So just how bad is Saddam?

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
I was doing a little research into the history regarding Iraq, Saddam Huisain, and the USA.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html

Apparently we are left with some serious doubt about the official story parroted about by the right. It looks like Saddam is more a patsy then anything else. Either way, the US was heavily involved in the skullduggery against Iran and wasn't too concerned when the atrocities happened.

Maybe we, as a country, need to put these atrocities into their perspective. Iran and Iraq were at war at the USA's behest and backing. We gave Saddam his weapons of mass destruction.

So, if Saddam is just another evil dictator, isn't our country responsible for his actions?

upnorthkyosa
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
769
Location
Land of the Free
The US backed Marcos in the PI until his use wore out, then "Democracy" was allowed to take over.

The US Backed Noriega in CA...until his use wore out. Then we sent in our 'advisers' to overthrow him. (Contra-Gate anyone?)

Sadamn was secretly offered Kuwait before the first Gulf War. He took it. That gave King George I his chance to be the big hero. It's also why the US stopped short and didn't 'finish the job'. It was already done. Result: US big hero in Kuwait. New concessions won for trade. People forget that Iraq was our close friend for years in our fight against Iran. They were our 'proxy'. We provided them with weapons, advise and aid for -years-. We sold him the WMD which have now 'vanished'. Like most proxies though, Sadamn out grew his usefulness, and now King George II has succeeded in adding to the Empire where his predicessor King Bill The Horny failed.

The US does not care about human rights violations. It has enough of it's own at home, and is happy to look the other way if it suits its own purposes. If we did really care, would we be buying billions in sweatshop products and shipping our tech industry to India?
 

OULobo

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
33
Location
Cleveland, OH
Seems like old news. We knew he was initally a US patsy and we gave him most of the weapons he used in his wars and on his own people. My enemy's enemy is my friend theory. We didn't however suggest he gas Kurds or condone and practice torture. If we wanted him in pocket as a stop to Iran, we needed to overlook his behavior. Personally it's not acceptable, but I don't get to make those decisions.
 

OULobo

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
33
Location
Cleveland, OH
Kaith Rustaz said:
now King George II has succeeded in adding to the Empire where his predicessor King Bill The Horny failed.

So the big question is how will King John the Bemedaled handle it.
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
769
Location
Land of the Free
Probably by bringing all the troops home where he can put them to use solidifying his control over the Homeland, in much the same way as Lincoln used troops to protect his position in 1864.

Of course, this would leave many situtations in a major state of instability, leading to invite additional attacks on the Homeland. The question is, after strip searching senior citizens at airports, herding people into "free Speech Zones", and going house-to-house looking for discenters, will they still have enough energy to ward off a few beach landings of Osamas Dumbest?
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
This information has been out there for a long time. I just don't get why people don't care about it. If there were a clearer example of Orwellian doublethink, I can't think of one. My sweetests dreams are those in which the citizens of this country wake up one day and say, "hey, wait a minute!"

upnorthkyosa

PS - the gassing, the mass graves, and secret dirty business deals all date back to the time when Saddam was our friend. The police state, the torture, and the prison camps are more modern yet they date back to those days too. These are inexcusable and it was inexcusable for our country to support/ignore this.
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
I think...

That people who go looking for evil often find it.
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
769
Location
Land of the Free
How bad is Sadamn?

He stiffled discent against his regime.
- So did Bush

He illegally invaded a country under false pretense.
- So did Bush

- He used his military/police against his own people
- Kent State, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.....

He imprisoned people without cause, left them locked up for years without trial or even charges, refused to allow UN or Red Cross access to them.
- See scandles on US handling of prisioners since 9/11

I don't see much differences on the surface.
Yes, there are differences, some very big ones in fact. One only needs to do a brief look at various issues to see a true analysis. But in a society that picks who it votes for (if it uses that right at all) based on how they look, 1 minute soundbytes and an almost complete lack of understanding of the issues, will they look farther? Or will they just change the chanel to this weeks epidode of "Friends" and go back to sleep?


(yup, lots of typos...this keybard sux)
 

RandomPhantom700

Master of Arts
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
1,583
Reaction score
69
Location
Treasure Coast, FL
I'm sure I'll be chastised and called ignorant for not immediately agreeing that the US government is pure evil, but I have a few questions.

He stiffled discent against his regime.
- So did Bush

There are A LOT of people, both in message boards, news programs, published books, and the government, who criticize Bush. What exactly has he done to successfully stiffle such dissent?

He illegally invaded a country under false pretense.
- So did Bush
Congress gave approval for Bush's military actions in Iraq. They were based on false information, but his actions were still legal in that the legislature approved his proposal, correct?

- He used his military/police against his own people
- Kent State, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.....

I don't know about the Kent State or Ruby Ridge incidents, but I have read a book about the Branch Davidian Cult in Waco, written by Koresh' best friend and a former cult member. From what I could tell, it was the cult members who first opened fire on the Bureau members. That's hardly a case of the government using weapons to silence some innocent members of their own people.

