Bush gets the Iraqi Boot!

Where were the journalists when Saddam Hussein was murdering his own people?

They didn't have the freedoms to do that under Sadman Hussy. But President Bush gave them those new freedoms by getting rid of ol' Sadman Hussy.

Now, with those new freedoms courtesy of President Bush, the man throws his shoes at the very man who gave him the freedom to voice his discontent. Ironic, ain't it?

Baron Max
 
They didn't have the freedoms to do that under Sadman Hussy. But President Bush gave them those new freedoms by getting rid of ol' Sadman Hussy.

Now, with those new freedoms courtesy of President Bush, the man throws his shoes at the very man who gave him the freedom to voice his discontent. Ironic, ain't it?

Baron Max

Maybe because the man was not grateful for freedom at the cost of hundreds of thousand of iraqi lives and the stability of his country, just maybe some people value stability and livelihood over freedom.
 
Maybe because the man was not grateful for freedom at the cost of hundreds of thousand of iraqi lives and the stability of his country, just maybe some people value stability and livelihood over freedom.

Do you mean how wonderful Iraq was under Sadman Hussy and his brothers? Yeah, that was a great life, wans't it? Iraq was "stable", wasn't it ...and I think that's a good word for it ...everyone was in a stable!

The Iraqi people should be thankful that they can now live in a free society where demonstrations of discontent are possible.

Baron Max
 
You recall that not all of us see the world through Faux Noose lenses.
 
You recall that not all of us see the world through Faux Noose lenses.

Oh? So you think Sadman Hussy's rule over Iraq was good? And that he was right in killing thousands of his fellow Iraqis for various "crimes"?

I'd like to hear your take on that, SAM.

I'd also like to hear your take on the Taliban and their treatment of the women in Afg. Care to comment?

Baron Max
 
Do you mean how wonderful Iraq was under Sadman Hussy and his brothers? Yeah, that was a great life, wans't it? Iraq was "stable", wasn't it ...and I think that's a good word for it ...everyone was in a stable!

The Iraqi people should be thankful that they can now live in a free society where demonstrations of discontent are possible.

Baron Max

Yes they are so thankful they can live freely, with all the bombings and shooting and killing from our forces and rebels and all, they just love that. :rolleyes: Believe it or some people would rather sacrifice freedom so they don't have to be blown up and have a job to go to. Its not that life under Saddam was a good thing its just it was beter then life under the present fuck-up. Face it the american occupation has killed more and done more damage then draconian Saddam and his sadistic sons. Afghanistan is a different story with different problems, if we had focused on finishing that nation instead of jumping into a much bigger mess we might have had that perfect success story neocons had been dreaming about.
 
Yes they are so thankful they can live freely, with all the bombings and shooting and killing from our forces and rebels and all, they just love that.

It's the Iraqis that are killing the Iraqis ....not the Americans!

Face it the american occupation has killed more and done more damage then draconian Saddam and his sadistic sons.

So you think we should have left Sadman and his sons in power in Iraq? You woud wish that on the Iraqis even now? I supposed you would have oppposed us going to war in Europe in the 1940s, huh?

Baron Max
 
Oh? So you think Sadman Hussy's rule over Iraq was good? And that he was right in killing thousands of his fellow Iraqis for various "crimes"?


How did Americans treat their secessionists Baron?

And one additional point which many people miss in the very fine print is that many of "his people" killed by him were Iranians.

I'd also like to hear your take on the Taliban and their treatment of the women in Afg.[/B] Care to comment?

Baron Max

Try to imagine a foreign country paying the Mormons a lot of money and giving them lots of weapons and training. Enough to take over the rest of the country. The Taliban have lived the same life for thousands of years, it never bothered the Afghanis, much like the polygamous Mormons don't bother the Americans. They should just never have replaced Najibullah, but in the power vacuum created in the aftermath of the US-Soviet proxy war and teh factionalism of the PDPA, they were the only ones who had any semblance of law and order.

The Afghanis welcomed them, to get a relief from the violence. They were elected into power. Most people in Afghanistan supported them. And of course, they simply considered the country an extension of their Pashtun tribes and applied the same laws everywhere. Too bad for all the others who did not live in those mountain tribes.

Of course, one does not know what history might have been like if 2 billion dollars of weapons had not been distributed among the tribes, who saw the democratic Najib with his westernised ways as a threat to their traditional society. Some genies cannot be put back in the bottle.
 
Last edited:
It's the Iraqis that are killing the Iraqis ....not the Americans!
Surely most casualties now are because of iraqis fighting iraqis, but Americans did cause large civilian death toll directly, and indirectly we are completely responsible: it was known long before entering this war that getting rid of Saddam would open a power vacuum and cause sectarian violence of huge proportions yet we went in any ways. Saddam kept these people together "with his fist" we come in and say "your free" what did you think they would do?

So you think we should have left Sadman and his sons in power in Iraq? You would wish that on the Iraqis even now? I supposed you would have opposed us going to war in Europe in the 1940s, huh?

If Hitler did not start attacking other countries, yeah maybe. That like asking why we did not get rid of Stalin despite the fact he killed millions of his own people: because Stalin was not threatening as long as he was not trying to take over the world like Hitler.
 
How did Americans treat their secessionists Baron?

They fought a war, SAM, they didn't go around blowing people up at wedding parties or in open, public marketplaces!

The Taliban have lived the same life for thousands of years, it never bothered the Afghanis, ...

So you approved of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan? You approved of their treatement of women?

Most people in Afghanistan supported them.

