries to justify his role in persecuting the nation of Iraq. Murder is ok with Eki, just don't kill a cat or hang a dictator....
Mark - that's the typical convoluted logic of leftist tree huggers. Mass murder, genocide, torture, etc., these things are okay. However, don't kill an animal, say cross words to a dictator, or execute a mass murderer. It takes all kinds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
And leaders of so called "democracies" kill, rape and pillage foreign nations. Have you heard about the marines who are accused of raping a 14 year old Iraqi girl and killing her and her family afterwards, or should I educate you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I haven't seen you condemning Bush for having tens of thousand of Iraqis and thousands of Americans killed either. Oh, and if I recall it right, Bush is pro death penalty himself and had many Texans killed when he was the governor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
First, I suggest you speak face-to-face with a Marine and ask your question. I'm sure you will receive a well-reasoned response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Second, look up the meaning of the word accused. Accusations are tossed about -- just ask the Duke Lacrosse Team. Proof and conviction is another thing. Ask that same Marine (above) how many mass graves and bodies he recovered. The proof of Saddam's mass murders is throughout Iraq.
Yep, I could also ask Saddam Hussein about the WMDs if he was still alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Or you could ask him why he decided to try to bluff President Bush (any fool knows you can't bluff a Texan!), and then ask him if he regrets bringing the whole thing upon him in his self-destructive rush. However, today Saddam is buring in the fires of hell. This is a position he and his followers earned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Do you also know his schedule for next week? :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
I think the ex. soldiers do the same everywhere, for instance in New york metrostations, there was many ex.marines begging for money, when they did not beg they seemed to talk to eachother, about what i dont know but anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Do you have the slightest idea of what's going on in Iraq? Do yuo think that the situation there is really even close of being a democracy?Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Anarchy is maybe the word you were thinking of?
Are you in Iraq now, or are you in regular contact with those who are in Iraq? Your "flag" shows you are in Finland. How far is that from Bagdad?Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
First off, the accused in this case are being tried by the US Military Justice system, which contrary to popular belief is interested in the truth. They will get a trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Second of all Bush has lamented the loss of civilian life in Iraq on numerous occasions. The US military didn't go in there to indescrimnately destroy and maim the civilian population of Iraq. To use your logic, Iraqi miltary units just should have not resisted and none of this would happened. Alas, it was a war, and civilians were in danger and some have died. THIS is a tragedy no doubt. Bush however has never ONCE told a Miltary officer nor has any officer of any rank had orders to rape, pillage or destroy for the sake of terror. These were crimes your buddy Saddam condoned and encouraged as state policy. Eki, I know your belief in moral equivalence has put Bush on the same level as Hussein, but believe me, there is a difference. What is more, you are STILL telling me that you believe Saddam had the right to do those things to his own people and THAT isn't a crime, but if the US comes in and removes his regime, THAT is the greater sin. Unbelieveable. Your defence of a dictator just continues.
One more thing, Eki you despise killing in your posting on the thread "Cats are Brilliant", yet you see nothing wrong with Saddam doing it. You figure his hanging was the true crime. Unreal....I got to get the drugs you are smoking my friend....it must be weird being in Alice's Wonderland....
Say it slowly, Saddam hussein was killing his own people long before the US Military did. You can do it Eki, I know you can...
BTW why are they not tried by Iraq court, if the supposed crime has happen in "soverign, democratic Iraq"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Tomi, that is probably the most fatuous post I have ever seen. It's also so untrue that no sentient person would believe it. You and Eki. It must really hurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
Mark: Eki and reality are not good friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I guess it's common practise in most countries for soldiers to be subject to Military Law (and judged by a military court) while on duty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
They are not being tried in a civilian Iraqi court because they are Americans in the US Military. The UCMJ is a far harsher court of law than any American civilian one, and while Iraqi's should have some sort of say in what happens to these men if found guilty, belive me, unlike the regime that was here 5 years ago, military crimes against a civilian population are being tried in a proper manner and if convicted, these US soldiers could at the very least be in jail for a very long time. Anyone on here do time in Leavenworth? Trust me, I know from my friends in the Canadian Military about the Canadian Military jail in Edmonton, and they told me it has nothing on the strict regime of disicpline dished out at Fort Leavenworth.
