Is Saddam Serious with This?

Remove all ads!

Comparing Bush to Saddam is a fascinating intellectual exercise, but it is hardly realistic. Saddam is evil, no question, and you can imagine what he would do if some female protesters were in his streets chanting "we all live in a military state", as I saw people doing in the US on the news last night. There would be acid in the face, torture camps, rapes endorsed by the state, the whole nine yards. America isn't perfect, but they are nothing like Iraq. No one chooses to live in terror or to be gassed. Such moral relativity could be applied to the Jews in WW2 (they choose to live in Central Europe, so they deserve what they get!) but no one with any morals or decency would try to make that connection. The US is doing what they believe to be right; what any thinking, feeling person would consider to be right. 1441 has been violated, of this there is no question. No debate can change that fact. Saddam and his entire regime of terror needs to be eliminated, before he can threaten another sovereign state.

 

if saddam really was so terrible to his own people there would be a copu de etat and saddam would be overthrown by his own millitary, the fact that that doesnt happen seems to suggest that they support saddam, unlike the black slaves who rebelled several times.

"There would be acid in the face, torture camps, rapes endorsed by the state, the whole nine yards"
would there? you dont know this, there is no evidence to support this.

"1441 has been violated, of this there is no question"
explain how iraq has violated 1441, im willing to bet you dont even know, you are just going by the warmongering saber rattling of your leaders.

 

And if Stalin and Hitler were really so bad to their own people, they would have attempted a coup d'etat, and those dictators would have been overthrown.

There is plenty of evidence that Saddam oppresses his own people. Journalists, Iraqi citizens and other people are all evidence of that.

And perhaps you should not judge Bush, Shoshino, seeing as how you are from the UK. After all, don't we Americans live in a different way that than the British?

 

"And if Stalin and Hitler were really so bad to their own people, they would have attempted a coup d'etat, and those dictators would have been overthrown."
there was an attempt at a coup de etat in the soviet union, it failed because stalin really didnt treat his people very badly and for the most part they supported him. hitler was loved by his people and so they didnt want to rebel against him.

"There is plenty of evidence that Saddam oppresses his own people. Journalists, Iraqi citizens and other people are all evidence of that."
you can find journalists who are compareing the US to a millitary state right now, likewise people coming from the US have also said rotten things about it, is it true?

"And perhaps you should not judge Bush, Shoshino, seeing as how you are from the UK. After all, don't we Americans live in a different way that than the British? "
yeah?

 

Sorry, Shoshino, I'm not that stupid. And the acid in the face technique as punishment for women who do not toe the line in Islamic states is well documented. Even the French have admitted that 1441 has been breached -- read a newspaper. Everyone knows that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction -- Saddam's just hidden them too well. The only way we'll get them is to conduct searches on our terms, not Saddam's.

As an aside, your hatred of all things American seems to taint your world view a little too drastically. As I have said before, they are not perfect, or anywhere close, but how can you defend an animal like Saddam? I mean, it's not propoganda that he invaded Kuwait, and it is not propaganda that he fired their oilwell's when he was forced out of Kuwait, causing a disgusting amount of environmental damage in the process. He's gassed his own people, and despite all your rhetoric, Bush has never done that. Does your hatred for America really lead you to believe Saddam is not a threat to his region and to world stanility at large? Should he be allowed to thumb his nose at the world community just because Bush isn't perfect?

 

Shoshino:

Well, then, there would be a failed coup. The only reason there is not a coup is because Saddam has outlawed all parties except for his own, the Ba'ath party, so there is no solid political or military (Saddam has the Republican Guard, his elite soldiers, who are treated very well in comparison with the standard military) resistance against him.

Journalists might be comparing the U.S. to a military state. Sure. Nothing wrong with that. But that's a guy's opinion; right now, the U.S. is structured nowhere near Hitler's or Mussolini's government. On the other hand, journalists and plenty of other people have shown proof can show the kinds of things Saddam has done to his people. Most articles agree with that Saddam has used chemical weapons on the Kurds and maintains a secret police to ferret out dissenters.

On the third comment, you told me not to judge Saddam because he lives in a different country (and thus, culture) than I do. Then you shouldn't be judging Bush because he lives in a different country (and to some extent, culture), than you do.

 

i dont hate america, just the bush administration, and regardless to that im supporting saddam in this because as a member of her magesties armed forces ive seen no evidence to support that he has weapons of mass destruction and plenty of evidence to support that he hasnt.

"Everyone knows that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction "
'had' weapons of mass destruction, and we know this because america gave them to him, with the understanding that he would use them on his and their enemy (iran) which he did and as part of that deal he got to keep them afterwards and use them for his own ventures.

"The only way we'll get them is to conduct searches on our terms, not Saddam's."
the searches are carried out by the terms of the UN, saddam has no say in where the inspectors go or what they look at.