I think most people in America supported segragation of the blacks. In fact, it took an act of congress and the National Guard to force those changes on the people. So you're now saying that we should have remained a white society segragated from the blacks?

Baron Max
 
Saddam kept these people together "with his fist" we come in and say "your free" what did you think they would do?

Well, it makes perfect sense now ... I see that ....it's so obvious that the Iraqis should begin killing each other, blowing each up with horrific blasts and blowing up wedding parties and marketplaces. Geez, why didn't you explain that earlier. Geez, that's exactly what I'd do if some Sadman Hussy took over the USA ...I'd show him, by damn, I'd go blowing up some of my neighbors and townspeople. Makes perfect sense to me now ...thanks for the enlightenment.

Baron Max
 
They fought a war, SAM, they didn't go around blowing people up at wedding parties or in open, public marketplaces!

Neither did the Taliban. In fact, they had the overwhelming support of the people who were oh so tired of the war.

And as for Saddam, it is said that the Kurds might have been collateral damage, much like the hundreds of thousands who died in the past five years:

According to a suppressed CIA report mentioned in the book The Iran-Iraq War: chaos in a vacuum by former CIA political analyst Stephen Pelletiere, the Iranians did use chemical weapons in the battle around Halabja.

It is certain that the town changed hands during the fighting and in a desperate attempt to fend off the Iranians, the Iraqi commanders ordered the use of mustard gas. There were at least two raids made by low-flying Iraqi aircraft spraying the gas - some Kurds claim there were more.

According to Pelletiere, the CIA report indicates that Kurdish civilians were collateral damage, and were not a deliberate target of Saddam. He also suggests that many deaths were caused by a cyanide-based gas, which was used by the Iranians, and not by the Iraqis.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-journalismwar/article_1049.jsp

And the question comes to mind. The Americans and British knew all this was going on, when it was going on. So why did they do nothing at the time?

The first recorded use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war was in 1982, two years into the conflict. Both sides used them, but Saddam was the first, in response to Iran’s vast manpower that had begun to turn the tide on Iraq’s initial advances.

On more than one occasion, seasoned British foreign correspondents – very much the minority in the press corps - informed the British and American embassies in Baghdad of Saddam’s use of chemical weapons. It was even discovered that some of Saddam’s mustard gas was delivered by British-made artillery shells (although there is no suggestion of British involvement in modifying their use).

British and American diplomats refused to act on anything other than material evidence. They never sought such proof themselves, and knew full well that it was near impossible for we reporters to secure it. One journalist who tried, Farzad Bazoft of The Observer, was caught at Baghdad airport in 1989 with soil samples that would have provided crucial evidence. He was jailed, tortured, forced to sign a confession of being a spy, and executed on 15 March 1990.

Even after the war ended, Saddam continued to use chemical agents to settle scores with the Kurds. Beekeepers on the Turkish side of the border reported the death of their bees as the wind carried a whiff of poison gas that Saddam had sprayed miles away in Kurdistan. But official voices in Washington and London maintained their silence.

Now that Saddam is no longer the favoured ‘son of a bitch’ of Washington and London, the State Department and the Foreign Office make frequent reference to Halabja, trying to convince those of us who reported Saddam’s atrocities long before them, of what a monster the man is. These are some of the same people who tried to discredit us when we first reported his atrocities two decades ago.


So you approved of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan? You approved of their treatement of women?

Not at all. Like all other tribal warlords in the mountains of Afghanistan, their lifestyle was suited only to their inhospitable terrain.


I think most people in America supported segragation of the blacks. In fact, it took an act of congress and the National Guard to force those changes on the people. So you're now saying that we should have remained a white society segragated from the blacks?

Baron Max

Well now that the Americans have interfered twice, once when Najib was in power and now again, when the Taliban is, what is your opinion of the consequences of making the decision for other people? Do you think it might have been so bad if Najib had remained there instead of bringing in the mujahideen? Even Osama was trained and fought with the mujahideen. Perhaps, a 9/11 could have been avoided, not to mention 25 years of war in the country. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Well, it makes perfect sense now ... I see that ....it's so obvious that the Iraqis should begin killing each other, blowing each up with horrific blasts and blowing up wedding parties and marketplaces. Geez, why didn't you explain that earlier. Geez, that's exactly what I'd do if some Sadman Hussy took over the USA ...I'd show him, by damn, I'd go blowing up some of my neighbors and townspeople. Makes perfect sense to me now ...thanks for the enlightenment.

Baron Max

Not a problem, I'm glad you now understand the most people don't think like you or even like Americans in general: that when the opportunity for power presents its self most people will take up arms and kill each other for a chance at the top of the hill, and that the middle class in the cross fire will blame the ones that opened the power vacuum in the first place.
 
You recall that not all of us see the world through Faux Noose lenses.

You would see the world through double standards. If this was an American reporter throwing a show at a Muslim leader, we'd we in the midst of ww3 by now.
 
Earlier, Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said al-Zeidi could face charges of insulting a foreign leader and the Iraqi prime minister, who was standing next to Bush when the shoes were thrown. The offense carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail.[/INDENT]​


Apparently, you can go to jail in Iraq for insulting a foriegn leader. If it were a free country, he would only be charged with assault.​


Why? An American would go to jail under the same punishment if he attacked the Iraqi president...or our own.​
 
Afghan Constitution?

Baron Max said:

I think most people in America supported segragation of the blacks. In fact, it took an act of congress and the National Guard to force those changes on the people. So you're now saying that we should have remained a white society segragated from the blacks?

I can't say I've ever encountered the Taliban's Afghan Constitution. Would you be so kind as to point us to it?
 
Back
Top