Not untrue, last august Union Square metrostation, every day i vent to the metro. Other stations too. Or maybe they where lying who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
One more thing. The Trial of Saddam Hussein was a farce. He was given ample opportunity to defend himself but his whole defense was that the people running the trial had no jurisdiction, and that he could do as he saw fit. Meanwhile, while in the custody of the US Marines he seemed to be more bent on firing any lawyer who questioned his defense methods while inhaling large amounts of Doritos that the Marines were happy to supply him with. He was not mistreated and he was given the opportunity to defend himself. I say the trial was a farce because he didn't do a thing do defend his actions. Eki has given a far more spirited defense of Saddam Hussein here on the boards....
Saddam was given a fair trial, just he kept getting in the way of any defense he might have. At no time did his cousel nor Saddam give any kind of plea for clemency nor any sorrow for the way things had turned out. He was defiant to the end.
No I'm not. Are you in Iraq then? And as far as I know Finland is much closer to Iraq than US is - not that it would matter anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Just today it was reported that Iraqi police found 27 bodies in Baghdad nera US and UK embassies. They were killed in execution style. Does that sound like a democracy to you?
Woodeye, it may not be democracy as we know it, but who would have a chance at it with Saddam running the country. You have to understand something. There is a full blown attempt to create a civil war between the Sunni's and Shiites. Iraqi people who have decided that this is the time to settle ethnic and religious scores. The reason the US Military hasn't left is because of crap like this. It isn't the American military that is telling all these factions to kill each other, they would love it all to stop so they could go the hell home.
Contrary to popular belief, murders happen on the streets of many democratic nations. I bet Finland has a few murders too. Does that mean I should condemn the Finnish government for it? No, Iraq isn't a democracy that is strong enough to enforce its own laws while giving much in the way of freedom. It is a constant state of war, but the only thing the US Military did wrong was show up and take way the lid on this cauldron. That said, they are trying to stop the carnage now, and are paying with casualties. So it is a mess, no doubt, but lets not confuse this with the thread topic. Saddam is gone, so at least Iraq has hope. If left to you and Eki, Saddam would be allowed to kill, maim and persecute his nation until he died of old age, and then hand the job off to Uday and Qusay, of course until they lost power, and then we would have the same civil war we have now....
Woodeye I ask you this, were you as upset for the people of Iraq and their condition before Saddam?? I have no time for people who condemn others to live under dictators while living in a democratic soceity with the rule of law protecting their feelings of protest...
people here call it a civil war already, simply because it is a civil war already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
And no one could predict this before the US decided to come to Iraq? Right. And if the religious groups have decided to settle some scores INSIDE the country, I see no reason for the US troops. I think that democratic nation should be able to solve it's domestic problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I mean, if there were blues and reds in Canada who would start a civil war, would you be needing US troops to solve that situation?
I have no problem whatsoever to say that I don't miss Saddam a bit. He was a criminal. Was execution right thing to do, well I think no. I would have much more rather seen him in a small cell for the rest of his life. I think it's not right to take anyones life, no matter what he/she has done. That's my opinion, I know many will disagree with that.Quote:
If left to you and Eki, Saddam would be allowed to kill, maim and persecute his nation until he died of old age, and then hand the job off to Uday and Qusay, of course until they lost power, and then we would have the same civil war we have now....
I would love to chat about Halliburton and all the other American companies (weapon manufacturers) benefetting from war and rebuilding Iraq and about bush's (notice the small letter b) connections to these companies, but I think I'll leave it for the time being.
Sure I was, but I'm still upset. Tens of people die in Iraq every day. That is not the way it shall be anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Interesting. You blame the victims of terrorism for acts of terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
Clearly a lie. A Marine does not beg. Period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
People are dying in hunger in Africa and in North Korea. There are civil wars in Africa, the situation in Darfur is unbearable. Why isn't US there?
If all the money that has been spend on catching Saddam were used against hunger, we wouldn't have to witness it at all. There would be nough food for everyone.
But helping is not as profitable as war is. Sadly.