Just a few points I want to clear up.
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
769
Location
Land of the Free
RandomPhantom700 said:
I'm sure I'll be chastised and called ignorant for not immediately agreeing that the US government is pure evil, but I have a few questions.
Nope. You are entitled to your view, and I hope you'll share it. Without a contradicting view point, it is hard to keep things in perspective. I believe that the more voices raised, the better we can understand all the sides of an argument, and grow.

There are A LOT of people, both in message boards, news programs, published books, and the government, who criticize Bush. What exactly has he done to successfully stiffle such dissent?
Bush is out of touch with the American people. He is protected from dissenting viewpoints by his handlers who ensure that any conflicting viewpoints are kept out of his view. Now, that may fall under the 'safety' angle, it may be by his choice, it may not be. I don't know. Prior to Bush's administration, I'd believed the entire country was a Free Speech zone. Now, its restricted to select out of the way areas whenever the Emperor is in town.

Congress gave approval for Bush's military actions in Iraq. They were based on false information, but his actions were still legal in that the legislature approved his proposal, correct?
In the panic of the night, congress granted powers to Bush that the founding fathers never intended that position to have. Many of them have expressed concern over their paniced choices, yet none have truely risen to recall those powers. Remember, we are "at war". A war against an invisible foe, who fills the headlines when the polls are low. If Jefferson, Madison and Washington saw us now, they would agree it was illegal, and unconstitutional.

I don't know about the Kent State or Ruby Ridge incidents, but I have read a book about the Branch Davidian Cult in Waco, written by Koresh' best friend and a former cult member. From what I could tell, it was the cult members who first opened fire on the Bureau members. That's hardly a case of the government using weapons to silence some innocent members of their own people.

Just a few points I want to clear up.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/WACO/waco.html
PLEASE NOTE: GRAPHIC IMAGES OF BODIES

http://home.comcast.net/~bborst/who_shot_first.html

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/07/25/waco/
Free Registration Required

http://www.waco-anewrevelation.com/making-waco.html

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/wu07.htm



:asian:
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Nope. You are entitled to your view, and I hope you'll share it. Without a contradicting view point, it is hard to keep things in perspective. I believe that the more voices raised, the better we can understand all the sides of an argument, and grow.

And find better ways to argue against your opponents point of view??? ;)
 

RandomPhantom700

Master of Arts
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
1,583
Reaction score
69
Location
Treasure Coast, FL
Kaith Rustaz said:
Bush is out of touch with the American people. He is protected from dissenting viewpoints by his handlers who ensure that any conflicting viewpoints are kept out of his view. Now, that may fall under the 'safety' angle, it may be by his choice, it may not be. I don't know. Prior to Bush's administration, I'd believed the entire country was a Free Speech zone. Now, its restricted to select out of the way areas whenever the Emperor is in town.
So in other words, it's less of a situation of a regime silencing dissent than one of the president not being receptive to the criticism because of his advisors. All very well, some would say that those two situations are the same because, either way, he doesn't hear the dissent. I say they're different, because voters are hearing it, and will hopefully give him a nice wake-up call in November. I just hope that's not wishful thinking.

In the panic of the night, congress granted powers to Bush that the founding fathers never intended that position to have. Many of them have expressed concern over their paniced choices, yet none have truely risen to recall those powers. Remember, we are "at war". A war against an invisible foe, who fills the headlines when the polls are low. If Jefferson, Madison and Washington saw us now, they would agree it was illegal, and unconstitutional.
Fair enough, though I will point out that there's a lot about the US today that the Founding Fathers wouldn't be too happy with, but which remain legal nonetheless.


Interesting. I will have to hold off replying since I can't locate the book I'd read, and really have no other materials. But I can give reference, to any who are interested. It's titled "Inside the Cult" (creative, huh?), and is written by Marc Breault (the former cult member, and his last name may be spelled wrong here) and Martin King (the Australian journalist who interviewed Koresh at the compound and first reported the truth about what was going on there). I can only say that the picture of Koresh and the cult members painted by these two is very much like what's described by the popular reports--Koresh as a crazed, overzealous egomaniac who maintained a literal harem, constantly bombarded his followers with talk of a war with the rest of the world in God's (i.e. his) name, and was quite the prick, equally zealous cult members who were willing to do WHATEVER Koresh asked, the whole nine yards.
 

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
I dunno, Bob. I'm a little leery of the Waco conspiracy theories floating around after having seen "Waco: The Big Lie", which was simply awful. It was clearly engineered to make one think Clinton was behind the whole thing. The web site you provided gives me the same feeling the Waco film did.

From the tapes I've seen, the ATF wasn't anything other than incompetent. I don't think it was a conspiracy...a screw up, yes...but not a conspiracy.


Regards,


Steve
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
769
Location
Land of the Free
RP700 - I am open to new (for me) info, so any other info on events like that is always gratefully appreciated.

