RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq

RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/21/2008 1:00:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Are things going better today, then they were a couple of years ago? You'd be taken more seriously if you asked if things were better than 2001. And the answer to that question is no. Just ask the average Iraqi. Ok. Poll: Iraqis out of patience Posted 4/28/2004 3:32 PM Updated 4/30/2004 6:54 AM By Cesar G. Soriano and Steven Komarow,USA TODAY The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April. It reached nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group. The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. And, more recently ... Iraqis: life is getting better From The Sunday Times March 18, 2007 Marie Colvin MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today. The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week. And, of course, both of these polls were prior to the current "good news". Next? Firm

Politesub53 -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/21/2008 1:01:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle If the Iraqi People didn't want Hussein in power, they could have removed him at any time. Not really possible. They tried in 1991 and failed. If Saadam had held fair elections, or not been in control of the military, he would have been removed from power long ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq#Atrocities

TreasureKY -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/21/2008 1:06:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol ... it won't make the situation any better for the Iraqi people, their hundreds of thousands of refugees, one hundred thousand civilian deaths - a conservative estimate - , and nor will it improve the situation for the four thousand dead American soldiers or the ones that are irreparably maimed and damaged by the 'confict'. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle ... ask the families of the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of dead Iraqis if things are going better today. Because you can't ask the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of dead Iraqis, can you? ... You know, based on the thousands and thousands and thousands dead, and the millions displaced from their homes and nation, I think I can answer that things suck much more now than they did under Hussein's rule. sighs I've seen this type of attitude before. It's easily seen in children and surprisingly often even in adults. It's the attitude that nothing can overcome a loss... no change is ever worth the price paid. It's a self-defeatist attitude... one that dwells on the negative. If you were able to ask the 300–500 million victims from the 20th century who died from small pox if things were better today, what do you suppose their answer would be? Based on the attitude shown here by kittinSol and farglebargle, their answer would be "no"... things are not better because they are dead! It does not matter that millions of future potential victims were spared. If you were able to ask a child killed by an abusive parent if things were better because the parent was imprisoned, with kittinSol and farglebargle's attitude, the child would say "no" because he was dead. It does not matter that the child's siblings were saved from a similar fate. If you were to ask the holocaust victims if the world was better off after the Allies won WWII, again according to the tenets put forth by kittinSol and farglebargle, they would say "no" because they are dead. It does not matter that millions were freed from concentration camps and millions more were spared living under Hitler's rule. The question is, with that attitude, when does it get better? Based on assertions made by kittinSol and farglebargle, things can never get better because those who have died or been maimed or have suffered will have still died, been maimed or suffered. lol... And I've now invoked Godwin's law.

FirmhandKY -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/21/2008 1:13:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub OK Firm... things in my opinion are better then 2 years ago... but are they better for the Iraqi people then 7 years ago. And should people change their stand or reasons for their opposition to the war just because only a few die every day rather then hundreds. Butch kd, Thank you for your straight forward answer, and question. I've given a cite in my last post about what the people of Iraq seem to think about how things are, compared to 7 years ago. As far as trying to make people change their stance on whether the war was correct in the first place ... I'm not trying to do that. Actually, I'm more interested in whether or not they have the ability to reason, and see past "should've beens" and "might've beens" to "what can be". Most are failing the test of reality, unfortunately. Firm

pollux -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/21/2008 4:21:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Good point... and you can't ask all the people that Hussein killed anything either....oh wait, don't we have your word that none of that ever happened? hehe. Excellent point. And another is ... what price freedom? Firm YOU cannot free anyone until YOU have enslaved them. If they're chattel, then you have to steal them from their owner FIRST before you can transfer title to themselves. If the Iraqi People didn't want Hussein in power, they could have removed him at any time. They tried. A bunch of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm quote: I don't see "Free Iraq" in the Constitution or Amendments, so it isn't the US Treasury's or Military's price to pay, is it? Actually it was. The "Iraq Liberation Act" made regime change in Iraq official US policy. It was made US law by the 105th Congress. Cf. Public Law 105-338 (codified in a note to 22 USCS § 2151) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR: (you may have to follow the footnote in the Wikipedia page to follow this link -- CM apparently filters CGI scripts) This was in 1998, btw. Under President Clinton. It passed 360-38. Roll call here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll482.xml