"and it is not propaganda that he fired their oilwell's when he was forced out of Kuwait, "
if i was at war and about to be forced out of a territory, i would destroy every bridge, millitary base, farm, oil well or anything which would help my enemies get dug in, likewise so would america and america has in the past ~coughs~vietnam~coughs~ left a trail of destruction behind them when they left. it is basic millitary tactics, the weaker the foe is, the easier they will be to invade the next time.

"He's gassed his own people, and despite all your rhetoric, Bush has never done that"
so he's gassed his own people.... america iradiated its own people with nuclear tests.

"Bush has never done that. Does your hatred for America really lead you to believe Saddam is not a threat to his region and to world stanility at large"
saddam is not a threat because he knows that the instant he did something the international community would blow him back to the stone age, its not america's position to decide who a threat is and destroy them before hand, saddam is a smart man, he knows that the instant he put a foot in the wrong direction the UN would take him out, thie policy of preemption is actually illegal.

*****

"Well, then, there would be a failed coup"
we dont know, its never been tried, has it crossed your mind that maybe his people support him?

"On the other hand, journalists and plenty of other people have shown proof can show the kinds of things Saddam has done to his people"
evidence in a newspaper is irrelivent, it is a secondary source and so inadmissable, only primary evidence is acceptable.

"Then you shouldn't be judging Bush because he lives in a different country (and to some extent, culture), than you do"
i can judge bush if i think he's going to cause ww3. his actions effect my life and the well being of my country, saddams actions dont effect anything because he doesnt have the resources to have enough of an impact.

[ February 27, 2003, 21:37: Message edited by: Shoshino ]

 

Depaara, think about it this way:

"Does your hatred for America really lead you to believe Saddam is not a threat to his region and to world stability at large?"

Saddam has never threated to fire missiles or start open combat against any western nation. Frankly, he doesn't have the guts to, because, although he's a cruel man, he still has enough brain cells to realize that he'd be ashes in a few moments after. Therefore, Saddam is NOT at all a threat to world stability. Why would he be? And don't say "Because he supports the terrorists". It has not been proven.

The next line is probably what Shoshino is trying to say-> Frankly, why would it be any business of the US to care about the area? Most people dislike he US playing "world police", especially since it plays alone, by it's own rules. And no, I don't support the "oil theory" as a reason to invade.

Again, I'm not supporting Saddam, nor am I a USA-hateboy. I'm not particularly pleased with how Shoshino states his claim. I just felt the urge to add some of my thoughts to the discussion.

 

In the last election, 97% of the Iraqi people voted to keep him in his seventh (I think ) term. Surely people support him. Surely people like him. 97% of the people? Uh-uh.

What I am posting is a secondary source. What you are posting is also a secondary source. Why don't I simply not believe anything you say and go off in my own world? But it is safe to say that The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. are safe sources. Likewise, what most of the (well-informed/educated) people say here are likely true (or at least skewed versions of the truth). I trust what the press tells me. It may be biased. It may be written by a guy with differing political views than me. But at the end of the day, they are conveying information that I otherwise couldn't get. I can't fly to Iraq and ask Saddam if he has nukes. So I think I'll just believe the journalist (who did).

Saddam is the dictator of a nation who has access to huge reserves of oil. Since you're using a computer, and probably use a car (or get rides from soneone), Saddam affects you. He exports oil. And oil makes the world go 'round, 'til we run out of it.

I think Iraq does not deserve to be invaded. I think Saddam deserves to get ousted. I don't like the idea of war. And I don't support it. But I'm trying to make the point that Saddam is not the best leader Iraq can have, and that if Bush doesn't like Saddam, and feels that he is a threat, then I have no problem with him taking action.

 

Iraq HAS fired missiles at Israel, during the first gulf war. Saddam is more than willing to attack any of his neighbours if he thinks he can get away with it. As for WMD, Even Blix has admitted that they have no way of knowing for certain -- he has stated that the Iraqis are non-compliant.

As for Saddam not having a say in the inspections, then what was he doing when he expelled the inspectors? According to the UN resolutions, he had no right to do that, but when he did, instead of dealing with him, the "peace at any cost" doves let him get away with it. What do you think he was doing? Hanging out his underwear, and he was embarassed by the polka dots?

No one believed that the Germans had done the things they did until the Germans were conquered. The doves learned that their pacifism and "Peace in Our Time" had horrible consequences for the people who fell to the Nazis. So I concede that arguing with peoople with their heads in the sand is pointless. I find it hard to believe that the land that produced a man as courageous and brave in the face of evil as Winston Churchill could produce someone as willing to blink at evil as you, Shoshino.

 

"What I am posting is a secondary source. What you are posting is also a secondary source"
what am i posting thats a secondary source?

"I trust what the press tells me"
hyperdermic needle model... if you dont know what that is, look it up

"Saddam is the dictator of a nation who has access to huge reserves of oil. Since you're using a computer, and probably use a car (or get rides from soneone), Saddam affects you. He exports oil. And oil makes the world go 'round, 'til we run out of it."
this just backs my argument, we all know that saddam has reserves of oil, and we all know that the US wants it.