Steve - I think the government did a coverup there, but outside of a 'gut' feeling can't say 100% that they did. I might do some serious research into it later, but I'm neck deep in 1860's economics at the moment so it'll be awhile.

Tom - Of course. :) Only by knowing what my opponent knows and what he does not can I out manuver him. :) (unless I'm on rollerblades, in which case, its all random pratfalls!) :D Seriously, I'm always open to more data and willing to change my position IF the information leads me that way. If an opponent leaves an opening however, I'll exploit it if I can. I sometimes leave holes in my own arguments just to see if anyone pick up on them. ;)
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
Steve: No offense, but that sounded like "Waco couldnt have been the gvt. fault because CLINTON was in office." What would the opinion be if (in an alternate history fantasy) Bush was the president??

Bob: I dont know, call me a cynic (my wife does ;)) but I believe that people are, by far, much more prone to taking opposing viewpoints and working them to fit their world view than they are to changing their opinions.
 

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
Tgace said:
Steve: No offense, but that sounded like "Waco couldnt have been the gvt. fault because CLINTON was in office." What would the opinion be if (in an alternate history fantasy) Bush was the president??

Not at all. I didn't write that. I wrote: "It was clearly engineered to make one think Clinton was behind the whole thing."

I was speaking of the film, "Waco: The Big Lie". This "documentary" attempted to weave a conspiracy theory linking Clinton with the deaths of several of the ATF agents involved, among other things. It was a silly film that catered to people without a lick of sense and a faulty education. Fallacies of reasoning just JUMPED out at me when I watched it. Somehow it managed to make it to cable.

Had Bush been President and the whole thing had come down the same way I still would say the ATF was incompetent. I see your point here...and I do indeed detest Bush and his administration. Yet I think I could be objective and judge Bush fairly were an "alternate history Waco" to occur...not that it would. I can't believe I just bought into an argumentum ad absurdum. Whip me with a swizzle stick.

Bush gives me plenty to work with that ISN'T rooted in conspiracy in any case.

Now, as to a "cover up"...perhaps to cover gross errors that lead to the deaths of those involved. I have a hard time believing theories that the government started the fire intentionally, that certain agents killed were "assassinated" by people working for Clinton or that fire was directed at the agents from a helicopter flying above. The DOJ screwed the pooch on this one...and might have covered that up...but I don't think they were out to murder the inhabitants of Koresh's compound.

I have to use Occam's razor on this one and go with the more likely explanation. In a choice between ineptitude and intrigue...bet on ineptitude. It isn't as interesting, but there is plenty of it.

And I don't believe Clinton had Vince Foster murdered, either...or that George W. Bush is working for a secret cabal of ultra powerful businessmen who run an organization called "The Illuminati" that recruited him through "The Skull and Bones" society.

But I do believe in Sasquatch. He's my neighbor...and he needs to mow his freaking lawn.


Regards,


Steve
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
OK....just checking ;) And you have to admit that some folks will accept some things when one pres is in office but not accept similar behavior from another.

Waco...what it comes down to is that they should have negotiated. Even if it took months like the Freeman siege (Montana?). What was the pressing reason to storm the place? Political concerns overrode good tactical sense. The initial raid, good idea or not is a different story, but once the @#$% hit the fan they should have contained and waited it out.
 

deadhand31

Brown Belt
Founding Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Messages
442
Reaction score
9
Location
The 7th layer of Hell. Wisconsin, to the rest of y
How bad is Saddam? Ummmm... rape rooms? Torture cells? Feeding people into wood chippers? Gassing villages to death? Repressing Shiites and Kurds? Holding elections where there is pretty much one choice that doesn't get their family into any of the above? Does this sound like someone who should really stay in power?

I find it funny, the Iraqi olympic soccer team did better this year than the last few previous years. Could it have been that they didn't have whipping and electrocution awaiting them on their return home?
 

OULobo

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
33
Location
Cleveland, OH
deadhand31 said:
How bad is Saddam? Ummmm... rape rooms? Torture cells? Feeding people into wood chippers? Gassing villages to death? Repressing Shiites and Kurds? Holding elections where there is pretty much one choice that doesn't get their family into any of the above? Does this sound like someone who should really stay in power?

I find it funny, the Iraqi olympic soccer team did better this year than the last few previous years. Could it have been that they didn't have whipping and electrocution awaiting them on their return home?

I believe the question was rhetorically angled to point out that Saddam was probably no worse than other dictators and regimes that are still currently in power.

I was rooting pretty hard for both the Iraqi soccer team and the lone Iraqi boxer. It is good to see people in bad situations still have their hard work pay off.

To the WACO discussion: I don't see any conspiracy and I don't think the fire was intentional, but I do think the Fed. were grossly overzelous in their actions and paid the price. I agree with Tgace in that there was no rush. Let the guys bake in there for a while and let the people watch on TV. To me this was a classic case of the Feds being too anxious to play cowboy with their new toys.
 
Top