Saddam Dead

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
Carlos
Carlos
11
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 19:43
Location: Canada

Post

Ray -- Thoughtful post resolving different issues and I agree with the substance. The next post, anaylsing social systems is both insightful and a great piece of political satire - with a great degree of accuracy -- and a lot of humour _ I laughed for at least 15 minutes. I think you have improved both my health and out look on 2007 and the 2 decades to follow!

User avatar
Evil Weasel
0
Joined: 15 Dec 2006, 02:18
Location: Suffolk, UK

Post

Ray: I commend you for taking the effort to make a well thought out response – a little more well thought out than some of your earlier, rather provocative comments – but this is the nature of modern communications., I think it may be worth pointing out that those that believe the invasion of Iraq was a good idea are very much in the minority worldwide (and the web is worldwide), a minority that consists of about 51% of voting Americans and Tony Blair – so any post on the subject is likely to prompt a hostile reception.

“I meant that the conspiracy theorist are going to get in an uproar…”

Maybe, but even showing him drop isn’t going to prevent that – I’ve seen King Kong but I don’t believe a giant gorilla ran around New York. Additionally, while it’s easy to label ideas that don’t follow the official line as crackpot it is important, I believe,to examine all information from your own perspective and decide for yourself, not just accept what the mainstream media tells everyone.

“A for the bear fruit comment…”

I find it difficult to believe that another death will achieve anything positive, whether in the shot term or the long term. There is no harvest in destruction. The only reaction this can bring is a bad one. The Sunni militants have more reason to fight and the Shi’ites have been shown that they can “legally” kill Sunnis. Sectarian conflict has shown that either side will find provocation and justification for their own conduct in the “offences” of the other side. Doing anything that adds fuel to this fire of bitter hatred is a poor decision.

“My rope comment was that he gave no remorse gassing people and using chemical weapons on innocent people. So I could care less if he feels pain.”

Relishing the suffering of another is not something to be proud of.


“I am very human, I know what pain is. I got robbed two weeks ago. Someone broke into my house…I would have no remorse if that guy were to have broken in my house while I was at home …and I severely hurt him…I am not violent in any way”

That pretty much is the meaning of violent. It is based on actions, not whether you think you have cause.

“The oil rig thing is out of proportion already. I was only asking if anyone could show me that the US is in control of an oil rig in Iraq…”

This is one of the stated aims of the Bush administration prior to invasion – control of the Iraqi oilfields. A general (who’s name it will take me some time to find) gave an interview in which he said that one of priorities was to control the oil fields and get then up to full production. He went on to say that the US expected to maintain this control for about four years – that would be over $20 billion dollars for the US economy. It’s strange (and I mean that ironically) that the oil industry should be so heavily involved with the Bush administration, and the Bush administration takes action intend to benefit the oil industry, isn’t it?

“I'm just not concerned to the point of sleeplessness what the daily goings on of other countries.”

I can appreciate your viewpoint on this, but I would suggest that maybe you should be that concerned. As you say you pay taxes – money that is used by your government for purposes that are far from benign – if you had greater concerns and expressed them maybe more of your countrymen would exercise their voting privileges and your government would be compelled behave differently.

“…I sure as hell don't [think] the U.N. should be sovereign, not interconnected by one entity that can rule without a system of checks and balances …”

What do the Americans have against the UN? If the US thinks the UN is such a bad idea why doesn’t it withdraw from the UN? The UN has checks and balances – any member of the Security Council (of which the US is a permanent member) can veto any motion. A privilege that the US exercises more frequently than any other, very often in defence of Israel when that country has perpetrated another atrocity on the civilian population of the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. If anything the UN has too little power rather than too much, but for some reason the American media says otherwise and the American population believe them.

“This current govt under Bush is not entirely at fault…I don't think its right to blame just one person...That's why I'm not voting for any sitting politician in this country.”

How do you imagine anything will change unless you use what power you have.

[T]he destruction of Fallujah was not directed towards the townsfolk of Fallujah.”