"But I'm trying to make the point that Saddam is not the best leader Iraq can have"
and bush is not the best leader america can have, it not our position to decide who is right to rule what.

"Saddam is more than willing to attack any of his neighbours if he thinks he can get away with it"
saddam could have easily got away with firing missiles at any of his neighbours over the past 12 years, and he hasnt.

"As for Saddam not having a say in the inspections, then what was he doing when he expelled the inspectors? According to the UN resolutions, he had no right to do that, but when he did, instead of dealing with him, the "peace at any cost" doves let him get away with it. What do you think he was doing? Hanging out his underwear, and he was embarassed by the polka dots?"
saddam expelled the inspectors because it was proven that US spies were among them, and that doesnt coencide with UN requirements.

winston churchill killed more people then hitler killed, destroying a city of innocent people (50000) in one night because his bombers 'could' do it.
i dont blink to evil, but i do not agree with bush's description of evil.

 

Well, for one thing, you are telling me that there was a coup against Stalin. So unless you were there, I shouldn't trust you because it was a secondary source. Furthermore, if you said you were there, I have no way of knowing. So why would I trust a person on the internet?

If you are making the argument that the war is about oil, I concede to that. I feel that the war also involves Saddam being a bad leader. But the whole origin, I believe, of this debate was comparing Bush and Saddam. Oil is certainly a factor in this situation, I won't deny that.

The American people, using the traditional electoral college system, elected Bush. Saddam has kept himself in power. Sure, you might say that last year, there were elections. But 97% of the votes were in his favor. I certainly think that Saddam pulled a few strings.

In the past twelve years, if Saddam used missiles against another country, he would get invaded. If he were cornered, and knew he had no chance of victory, it is likely he would use missiles. In the Gulf War, he tied U.S. civilians to his tanks.

Between Churchill and Hitler, which what this argument has apparently stagnated into, Hitler started a mass murder that killed 12 million people. That pales, and that very much pales, with the bombing of Dresden and other German cities.

[ February 28, 2003, 03:29: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

 

"Furthermore, if you said you were there, I have no way of knowing. So why would I trust a person on the internet?"
i read millitary reports on the fact, htey are primary intelligence, and furthermore, i dont give a crap whether you believe me or not, i wont lose any sleep over it.

"Furthermore, if you said you were there, I have no way of knowing. So why would I trust a person on the internet?"
bush is quite capable of causing a world war, saddam doesnt have the capability to cause a war.

"In the past twelve years, if Saddam used missiles against another country, he would get invaded"
exactly, and its the same for the future, saddam cant do anything without international intervention, it will always be this way and so there is no need for an invasion.

"In the Gulf War, he tied U.S. civilians to his tanks."
~laughs~ where did you get this bull**** from?

"Hitler started a mass murder that killed 12 million people"
someone likes overexaggerating numbers.

 

Military reports. Which you read. And then are telling me. Which is a secondary source. If you aren't willing to believe the paper because it is a secondary source, then there is no reason anyone should listen to anything you say.

Saddam has the ability to cause a war. He invaded Kuwait. It started what was known as the Gulf War.

I never said anything contradicting your stance on war. I too oppose war. The entire point is that Saddam is a person who would do bad things if he had the chance. The chance.

And where did I find out that stuff about Hussein and Hitler? Secondary sources.

 

"Military reports. Which you read. And then are telling me. Which is a secondary source. If you aren't willing to believe the paper because it is a secondary source, then there is no reason anyone should listen to anything you say."
not true, a primary source, is a source of information which is written by a person who personally experienced/witnessed that evidence, a secondary source is written by someone who is writing about someone who witnessed that evidence, millitary reports are primary evidence.

"Saddam has the ability to cause a war. He invaded Kuwait. It started what was known as the Gulf War"
saddam does not have the capability to war these days, because he doesnt have the manpower or the arms to fight such a war.

"The entire point is that Saddam is a person who would do bad things if he had the chance. The chance."
saddam has had the chance for 12 years and not done anything.

[ February 28, 2003, 14:45: Message edited by: Shoshino ]

 

Okay, we've all agreed that Saddam is no Mr. Rogers. God bless his soul. But claiming that the US is invading Iraq for this reason alone is a half-truth. One of the reasons the US is willing to go to war is beacuse it can. I'm not saying it's an arbitrary decision but I think that people who support Bush should first admit that there is a double standard. To get a better idea of what I'm saying, see my thread in this link: War on Iraq

 

Many, if not most, journalistic reports are also primary evidence. And don't try to tell me that journalists are subjective, but the military is objective.

 

And thusly whatever you are posting is a secondary source.

Frankly, Shoshino, I don't want to discuss it any further. The arguing is proving rather fruitless, and I'd rather simply agree to disagree with you.

 

if your not in the millitary then i wont debate millitary with you, because you simply dont understand.

journalisnm isnt about truth, its about popularity, they are very different things.

 

ok stop think
War = deaths = bad = who declare the incoming war .... bush = bad.!!
stupid and simple...
sorry for my english....