kdsub -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/21/2008 5:01:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub OK Firm... things in my opinion are better then 2 years ago... but are they better for the Iraqi people then 7 years ago. And should people change their stand or reasons for their opposition to the war just because only a few die every day rather then hundreds. Butch kd, Thank you for your straight forward answer, and question. I've given a cite in my last post about what the people of Iraq seem to think about how things are, compared to 7 years ago. As far as trying to make people change their stance on whether the war was correct in the first place ... I'm not trying to do that. Actually, I'm more interested in whether or not they have the ability to reason, and see past "should've beens" and "might've beens" to "what can be". Most are failing the test of reality, unfortunately. Firm Firm I really do hope that link reflects the feelings of all Iraqis... it was a very small sample to be conclusive. I understand your posts... I'm not sure… but I don't think you are blindly following the Bush reasoning for the war...at least I hope not. Myself, none of this changes my feelings about the war and our justifications for invading. Even if we win... the people are grateful...and we get lots of oil... I still think we were wrong on a very basic level. Butch

FirmhandKY -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/21/2008 8:07:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub OK Firm... things in my opinion are better then 2 years ago... but are they better for the Iraqi people then 7 years ago. And should people change their stand or reasons for their opposition to the war just because only a few die every day rather then hundreds. Butch kd, Thank you for your straight forward answer, and question. I've given a cite in my last post about what the people of Iraq seem to think about how things are, compared to 7 years ago. As far as trying to make people change their stance on whether the war was correct in the first place ... I'm not trying to do that. Actually, I'm more interested in whether or not they have the ability to reason, and see past "should've beens" and "might've beens" to "what can be". Most are failing the test of reality, unfortunately. Firm Firm I really do hope that link reflects the feelings of all Iraqis... it was a very small sample to be conclusive. I understand your posts... I'm not sure… but I don't think you are blindly following the Bush reasoning for the war...at least I hope not. Myself, none of this changes my feelings about the war and our justifications for invading. Even if we win... the people are grateful...and we get lots of oil... I still think we were wrong on a very basic level. Butch You could well be correct. Unintended consequences are often either a real bitch, or sometimes they lead to wonders beyond belief. Personally, I've not been sure that we would be able to pull of a successful change in the middle east. Still not sure, but hopeful. My thinking may be somewhat different than most people about the subject of the war, although not many of the posters here have the desire or ability to do anything other than put me into some narrow box that serves their own ideological preconceptions. Firm

meatcleaver -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/22/2008 5:15:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Are things going better today, then they were a couple of years ago? You'd be taken more seriously if you asked if things were better than 2001. And the answer to that question is no. Just ask the average Iraqi. Ok. Poll: Iraqis out of patience Posted 4/28/2004 3:32 PM Updated 4/30/2004 6:54 AM By Cesar G. Soriano and Steven Komarow,USA TODAY The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April. It reached nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group. The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. And, more recently ... Iraqis: life is getting better From The Sunday Times March 18, 2007 Marie Colvin MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today. The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week. And, of course, both of these polls were prior to the current "good news". Next? Firm So you have quoted polls from two rightwing pro-war newspapers, the results are a stunning surprise. Did they poll the 2.7 million refugees too? The fact that people feel better because less people are dying this month than last month is not a source of optimism when you look at the totalling of deaths. People can feel better simply because of the human condition of rose coloured glasses to make life seem at least a little bearable. And what good news? One bunch of fascists have taken power from another bunch of fascists and another bunch of fascists are waiting in the wings for their opportunity to cause chaos or seize power? America hasn't even repaired the plumbing yet or got the lights on, never mind got the medical and education services back on track. Meanwhile corruption is rife both by American companies and Bush's stooges. http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm I do notice that it appears that even reputable international organisations have now lost count of the number of innocent civilians killed by the American (and lapdog's) invasion. I find it rather amusing that the people that commited, supported and now celebrate this crime can only do so in comparison of other crimes commited because they have no moral case to defend. As we know, all these deaths were caused because the USA wanted to secure someone elses resources for itself, not because a dictator was terrorising a country's people otherwise it would have invaded other countries first.