Nonetheless, it was the homes of those people that were destroyed. This is the same tactic the Nazi’s used in occupied France. There is town in Northern France that was left in ruins after the Nazi’s conducted a punitive action against for the deaths of some soldiers – it’s still in ruins today as a reminder.

“I WAS THERE. So don't tell me what happened in Fallujah, or Iraq for that matter unless you have been there.”

Then you should realise that personal, emotional involvement may negate the possibility that you can be objective.

“The movie stars comment was more about Matt Damon than anything. He has no right, or place, to tell anyone what they should make their kids do.”

He has just as much right to as you do to say he shouldn’t do it. If someone feels they should speak up then more respect to them for doing so, especially if they are saying something that could damage their career. Beliefs are more important than money. I think that is something that should be encouraged, not derided.


The view of the majority is that the invasion of Iraq has turned into a terrible disaster with an unbelievable high death toll. 3000 US troops now. The Lancet estimated 600 thouands Iraqis with over a million seriously injured. This doesn't make the world a better place. The invasion was not launched for the good of the people of Iraq - it was for the good of the Bush administration and the industries that supported Bush's election campaign that by strange change were also given the contract for the rebuilding of Iraq.

Bush managed to drag the UK into this disaster on the promise that the US would address its approach to Israel - a promise it has since reneged on. It is a war based on lies that aims to line the pockets of the richest and most powerful in America at the cost of the poorest and most powerless. In the years to come - after the troops have been pulled leaving the Iraqis in a hell Bush created - America will suffer the shame of this – and rightfully so.

Carlos
Carlos
11
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 19:43
Location: Canada

Post

Consider a long range view. 10 years. 100 years. 1000 years. There is not a nation, people, or religion that has not provoked and participated in warfare. No ones hands are clean. The problem is not one of personal, individual opinions or universal morals, ethics, economics or considerations of justice. The problem is human nature.

Virtue is sometimes vice - and Vice is sometimes virtue. I can accept the elements of virtue and vice in my own character. There is a balance and it is very fluid. Violence and compassion are both present - and at times both are absent. As a race we attempt "right action" - occassionally we succeed. Mostly we fail. Rawanda -- The Killing Fields of Cambodia --
and a hundred other events of Horror that happened in our lifetimes. The freedom fighter of yesterday may undergo reconciliation and deliver mail to the widow of a man he killed. My grandfather, as a military policeman stationed in India may have shot live ammunition overhead of the crowds during food riots. In our own life and times - Did you intervene? Did I intervene? Is it enough to just form an opinion? Which is a solution. Which is self indulgent?

Just suggestions for consideration. I battle with them everyday. So do you.
Last edited by Carlos on 01 Jan 2007, 15:43, edited 1 time in total.

miqi23
miqi23
7
Joined: 11 Feb 2006, 02:31
Location: United Kingdom

Post

This is what I found yesterday while reading the newspaper, an article by Robert Frisk from London Independent. I am just pasting it for you all to read.

:arrow: We've shut him up. The moment Saddam's hooded executioner pulled the lever of the trapdoor in Baghdad yesterday morning, Washington's secrets were safe. The shameless, outrageous, covert military support which the United States - and Britain - gave to Saddam for more than a decade remains the one terrible story which our presidents and prime ministers do not want the world to remember. And now Saddam, who knew the full extent of that Western support - given to him while he was perpetrating some of the worst atrocities since the Second World War - is dead.

Gone is the man who personally received the CIA's help in destroying the Iraqi communist party. After Saddam seized power, US intelligence gave his minions the home addresses of communists in Baghdad and other cities in an effort to destroy the Soviet Union's influence in Iraq. Saddam's mukhabarat visited every home, arrested the occupants and their families, and butchered the lot. Public hanging was for plotters; the communists, their wives and children, were given special treatment - extreme torture before execution at Abu Ghraib.

There is growing evidence across the Arab world that Saddam held a series of meetings with senior American officials prior to his invasion of Iran in 1980 - both he and the US administration believed that the Islamic Republic would collapse if Saddam sent his legions across the border - and the Pentagon was instructed to assist Iraq's military machine by providing intelligence on the Iranian order of battle. One frosty day in 1987, not far from Cologne, I met the German arms dealer who initiated those first direct contacts between Washington and Baghdad - at America's request.