I don't understand youre point. I just said there were bodies found in Baghdad today (as there has been in every day after the "war") and I didn't sound like ademocracy to me. Who did I blame for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
And the reason you believe Saddam did tell his soldiers to do it is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Ok, I grant you this Woodeye. Darfur is terrible. Ethiopia was terrible. Somalia was terrible, the US went in and got immediately zeroed in on as a target. Their efforts to distribute aid with the help of NGO's were for naught for the corruption of a failed state only left America with the option of openly conquering the whole country and putting it in lock down so they could sort out who needed food and who was stealing it or get out. Clinton opted to get out, not having a stomach for the fight. This did two things. One, it said to the world that the US cant solve the world's problems without basically conquering and running the country, and two, after the "Blackhawk Down" incident where the Marine was dragged behind a truck by Islamic warlords, it said that Clinton would cut and run when the body count started. Bin Laden said this was the proof he needed to say he didn't think the US had the stomach to stand and fight. Well, presidents all look at situations differently, and Bush of course is not one to give up on anything, even when it doesn't look great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
The point really is though that the US cannot win. If they went into Darfur, took control, they would be fighting the same sort of insurgency terror war there that they are fighting in Iraq. Eki has already said no sovereign nation should invade another for any reason. IF I am to buy into THAT argument (and I don't, but invasions are not to be done with no rules or purpose either) then the US will have all the criticism once again for making a bad situation worse. The US cannot win no matter what they do in the eyes of people like yourself, Eki, and Tomi. You guys would be all over them for invading Iran to stop them from building a bomb I don't doubt, and you would criticise them for going in to Sudan. They were torn apart in the court of world opinion for not stepping in to stop the slaughter in Rwanda, a great screw up I lay on the feet of the UN. The Americans invaded Iraq because they saw a threat. You can argue that threat wasn't there, but most of the western intelligence organizations and the UN felt Saddam had WMD's under development and he was very vocal about telling the Americans they would pay for kicking him in the rear for Kuwait. Also if you are going to commit 3000 plus lives, billions of dollars in expense, the nation invaded might as well have something of value to speak for it. It is the sale of the oil in Iraq that will rebuild that nation, for the money that is now not going into Saddam's pocket is paying to rebuild the infrastructure. I suppose if the US went into Sudan and toppled that government to stop the genocide there you would demand they pay to rebuild THAT nation? How many nations should the US rebuild? Their money kept the UK afloat during WW2 and under the Marshall plan they rebuilt Western Europe's industrial complex.
At one point does the USA just say screw this, you guys can starve yourselves, shoot each other, kill innocents and maim each other to your hearts content, we want to not have anything to do with it and we should stay on our contient, and if you screw with us, we will send a nuke your way to remind you that we don't to deal with this crap no more? They wouldn't use that nuke but at some point, most Americans I suspect wish for the days when no American president cared what happened east of Bermuda. No matter what they do, they are the whipping boys. If they get involved, they are at fault. If they have good intentions, it does not matter, and if by chance someone actually recoups some money lost due to the BILLIONS of dollars poured down the hole that is Iraq, you accuse Bush of having friends in war profiteering. Here is a clue, if Halliburton wasn't there, someone else would be, and you would have many thousands of conspircy theorists trying to find links there to Dubya.
I cannot understand why any American even leaves the country no more. They are the whipping boys for all that is wrong in this world according to you guys, and meanwhile, the people who actually are the ones causing the misery and suffering do not have 230 posts on a thread condemning them. Until I started posting on this thread no one had the guts to call Eki out on defending Saddam Hussein. He still hasn't said Hussein was wrong by the way....still waiting
Oh yes, one more thing, I wish he wasn't hung either, I would rather he was put in a jail full of Shiite criminals and let him figure out what it is like to be the hunted....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Eki, we have gone down this road before. The world knew what Saddam was doing. Even those nations who condemn George Bush for the invasion know damned well what he was doing. You disbelieve the stories of the rape rooms? The looting and pillaging in Kuwait? (it makes what a few corrupted soldiers in the US Military did look like a misdemanour in scale) How about the stories of the thousands of Kurd refugee's that the UN and NATO had to look after being gassed in their villages, often for reprisals for "attacks" on his regime. Listen, if you want to believe the fiction Saddam was not approving all this, then you go find Iraqi dissidents abroad who had family members killed during his rule. Ask the families of some of them who fled to countries like Jordan and were found dead after Iraqi assasination squads hunted them down. Ask the families of those Iraqi soldiers were tossed into the meat grinder of the invasion of Iran in 1981. Ask them if you think all the barbarity of this regime was not sanctioned by the top man? At least the Nazi's had the sense to stand up and say what they were doing when confronted (Goring said with great pride he knew what was going on, as did other Nazi's). I suppose you think the Holocaust was a lie too Eki? Since you love defending thugs and dictators, I would have to assume you thought 6 million Jews and 1 million other people were just people who had it coming for "standing up to the government" right?