FirmhandKY -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/22/2008 9:00:14 AM)
meat, We both know that our definitions of just about everything: including "freedom", "morality", "good" and "evil" are just about as different as they can be between two people. Just as you discount everything I see as realistic, I discount pretty much anything you have to say, because I see you totally wrapped up in an ideology of anti-Americanism, hatred of the free-market system, and a definition of "freedom" that includes slavery of the soul. You're mind is as closed as anyone I've ever seen. But feel free to continue to post. It's entertaining.[:)] Firm

meatcleaver -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/22/2008 9:32:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Just as you discount everything I see as realistic, I discount pretty much anything you have to say, because I see you totally wrapped up in an ideology of anti-Americanism, hatred of the free-market system, and a definition of "freedom" that includes slavery of the soul. You're mind is as closed as anyone I've ever seen. But feel free to continue to post. It's entertaining.[:)] Firm If being anti-war is anti-American, I then join a lot of your fellow countrymen in being ant-American. I am also anti-British too in that case because being British I dislike like Britain's crimes more than I dislike America's, I'm just thankful that the shitheads that run Britain haven't got the power to commit the imperial crimes they used to, however, it doesn't stop them being America's lapdog in their imperialism. America doesn't even adhere to free markets so don't start accusing people who see problems in the free marke as being ideologically opposed to the free markets. America protects its own markets when it can, along with bullying, threatening and stealing as well. I'm not saying other countries don't but you are the one who makes the pretence that America takes the moral high ground. It doesn't. If you analyse the American ideolgy of freedom, what it is about is not freedom of the soul but freedom of the powerful to exploit and steal resources from the weak. I'd get off your moral pedestal, its looking decidedly decrepit. It doesn't so much need a polish as a total reconditioning. Oh and Firm, if America (and Britain for that matter) really did believe in freedom and fighting wars for freedom, they would intervene in Zimbabwe where the opposition won elections and have been denied power. It is known the majority of Zimbabweans would love the west to intervene and free them from the tyrant Mugabe but where is this American love of freedom and its willingness to fight for it? You don't need to reply, we all know the reason, as the Zimbabweans have noted themselves, they have no resources the west wants.

Alumbrado -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/22/2008 8:57:11 PM)
One of the most potent tools Mugabe had in mobilizing violence, and forcing the opposition to abandon the stolen election was to accuse them of planning to bring in American and British forces. Bottom line is that in the real world everybody acts in their own perceived self interests, and the powerful have taken from the less powerful in every society, including the ones you have chosen to give a pass to.