"Mr Fisk... at the very beginning of the war, in September of 1980, I was invited to go to the Pentagon," he said. "There I was handed the very latest US satellite photographs of the Iranian front lines. You could see everything on the pictures. There were the Iranian gun emplacements in Abadan and behind Khorramshahr, the lines of trenches on the eastern side of the Karun river, the tank revetments - thousands of them - all the way up the Iranian side of the border towards Kurdistan. No army could want more than this. And I travelled with these maps from Washington by air to Frankfurt and from Frankfurt on Iraqi Airways straight to Baghdad. The Iraqis were very, very grateful!"

I was with Saddam's forward commandos at the time, under Iranian shellfire, noting how the Iraqi forces aligned their artillery positions far back from the battle front with detailed maps of the Iranian lines. Their shelling against Iran outside Basra allowed the first Iraqi tanks to cross the Karun within a week. The commander of that tank unit cheerfully refused to tell me how he had managed to choose the one river crossing undefended by Iranian armour. Two years ago, we met again, in Amman and his junior officers called him "General" - the rank awarded him by Saddam after that tank attack east of Basra, courtesy of Washington's intelligence information.

Iran's official history of the eight-year war with Iraq states that Saddam first used chemical weapons against it on 13 January 1981. AP's correspondent in Baghdad, Mohamed Salaam, was taken to see the scene of an Iraqi military victory east of Basra. "We started counting - we walked miles and miles in this --- desert, just counting," he said. "We got to 700 and got muddled and had to start counting again ... The Iraqis had used, for the first time, a combination - the nerve gas would paralyse their bodies ... the mustard gas would drown them in their own lungs. That's why they spat blood."

At the time, the Iranians claimed that this terrible cocktail had been given to Saddam by the US. Washington denied this. But the Iranians were right. The lengthy negotiations which led to America's complicity in this atrocity remain secret - Donald Rumsfeld was one of President Ronald Reagan's point-men at this period - although Saddam undoubtedly knew every detail. But a largely unreported document, "United States Chemical and Biological Warfare-related Dual-use exports to Iraq and their possible impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War", stated that prior to 1985 and afterwards, US companies had sent government-approved shipments of biological agents to Iraq. These included Bacillus anthracis, which produces anthrax, andEscherichia coli (E. coli). That Senate report concluded that: "The United States provided the Government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-systems programs, including ... chemical warfare agent production facility plant and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment."

Nor was the Pentagon unaware of the extent of Iraqi use of chemical weapons. In 1988, for example, Saddam gave his personal permission for Lt-Col Rick Francona, a US defence intelligence officer - one of 60 American officers who were secretly providing members of the Iraqi general staff with detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning and bomb damage assessments - to visit the Fao peninsula after Iraqi forces had recaptured the town from the Iranians. He reported back to Washington that the Iraqis had used chemical weapons to achieve their victory. The senior defence intelligence officer at the time, Col Walter Lang, later said that the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis "was not a matter of deep strategic concern".

I saw the results, however. On a long military hospital train back to Tehran from the battle front, I found hundreds of Iranian soldiers coughing blood and mucus from their lungs - the very carriages stank so much of gas that I had to open the windows - and their arms and faces were covered with boils. Later, new bubbles of skin appeared on top of their original boils. Many were fearfully burnt. These same gases were later used on the Kurds of Halabja. No wonder that Saddam was primarily tried in Baghdad for the slaughter of Shia villagers, not for his war crimes against Iran.

We still don't know - and with Saddam's execution we will probably never know - the extent of US credits to Iraq, which began in 1982. The initial tranche, the sum of which was spent on the purchase of American weapons from Jordan and Kuwait, came to $300m. By 1987, Saddam was being promised $1bn in credit. By 1990, just before Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, annual trade between Iraq and the US had grown to $3.5bn a year. Pressed by Saddam's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, to continue US credits, James Baker then Secretary of State, but the same James Baker who has just produced a report intended to drag George Bush from the catastrophe of present- day Iraq - pushed for new guarantees worth $1bn from the US.