Eki, you cannot condemn George W Bush for the invasion of Iraq with any kind of credability. Others on here will and I will accept some of their arguments, for they are also reasoned enough to believe that Saddam was an evil man. Yet in all your posts, you just keep on coming back to the fact he had the right do to what he was doing, because it was his country. Unbelievable. You are either naive, a Baathist exile in Finland, or just so filled with hatred for the President currently in office that you are blind to human decency. Yet in another thread, you decry euthanasia of a cat for no reason. You value your own life, and a cat more than the thousands and thousands that have died in Iraq. You claim to care, but you do not care. You only cared when it suited your narrow political agenda. Like many anti-American bigots, you hide behind your principles when confronted, but you cannot grasp you are defending the undefendable.
Saddam Hussein is dead because of his own actions. He became a dictator by killing his opponents rather than beating them in an election. He hung onto power through a reign of terror. He started two major conflicts by attacking sovereign states to take their oil fields. He used chemical weapons against defenceless people (don't give me this crap the Americans gave him those, I acknowledge that but over 30 countries have chemical weapons and only Iraq has chosen to use them in the last 30 years), and when being held to sanctions by the UN, he chose to tell the world to go get stuffed. So someone finally said no to him, and he wouldn't back down. The whole world watched for over 4 months as Saddam played this chicken game with the US. He would let the UN in, but then tell them what they could see and not see. He would tell the UN that he would co-operate, and then tell them he would kill every soldier who set foot across the border. Finally, Bush, Blair, Howard and a few other strong willed leaders decided to call his bluff and invade (as per the ultimate result of disobeying UN sanctions). Now we all know that the plan for peace was not executed as well as the conquering of Iraq was, but nevertheless, if Saddam just complied with the UN, no one would have backed the US and this war would have never happened. Instead, Saddam bluffed, he lost, and yes, lives were lost, and in the end, his also. Sad story, but not nearly as sad as the thousands of lives lost in a police state with no hope of ever getting out of it. Slaves for the regime. Iraq may be a mess now, but in time, something will come of this, and if 20 years from now Iraq is a functioning sovereign nation with a form of freedom, if not outright democracy, then Bush will all the sudden will be seen as ahead of his time. Judging events by reading the newspaper is a shallow intellectual exercise, but I have become used to seeing it from the Knee-jerk Anti-American bigotry on this thread.
One other thing Eki. If Saddam Hussein had WMD's stashed in the country in 2001, do you think for one second he wouldn't have a plan to get them out of the country in case the UN or the US did find them? The real reason I always found the WMD argument rather weak in my mind was that Saddam's friends in Syria (The Assad family are Baathist Arabs who run a similar family run dictatorship) would just love to hold onto those WMD's. You think if there was WMD's they would not have been shipped out to anyone who would take them? Maybe this didn't happen, we will never know, but one thing is for sure. Saddam had no problems using them when it suited his purposes. Using them on coalition troops would not have been wise, since it would give license for the US to open up the stockpile of nasty crap they own. So he sure as heck wasn't going to have a use for them if the invasion happened.
Also, another question. If Saddam is such an emissary of peace and goodwill, why was he paying the families of suicide bombers against Israel? Paying people to have their kids blown up is NOT the action of a man who truly values the human condition. I wont even get into the possibility of him selling arms to Hamas, or Al Quaida. If he hadn't sold arms to Al Quaida and had no connection with 911 ( I know he didn't have a hand in on that), you think for one second he wouldn't be above giving them arms and aid in the future? He hated the US almost as much as you seem to Eki, for they embarassed him in 1991. They made him a deal to not whip his sorry hide then so he could keep his country. Many people believed then that wasn't the end of it, and as it turned out, it wasn't. Saddam wanted this conflict, and when he got it, he lost it, and was tried as a criminal for war crimes by the people of his nation in a fair trial. We can dispute the merits of hanging him, but no one would dispute the value of convicting this man of the vilest, nastiest treatment of human beings who were ostensibly under his reign. Oh wait a minute, you have disupted this. You have claimed by omission that Saddam was not a bad fellow, just misunderstood. Clock is ticking Eki, when are you going to just admit that Hussein got pretty much the fate he deserved.