pollux -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/22/2008 10:11:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Just as you discount everything I see as realistic, I discount pretty much anything you have to say, because I see you totally wrapped up in an ideology of anti-Americanism, hatred of the free-market system, and a definition of "freedom" that includes slavery of the soul. You're mind is as closed as anyone I've ever seen. But feel free to continue to post. It's entertaining.[:)] Firm If being anti-war is anti-American, I then join a lot of your fellow countrymen in being ant-American. I am also anti-British too in that case because being British I dislike like Britain's crimes more than I dislike America's, I'm just thankful that the shitheads that run Britain haven't got the power to commit the imperial crimes they used to, however, it doesn't stop them being America's lapdog in their imperialism. America doesn't even adhere to free markets so don't start accusing people who see problems in the free marke as being ideologically opposed to the free markets. America protects its own markets when it can, along with bullying, threatening and stealing as well. I'm not saying other countries don't but you are the one who makes the pretence that America takes the moral high ground. It doesn't. If you analyse the American ideolgy of freedom, what it is about is not freedom of the soul but freedom of the powerful to exploit and steal resources from the weak. I'd get off your moral pedestal, its looking decidedly decrepit. It doesn't so much need a polish as a total reconditioning. Oh and Firm, if America (and Britain for that matter) really did believe in freedom and fighting wars for freedom, they would intervene in Zimbabwe where the opposition won elections and have been denied power. It is known the majority of Zimbabweans would love the west to intervene and free them from the tyrant Mugabe but where is this American love of freedom and its willingness to fight for it? You don't need to reply, we all know the reason, as the Zimbabweans have noted themselves, they have no resources the west wants. I guess that explains the US interventions in Liberia, Bosnia/Kosovo, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, and for that matter... France in 1914. I guess it also explains the US military's involvement in relief efforts for the tsunami a few years back, and the US military's offers of help to the Burmese cyclone victims. Care to spell out the spoils of victory that have accrued to the US taxpayer from all of that? And please explain for us, how this "stealing" of Iraqi oil works exactly. Please -- spell it out. I'd like to know how it is that oil is extracted from the ground in Iraq and then winds up in the hands of evil American corporations who then refine it into gasoline without having paid the Iraqis fair market price for it.

meatcleaver -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/22/2008 11:44:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado One of the most potent tools Mugabe had in mobilizing violence, and forcing the opposition to abandon the stolen election was to accuse them of planning to bring in American and British forces. Duh! Like Saddam wasn't accusin g his opposition of similar? Do me a favour. Oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, its the only rational explanation. (Yeah I know, Bush isn't rational so that argument doesn't wash but the people that are pulling his strings are.)

meatcleaver -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/23/2008 12:33:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pollux I guess that explains the US interventions in Liberia, Bosnia/Kosovo, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, and for that matter... France in 1914. I guess it also explains the US military's involvement in relief efforts for the tsunami a few years back, and the US military's offers of help to the Burmese cyclone victims. Care to spell out the spoils of victory that have accrued to the US taxpayer from all of that? Kosovo was a NATO intervention and because the US is de facto leader of NATO, Britain had to do some hard persuading to get Clinton on side. All NATO countries were involved, even the German Luftwaffe which was in action for the first time since WWII, it wasn't an American operation. Grenada. It was not about freedom, it was an ideological intervention to impose US will against a communist regime. Even Thatcher bitterly berated her buddy Reagan for American bullying on this one and that is something for her to criticize America. Panama. America was more interested in the canal than freedom. Deposing Noreiga was not the USA's first intervention in Panama over the canal. The US has a long history of bullying and intervening in Panama about the canal, start off with Roosevelt in 1904 and work your way to the present day. Haiti. The reason for the intervention was to protect the Americasn Embassy. Again, it is worth looking at the USA's history towards Haiti to get the full picture of repeated US intervention which is one of the reasons for Haiti being a basket case in the first place. Somalia, this one is debatable. The Somalia intervention was most likely an ill-advised assertion of well-meaning liberal internationalism, though there may have been other factors prompting the American decision to intervene as well: perhaps as a rationalization for increased military spending despite the end of the Cold War; an effort to mollify the Islamic world for American overkill in the war against Iraq and the inaction against the massacres of Muslims in Bosnia; and possibly as a preemptive operation against possible Islamic extremists rising out of the chaos. http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2002/0121somalia.htm WWI was not about freedom, it was about power. The USA entered the war when it was all but over but they didn't ernter it on grounds of freedom but because they felt their sovereignty had been violated by the German sinking of the Lusitania. WWII, which was about freedom, the US only entered when they were attacked not because they believed in freedom. By that time the Germans had shot their load and couldn't win in Europe. quote: ORIGINAL: pollux And please explain for us, how this "stealing" of Iraqi oil works exactly. Please -- spell it out. I'd like to know how it is that oil is extracted from the ground in Iraq and then winds up in the hands of evil American corporations who then refine it into gasoline without having paid the Iraqis fair market price for it. Look at the privatisation bill that the US is trying to force the Iraqis to pass through their Parliament and look at the companies lined up for the contracts. Yeah, you guessed it, Bush's mates again. If you read the news or listen to the media you will know that many Iraqi Parliamentarians are seething at thew prospect of this bill being forced through. The motives of the American political establishment are as venal and base as any other power. The American establishment just dress it up for the consumption of the ordinary American as fighting for freedom or civilized values and the rule of law but it ain't, even though many Americans seem more than happy to swallow that line. Hell, just about everyone knows about the oil issue or should, Blair even stuttered and almost choked when he was asked a direct question about it and a further pertinent question punctured his waffle which showed him to be lying on behalf of Bush again. At the end of the day, your political establishment is shafting you as much as all those foreigners.