In 1989, Britain, which had been giving its own covert military assistance to Saddam guaranteed £250m to Iraq shortly after the arrest of Observer journalist Farzad Bazoft in Baghdad. Bazoft, who had been investigating an explosion at a factory at Hilla which was using the very chemical components sent by the US, was later hanged. Within a month of Bazoft's arrest William Waldegrave, then a Foreign Office minister, said: "I doubt if there is any future market of such a scale anywhere where the UK is potentially so well-placed if we play our diplomatic hand correctly... A few more Bazofts or another bout of internal oppression would make it more difficult."

Even more repulsive were the remarks of the then Deputy Prime Minister, Geoffrey Howe, on relaxing controls on British arms sales to Iraq. He kept this secret, he wrote, because "it would look very cynical if, so soon after expressing outrage about the treatment of the Kurds, we adopt a more flexible approach to arms sales".

Saddam knew, too, the secrets of the attack on the USS Stark when, on 17 May 1987, an Iraqi jet launched a missile attack on the American frigate, killing more than a sixth of the crew and almost sinking the vessel. The US accepted Saddam's excuse that the ship was mistaken for an Iranian vessel and allowed Saddam to refuse their request to interview the Iraqi pilot.

The whole truth died with Saddam Hussein in the Baghdad execution chamber yesterday. Many in Washington and London must have sighed with relief that the old man had been silenced for ever. :wink:

User avatar
Evil Weasel
0
Joined: 15 Dec 2006, 02:18
Location: Suffolk, UK

Post

It was very convenient for the White House that Saddam's death sentence was passed the day before the mid-term elections and that he should be executed without being put on trial for so many acts that may have had American backing or any information he had on WMD could get out.

Saddam was condemned for killing innocent civilians and executing people without fair trails.

If only "justice" was something that was applied evenly and fairly to all regardless of race, faith, nationality or social position, rather than a sporadic instrument to silence the unwanted.

G-Rock
G-Rock
0
Joined: 27 Jul 2006, 20:05
Location: Ridgetown, ON

Post

Did you call me cracker? WTF?
Yes
--------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Ray
2
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 06:33
Location: Atlanta

Post

Please enlighten me on why you called me such a juvenile name. Did I insult you somehow?

allan
allan
0
Joined: 14 Jan 2006, 22:14
Location: Waterloo, Canada

Post

time out guys...
please, no writing any more on this subject..
let's end it right here

G-Rock
G-Rock
0
Joined: 27 Jul 2006, 20:05
Location: Ridgetown, ON

Post

I think that it's time to stop this subject when people stop writing in, not when Allan says so. Let's keep this an open discussion

As for the "cracker" remark, I thought it would be funny to call you that since you are from the Southern US. Isn't a cracker a poor white person from the Appalachians, emmigrated from Britain around the time of the civil war? Assuming your white that is. Anyway, I was just teasing.
--------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Ray
2
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 06:33
Location: Atlanta

Post

Actually no. Cracker is a derogative word used by black folks in this country towards white people. It's used as an insult, very mean insult. Hillbilly is the term you are looking for I think. That's a term used for folks who live in the mountains, far into the mountains. They usually aren't poor either.

User avatar
Ray
2
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 06:33
Location: Atlanta

Post

I know and you know King Kong wasn't real. Don't bring up childish things in real discussion, it's insulting to my intelligence, and it's like you are talking to me as if I were a child. My example was that conspiracy theorist in general have theories that they can't support with a shred of evidence. None. So that's why I think that there are going to be people out around the world who are going to say it didn't happen. I'm just tired of hearing people just bitching to get attention and have no intelligent arguments that they can support.

My rope comment again was misunderstood. Or misinterpreted. I could care less that he was hung, doesn't change a thing. The violence and murders will go on even if he weren't killed. But hanging him didn't solve anything and quite possibly like you said, will cause more problems. But he killed innocent people regardless of where he got the weapons, he still did it. And I never said I was happy or was relishing in his death, so don't put words in my mouth, nor insinuate I was happy about it. The trial was as fair as a rigged one can be. :?

I am not violent. Quit taking things out of context please. I hate that. Taking things out of context is a low down, dirty tactic to make someone look bad, don't use it on me. I said that if someone didn't care about my well being (stealing from me) then I don't care about theirs. What do you suggest that I do when someone breaks into my house, ask them politely to leave? Please leave the things you were going to take from me on your way out? They aren't going to do that, they are going to try and hurt me or run. So why should I just bow down to them and let them do what they want. If someone is going to break into my house, they aren't concerned with me. And I'm not concerned with them. The police here are a joke. I know a friend of my fathers that was sued by a dead would-be-robbers' parents and won! He fell through a sky light while sneaking over the roof to bypass a fence and fell inside the building and died. He deserved what he got. How many home robberies do you think that we have where the people who live there are hurt by the robbers? Don't talk down to me, you would very likely do the same as me, fight that person off. I will not practice restraint on those who don't care what happens to me.

The voting comment was taken out of context. DON'T do that to me, it's an insult and a childish way to make an argument. I said that I would not vote for a SITTING politician. Not that I wouldn't vote at all. Please read what I write, and if you wish to quote me, DON'T quote things that are convenient to your arguments. You know exactly what I meant, just like the asinine King Kong example. You are treating me like a child. I do vote, just not for any politician that holds a seat in our govt. I'm trying to vote other people in so we can get rid of the current crop of corrupt horrible politicians.

You are obviously not getting my comment on Matt Damon. I said that he has no right to tell other people what their children should or shouldn't do. IT'S NOT HIS PLACE. I don't tell him what movies he should and shouldn't make, it's not my place. If he wants to protest the war fine. Good for him thinking on his own. But he has no right to tell President Bush what his kids should do. Do you get my point now??

The emotional comment is off base. No, I base my opinions on what I have SEEN, not what I hear. We did not just blow up every building in that city. We only destroyed what we had to, and I know that is a stupid thing to say. I wish we didn't blow anything up ever. I wish we weren't in Iraq, we should have never gone there. We shouldn't be in any country for that matter, for military reasons or any other. We should mind our own business and let other countries solve their own problems. That's what I meant about no worrying about other countries, they can take care of themselves without us screwing everything up.

I'm tired of this. Lets get back to the racing forums.

User avatar
Evil Weasel
0
Joined: 15 Dec 2006, 02:18
Location: Suffolk, UK

Post

“I know and you know King Kong wasn't real. Don't bring up childish things in real discussion, it's insulting to my intelligence, and it's like you are talking to me as if I were a child. “

It was an analogy. You can “see” any evidence you like.

Image
If you want to find insults everywhere good luck.

“I'm just tired of hearing people just bitching to get attention and have no intelligent arguments that they can support.”

So far I think I’ve made a coherent argument, while your approach has been to cry personal insult.

“…[a]nd I never said I was happy or was relishing in his death, so don't put words in my mouth, nor insinuate I was happy about it.”

I think it is you, in your attempt to find insults, that is putting words in other’s mouths. I said “Relishing the suffering of another is not something to be proud of” because you said “Hope it hurt when the rope snapped tight”

“I am not violent. Quit taking things out of context please.”

“Someone broke into my house…I would have no remorse if that guy were to have broken in my house while I was at home …and I severely hurt him …I am not violent in any way”

How is that out of context? You say you’re not violent immediately after saying you want to harm someone. That is the definition of violence.

“I hate that. Taking things out of context is a low down, dirty tactic to make someone look bad, don't use it on me.”

It’s not a trick. It’s called communication. Stop trying to find personal insults.

“if you wish to quote me, DON'T quote things that are convenient to your arguments… You are treating me like a child.”

You are behaving like a child. You make contradictory statements; you are trying to find personal insults at every opportunity. If you don’t want your unsupportable statements to be quoted don’t make them.

User avatar
Evil Weasel
0
Joined: 15 Dec 2006, 02:18
Location: Suffolk, UK

Post

“I know and you know King Kong wasn't real. Don't bring up childish things in real discussion, it's insulting to my intelligence, and it's like you are talking to me as if I were a child. “

It was an analogy. You can “see” any evidence you like.