pollux -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/23/2008 10:26:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: pollux I guess that explains the US interventions in Liberia, Bosnia/Kosovo, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, and for that matter... France in 1914. I guess it also explains the US military's involvement in relief efforts for the tsunami a few years back, and the US military's offers of help to the Burmese cyclone victims. Care to spell out the spoils of victory that have accrued to the US taxpayer from all of that? Kosovo was a NATO intervention and because the US is de facto leader of NATO, Britain had to do some hard persuading to get Clinton on side. All NATO countries were involved, even the German Luftwaffe which was in action for the first time since WWII, it wasn't an American operation. Grenada. It was not about freedom, it was an ideological intervention to impose US will against a communist regime. Even Thatcher bitterly berated her buddy Reagan for American bullying on this one and that is something for her to criticize America. Panama. America was more interested in the canal than freedom. Deposing Noreiga was not the USA's first intervention in Panama over the canal. The US has a long history of bullying and intervening in Panama about the canal, start off with Roosevelt in 1904 and work your way to the present day. Haiti. The reason for the intervention was to protect the Americasn Embassy. Again, it is worth looking at the USA's history towards Haiti to get the full picture of repeated US intervention which is one of the reasons for Haiti being a basket case in the first place. Somalia, this one is debatable. The Somalia intervention was most likely an ill-advised assertion of well-meaning liberal internationalism, though there may have been other factors prompting the American decision to intervene as well: perhaps as a rationalization for increased military spending despite the end of the Cold War; an effort to mollify the Islamic world for American overkill in the war against Iraq and the inaction against the massacres of Muslims in Bosnia; and possibly as a preemptive operation against possible Islamic extremists rising out of the chaos. http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2002/0121somalia.htm WWI was not about freedom, it was about power. The USA entered the war when it was all but over but they didn't ernter it on grounds of freedom but because they felt their sovereignty had been violated by the German sinking of the Lusitania. WWII, which was about freedom, the US only entered when they were attacked not because they believed in freedom. By that time the Germans had shot their load and couldn't win in Europe. quote: ORIGINAL: pollux And please explain for us, how this "stealing" of Iraqi oil works exactly. Please -- spell it out. I'd like to know how it is that oil is extracted from the ground in Iraq and then winds up in the hands of evil American corporations who then refine it into gasoline without having paid the Iraqis fair market price for it. Look at the privatisation bill that the US is trying to force the Iraqis to pass through their Parliament and look at the companies lined up for the contracts. Yeah, you guessed it, Bush's mates again. If you read the news or listen to the media you will know that many Iraqi Parliamentarians are seething at thew prospect of this bill being forced through. The motives of the American political establishment are as venal and base as any other power. The American establishment just dress it up for the consumption of the ordinary American as fighting for freedom or civilized values and the rule of law but it ain't, even though many Americans seem more than happy to swallow that line. So your claim that the US only gets involved in conflicts to steal a weaker country's resources is false. Thanks for agreeing with me. quote: Hell, just about everyone knows about the oil issue or should, Blair even stuttered and almost choked when he was asked a direct question about it and a further pertinent question punctured his waffle which showed him to be lying on behalf of Bush again. Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to explain how this process of "stealing" is occurring. Please... fill us in.

Alumbrado -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/23/2008 3:01:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado One of the most potent tools Mugabe had in mobilizing violence, and forcing the opposition to abandon the stolen election was to accuse them of planning to bring in American and British forces. Duh! Like Saddam wasn't accusin g his opposition of similar? Do me a favour. Oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, its the only rational explanation. (Yeah I know, Bush isn't rational so that argument doesn't wash but the people that are pulling his strings are.) Ahh yes... the US invaded Iraq so that oil would be cheap and plentiful[sm=rofl.gif] And exactly which election did Saddam only get 43% of the vote, so he mobilized his supporters with threats of US intervention to violently oust the winners? Don't strain yourself sticking to facts, you seem to be having such a good time hatemongering with fiction.

farglebargle -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/23/2008 3:31:20 PM)
Lies, Spies and Torture. That's what the US is doing these days.

meatcleaver -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/24/2008 4:16:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pollux So your claim that the US only gets involved in conflicts to steal a weaker country's resources is false. Thanks for agreeing with me. Nice try but you can soft shoe shuffle all you like. I never said it was the only reason the US gets involved in conflicts is to steal resources. I said "exploit and steal", one can exploit people for political ends, its called imperialism which is what contemporary USA is about. If you remember where this exchange started I said the US doesn't invade other countries to fight for freedoms of others. You then asked me to explain several particular conflicts which you implied was the US fighting for freedom which I have. The only stealing you asked me to explain was the US's stealing of Iraqi oil or at least its effort to. You balls up with your implying the US invades other countries to fights for other people's freedom.

meatcleaver -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/24/2008 4:27:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado One of the most potent tools Mugabe had in mobilizing violence, and forcing the opposition to abandon the stolen election was to accuse them of planning to bring in American and British forces. Duh! Like Saddam wasn't accusin g his opposition of similar? Do me a favour. Oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, its the only rational explanation. (Yeah I know, Bush isn't rational so that argument doesn't wash but the people that are pulling his strings are.) Ahh yes... the US invaded Iraq so that oil would be cheap and plentiful[sm=rofl.gif] Yeah, if you remember, according to Bush the war would be over in a couple of weeks and the Iraqis would be laying down palm fronds for the liberating Americans to walk on! Remember?[sm=rofl.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado And exactly which election did Saddam only get 43% of the vote, so he mobilized his supporters with threats of US intervention to violently oust the winners? Don't strain yourself sticking to facts, you seem to be having such a good time hatemongering with fiction. I think you have lost the plot, I'm clueless as to what you are talking about. America made Iraq its business and invaded for its own policy reasons which is illegal under international law and the same reason for the many NAZIs being tried for war crimes at Nuremburg. I doubt if the US was really so concerned about the internal politics of other nations, it would have started with a state that had some of thge world's biggest oil reserves but where it could do some good, not where many of the people hated the US as much as their dictator.

farglebargle -> RE: More Chaos and Death in Iraq (6/24/2008 4:19:44 PM)
Judgment at Nuremberg Ernst Janning: There was a fever over the land. A fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger. We had a democracy, yes, but it was torn by elements within. Above all, there was fear. Fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors, and fear of ourselves. Only when you understand that - can you understand what Hitler meant to us. Because he said to us: 'Lift your heads! Be proud to be German! There are devils among us. Communists, Liberals, Jews, Gypsies! Once these devils will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed.' It was the old, old story of the sacrifical lamb. What about those of us who knew better? We who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country! What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later. Hitler himself will be discarded... sooner or later. The country is in danger. We will march out of the shadows. We will go forward. Forward is the great password. And history tells how well we succeeded, your honor. We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. The very elements of hate and power about Hitler that mesmerized Germany, mesmerized the world! We found ourselves with sudden powerful allies. Things that had been denied to us as a democracy were open to us now. The world said 'go ahead, take it, take it! Take Sudetenland, take the Rhineland - remilitarize it - take all of Austria, take it! And then one day we looked around and found that we were in an even more terrible danger. The ritual began in this courtoom swept over the land like a raging, roaring disease. What was going to be a passing phase had become the way of life...

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.736328E-02