Image
I believe what I meant is completely clear. Rather than addressing this point, which would require you to try and support your own comments, you try to insults where none exist. Good luck with that. Get into a lot fights when you go out drinking by any chance? Pity your country shows the same thoughtless belligerence at every oppurtunity.

“I'm just tired of hearing people just bitching to get attention and have no intelligent arguments that they can support.”

So far I think I’ve made a coherent argument, while your approach has been to cry personal insult.

“…[a]nd I never said I was happy or was relishing in his death, so don't put words in my mouth, nor insinuate I was happy about it.”

I think it is you, in your attempt to find insults, that is putting words in other’s mouths. I said “Relishing the suffering of another is not something to be proud of” because you said “Hope it hurt when the rope snapped tight”

“I am not violent. Quit taking things out of context please.”

“Someone broke into my house…I would have no remorse if that guy were to have broken in my house while I was at home …and I severely hurt him …I am not violent in any way”

How is that out of context? You say you’re not violent immediately after saying you want to harm someone. That is the definition of violence.

“I hate that. Taking things out of context is a low down, dirty tactic to make someone look bad, don't use it on me.”

It’s not a trick. It’s called communication. Stop trying to find personal insults.

“if you wish to quote me, DON'T quote things that are convenient to your arguments… You are treating me like a child.”

You are behaving like a child. You make contradictory statements; you are trying to find personal insults at every opportunity. If you don’t want your unsupportable statements to be quoted don’t make them.

User avatar
Ray
2
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 06:33
Location: Atlanta

Post

Two examples of you taking my comments out of text.

1. this is my COMPLETE statement.

I would have no remorse if that guy were to have broken in my house while I was at home (I was out of town visiting family in Mississippi) and I severely hurt him or her or them. They had no second thoughts about depriving me of my belonging, so I would not feel bad about hurting them. I am not violent in any way, but if you don't care about my well being and care less if you hurt me, I have the same feeling toward that person as well.

This is your quote of the above statement.

Someone broke into my house…I would have no remorse if that guy were to have broken in my house while I was at home …and I severely hurt him …I am not violent in any way

That isn't out of context? You failed to put the exact words that make my statement totally different than the quote of that statement you used. Out of context. I only said that I would cause bodily harm to someone IF I had a good reason, stealing from me. Not that I would just love to hurt someone for absolutely no reason. Why do you think I gave the example that I got robbed. Because it was a scenario where I think it would have been appropriate to hurt someone. Not all cases are true of that, the majority of times it's not. But dammit when someone takes things from me in the middle of the night after breaking into my home, that I've never even met or know, I want to kick a little ass. Is breaking into my home not enough cause for retaliation? If not, then what is? What am I supposed to do? Ask them nicely to not rob me again?

2. “I'm just tired of hearing people just bitching to get attention and have no intelligent arguments that they can support.”

That was made towards conspiracy theorists, NOT YOU.

Here is the complete statement that will show that it has nothing to do with your argument, it's only about how conspiracy thoerists usually have no facts to go with their allegations. At what point did I mention you not being able to support your arguments?

I know and you know King Kong wasn't real. Don't bring up childish things in real discussion, it's insulting to my intelligence, and it's like you are talking to me as if I were a child. My example was that conspiracy theorist in general have theories that they can't support with a shred of evidence. None. So that's why I think that there are going to be people out around the world who are going to say it didn't happen. I'm just tired of hearing people just bitching to get attention and have no intelligent arguments that they can support.

If you would like to explain to me how you aren't taking my comments out of text, please do. Because I think this is a very valid way of showing that is exactly what you are doing. Especially on the second part. Which had nothing to do with you.

User avatar
Tom
0
Joined: 13 Jan 2006, 00:24
Location: Bicester

Post

I agree it's time to end this now, people are getting insulted, others are getting insulted that people are getting insulted and it all gets vicious from here, lets stop now.
Saddam is dead, long dead no, but nothing has really changed and we can only wait and see what happens because arguing here will only make thinks worse.
Truce guys.
Murphy's 9th Law of Technology:
Tell a man there are 300 million stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure.