Saddam Arrested

[Legion]

Legion, i know you think non-US citizens have a lower IQ, but i thought it was OBVIOUS that my "everyone" meant "every country with a dictator".
Of course i don't think every country is a dictatorship. Jesus...

London, how can you make a statement like this and end it with "JESUS" as a sigh of frustration? You are causing your own agitation by your consistant act of taking me out of context.

Your assertion i think less of non US citizens is both mindless and completely unsupported. Stop engineering this bullshit in order to feel as though you have a valid reason to attack me.

If you'd like i could associate your emotional over expression with your wantingness to play the role of the female in homosexual relationships do to you lack of real masculine identity. But i will refrain.

Let me recap,
In you view, if Saddam was there as long as he was, then it's the UN fault.

Holy shit! Did i not say i blame neither the US nor the UN for allowing his people to die? Did i not associate the US with this as well? I simply realize in hindsight if we had removed him in the first iraq war more people could be alive today.

Of course the fact that the US (and not only them, to be fair) financed his goverment over the years doesn't matter.

How exactly did the US finance him over years London? If you are refering to the Food for Oil Act I'd rephrase your comment to:

Of course the fact that France and Russia (and not only them, to be fair) financed his goverment over the years doesn't matter.

The fact that when the US decided to do something about it more than 10 years ago then suddenly retreated and left him in his place doesn't matter.

Oh it does matter. They left him in power and shouldn't. Leaving more than 12 years of diplomatic sanctions which did nothing to remove him. I wonder to day what the cause for this decision was.

Any nation in Europe at this time could have removed this man. Where were they?

The fact that he was there as long as he was, because it was in the interest of many countries (including the US) doesn't matter.

How would keeping him in place have been a benefit to the US? We could have seized their oil then if that were what we were after then and inserted a puppet government.

The fact that in a moment of economic regression of the US, suddenly they become interested in the world's dictators who coincidentally live in extremely oil-rich countries, is just that, a coincidence.

As well as the attack on American soil during 9/11! Do you not see that as a possible cause?! For Christ sake if we wanted his oil we could have releaved sanctions on him rather than start another costly war London. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

If Saddam was there as long as he was, its because it was in the interest of many countries (including the US) that he would remain there.

Possibly another valid reason diplomacy doesn't seem to work well with dictators.

I strongly believe that one of, if not the main reason why pretty much every country opposed action on Iraq, was because they had something to lose with the fall of Saddam.

Like what? We could easily have replaced him with a puppet. What would we have lost?

I'm not talking about the people, who generally opposed war because they genuinly think bombing civilians is wring.

London no one was trying to bomb civilians. They are soft targets and not the way to get at Saddam. If you want to hit a dictator you need to target his infrastructure.

I'm talking about the goverments around the world.
Governemts are like firms in my opinion. And firms have only one objective: maximise profits. And it's clear that there was a lot of money around Iraq like there is around the whole middle east. That is why it is so difficult to reach a conclusion to those issues. Money and religion.
The 2 evil doers of this world. Money and Religion.

Sounds like your a grand follower of Palast.

But that's my very conspiracy-theory-view of the world...

Interesting...if this is how you see the world why would you think diplomacy would ever work in any situation with a dictator? Ultimately all countries involved would be so for their own interests.

 

[Legion]

A preemptive strike on me accussing you of taking me out of context. Wow you have all your grounds covered.

Well i DID work in a Law Firm for two years after all

now now Janitorial duties ought not apply.

 

[London Geezer]

London, how can you make a statement like this and end it with "JESUS" as a sigh of frustration? You are causing your own agitation by your consistant act of taking me out of context.

Your assertion i think less of non US citizens is both mindless and completely unsupported. Stop engineering this bullshit in order to feel as though you have a valid reason to attack me.

If you'd like i could associate your emotional over expression with your wantingness to play the role of the female in homosexual relationships do to you lack of real masculine identity. But i will refrain.

Leg, u CAN say "drama queen" on these boards. I wont be offended
Still, can't u see the sarcasm i put in pretty much a word out of 3? I mean, i don't usually see your sarcasm, so i guess it goes both ways... :|

How exactly did the US finance him over years London? If you are refering to the Food for Oil Act I'd rephrase your comment to:

Of course the fact that France and Russia (and not only them, to be fair) financed his goverment over the years doesn't matter.

That is the same thing i said. US+others=France+Russia+others.

Oh it does matter. They left him in power and shouldn't. Leaving more than 12 years of diplomatic sanctions which did nothing to remove him. I wonder to day what the cause for this decision was.

Yep, although i have an idea.

Any nation in Europe at this time could have removed this man. Where were they?

They probably couldn't afford 100,000 troops being dispatched at a snap of a finger maybe? [sarcasm] (<= from now on i'll specify when i'm being sarcastic, i thought the rolleys were meant for that purpose, oh well)

How would keeping him in place have been a benefit to the US?

Don't ask me. Still, as you said, there must be a reason why the US retreated and Saddam was left there for all those years, don't you think?

As well as the attack on American soil during 9/11! Do you not see that as a possible cause?! For Christ sake if we wanted his oil we could have releaved sanctions on him rather than start another costly war London. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

[sarcasm] Yeah alright, you read the first chapter of Introduction to Economics (which coincidentally includes opportunity costs and correlation+causation)...

London no one was trying to bomb civilians. They are soft targets and not the way to get at Saddam. If you want to hit a dictator you need to target his infrastructure.

Nice... So, if your whole family was killed by a bomb, and a foreign soldier came to you and went "Oh i'm sorry, they were soft targets, we didn't mean to, i'm really really sorry!!", what do u say then?

Sounds like your a grand follower of Palast.

Never heard. Whos that? Actually yes, i have heard, but i have no idea who he is.

Interesting...if this is how you see the world why would you think diplomacy would ever work in any situation with a dictator? Ultimately all countries involved would be so for their own interests.

Yes, of course every country tries to work its web around the best way to make the most money out of other countries. It's the bombing that gets to me. I guess it's all about not doing what i wouldn't want to be done to me or my family and friends.

 

[CorwinB]

As well as the attack on American soil during 9/11! Do you not see that as a possible cause?!

I suppose you have documented evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 ? Because it may interest every intelligence analyst in the world if you have. I really wish Bush and his various cheerleaders would stop brandishing 9/11 as the explanation to everything... Just admit it and steal the bloody oil.

Like what? We could easily have replaced him with a puppet.

Yep, a viceroy like Bremmer is so much better than a puppet (*cough* Chalabi *cough*)...

 

[RussSchultz]

Are we in agreement that the US, in the eyes of the majority of the world, does not maintain its 'we are the good guys' country these days? I would hope you would say yes.

Literally, yes, you are correct. The US has a poor image around the world.

I think its unfairly given, though. The arab world view, for example, is horribly skewed by the Israel/Palestinian question. It infects everything. So much that the Iraq question somehow gets swallowed up in it(the US invaded Iraq to help protect its Zionist masters!? C'mon, the oil reasoning is better).

The Europeans are all in a twist about Bush, from what I can tell.

you blindly follow, taking what your ruler says at face value and do not listen to logic or history (proven facts).

Well, no. The US has had a long history of self introspection and internal dissent when it comes to many political topics throughout history.

But perhaps you're just projecting your own culture's failings on the US? It seems the imams, ayotollahs and muftis, like the pope prior to the reformation, hold near absolute sway of public opinion.

 

[Legion]

Leg, u CAN say "drama queen" on these boards. I wont be offended
Still, can't u see the sarcasm i put in pretty much a word out of 3? I mean, i don't usually see your sarcasm, so i guess it goes both ways... :|

What sarcasm would that be? You asserted i feel everyone outside of the US is of lower intelligence. Nonsense. Its clear you were over exaggerating however the basis of the comment is insulting whether or not it were sarcastic. If i didn't quite grasp your sarcasm i can still state at least i have enough common sense not to extrapolate a completely ludicrous argument as you have.

That is the same thing i said. US+others=France+Russia+others.

You seemed to be implying the US takes the lead. Rather it was France and Russia who benefited monitarily more then the US.

Yep, although i have an idea.

You mean you have a conspiracry theory...oh yeah...same thing.

They probably couldn't afford 100,000 troops being dispatched at a snap of a finger maybe? [sarcasm] (<= from now on i'll specify when i'm being sarcastic, i thought the rolleys were meant for that purpose, oh well)

Oh come on. You don't think Germany, France, England, etc could afford it? Your nations are hardly as poor as you are making them out to be. Sarcastic or not. Its a rather foolish implication.

Don't ask me. Still, as you said, there must be a reason why the US retreated and Saddam was left there for all those years, don't you think?

Why shouldn't i ask you? you made the assertion. What is your reasoning for it.

I stated there was a reason for not persuing him. I'd imagine it may have been something to do with policies on assinating leaders of other countries.

[sarcasm] Yeah alright, you read the first chapter of Introduction to Economics (which coincidentally includes opportunity costs and correlation+causation)...

Its funny that you seem to know opportunity cost is in the first chapter but you lack a basic understanding of it...

How does is this at all a response to:

As well as the attack on American soil during 9/11! Do you not see that as a possible cause?! For Christ sake if we wanted his oil we could have releaved sanctions on him rather than start another costly war London. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Nice... So, if your whole family was killed by a bomb, and a foreign soldier came to you and went "Oh i'm sorry, they were soft targets, we didn't mean to, i'm really really sorry!!", what do u say then?

Your use of emotional rhetoric makes me believe logic is foreign to your reasoning.

Perhaps now would be the good time to mention your homosexual/female identity as a possibly explanation for your rampant female esque tantrums.

Never heard. Whos that? Actually yes, i have heard, but i have no idea who he is.

Greg Palast? Perhaps i am misspelling his name. I'll go look....

Yes, of course every country tries to work its web around the best way to make the most money out of other countries. It's the bombing that gets to me.

Really? And not the subsidizing/condoning of a tyrant? Interesting.

 

[RussSchultz]

most countries except the good Ol' US of A, honoring treaties to allies generally counts as "having to".

And what treaty has the US not honored?

 

[Legion]

I suppose you have documented evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 Because it may interest every intelligence analyst in the world if you have. I really wish Bush and his various cheerleaders would stop brandishing 9/11 as the explanation to everything...

It think its pretty obvious Saddam had been supporting terrorist organisations for a very long time.

Just admit it and steal the bloody oil.

And why didn't we take it in the first gulf war? We had the chance. WHy would we have waited and enacted sanctions that restricted our trade with them?

 

[London Geezer]

Legion... Talk to the hand... Sorry couldn't resist.

Look, i'm tired of typing. Somehow you think your "reasoning" (if that's what you call it) is more logical than my reasoning. I don't. we're not going to change our minds over this, so forget it, i need to do some work... Talk later, or maybe i'll reply when someone brings up some valid points that go over semantics, and surely i'm not going to reply to someone who keeps saying that my arguments are driven by some kind of "homosexual/female hormones". Come on, the nationalist card fits better than that...

 

[Legion]

Legion... Talk to the hand... Sorry couldn't resist.

Other rather your wall of invincible ignorance?

Look, i'm tired of typing. Somehow you think your "reasoning" (if that's what you call it) is more logical than my reasoning. I don't.

Great for you. I believe we should look at issues on a case to case basis and you feel my position is wrong. You've taken me out of context so i hardly have an idea what you think i meant.

we're not going to change our minds over this, so forget it, i need to do some work...

Come on, the nationalist card fits better than that...

and nationalism has nothing to do with why you argued with Byteme?

 

[CorwinB]

/

most countries except the good Ol' US of A, honoring treaties to allies generally counts as "having to".

And what treaty has the US not honored?

Kyoto, Anti Ballistic Missiles treaty, Landmine treaty... The list goes on.

On economic matters, what about the due payments to UN ?

It think its pretty obvious Saddam had been supporting terrorist organisations for a very long time.

Now, that's some proof. Comes directly from Fox News ? Even with all the spinning done by the Office of Special Plans, no evidence at all could be gathered to link Hussein to terrorism, let alone Al Quaida or 9/11. But then again, we should not let facts go into the way of some good ol'fashioned ass-wooping...

And why didn't we take it in the first gulf war? We had the chance. WHy would we have waited and enacted sanctions that restricted our trade with them?

Perhaps because 1st President Bush was a believer in multilateralism, and understood the limited mandate he got from UN ? Perhaps because the PNAC had not been designed by then ?[/url]

 

[Legion]

Now, that's some proof. Comes directly from Fox News ?

Actually from history. He did infact help train Hamas troops and actively condone terrorism within his country. I don't think we really need to get into the pay offs to the family of terror bombers.

Even with all the spinning done by the Office of Special Plans, no evidence at all could be gathered to link Hussein to terrorism, let alone Al Quaida or 9/11.

Really now? Where did you hear this? Greg Palast or other Indy media groups?

But then again, we should not let facts go into the way of some good ol'fashioned ass-wooping...

Of course not. We shouldn't let the facts get in the way of condoning the existance of Saddam, the great arab leader that he was. Like an arab santa claus he was. THis war had no valid reason! It was all for oil.

I can see how dodging the facts helps your grasp on the situation.

 

[London Geezer]

Other rather your wall of invincible ignorance?

MY ignorance? :|

Great for you. I believe we should look at issues on a case to case basis and you feel my position is wrong. You've taken me out of context so i hardly have an idea what you think i meant.

I quoted you once, not out of context, the statement you made was very much self-explanatory, and we also discussed about it. Enough already!

and nationalism has nothing to do with why you argued with Byteme?

Argued? Maybe i suffer from amnesia, but all i said was a SARCASTIC "I hope they find oil in Zimbabwe, so maybe the USA will do something about that one too" or something along those lines.

Laters

 

[CorwinB]

Of course not. We shouldn't let the facts get in the way of condoning the existance of Saddam, the great arab leader that he was. Like an arab santa claus he was. THis war had no valid reason! It was all for oil.

Of course, everyone opposed to war is a supporter of Saddam. Kind of goes well with the "You are with us or with the terrorists" rethoric of GWB, but completely beside the point. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator put in place by the CIA that later became inconvenient... Just like that other former CIA-puppet, Osama Bin Laden.

I can see how dodging the facts helps your grasp on the situation.

M. Pot, I would like to introduce you to M. Kettle.

Speaking of dodging the facts, where are the supposed WMDs and the Al Quaida connection ? You know, the WMDs of which the US government possessed a very comprehensive list, and that failed to materialize since it ilegally invaded Iraq ?

Look here for some quotes...

 

[nelg]

o.b.

Since you are here, perhaps, you could provide me (us?) with a first hand discription of what thing are like in Saudi Arabia. In a previous hread I wrote...

That's not the impression that I have been given by someone who had lived there. I 'm not suggesting that it is like the west but I would usually save descriptions like "The vast majority of the nation live in squalor" to nations such as Afghanastan. OTOH I will say that I have no first hand knowledge of life in Saudi Arabia so ,yes , the GDP could be skewed by distrubution.

Thanks.

 

[Legion]

MY ignorance? :|

You take me out of context and you imply you are informed?

I quoted you once, not out of context, the statement you made was very much self-explanatory, and we also discussed about it. Enough already!

Actually you quoted me several times out of context to attempt at substantiating i believe we should go around attacking everyone and to validate your belief i feel all negotiations with all contries are useless.

Argued?

does retort better fit?

Maybe i suffer from amnesia, but all i said was a SARCASTIC "I hope they find oil in Zimbabwe, so maybe the USA will do something about that one too" or something along those lines.

sar·casm ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm)
n.
A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.


Sarcasm doesn't take away from the implications of your speach. You implied the US' only concern would be oil. Futhermore its rather absurd to Suggest Robert Mugabe is a tyrannical dictator. I took this to be a sarcastic comment to which i replied sarcastically requesting what it would take for Europe to get involved.

 

[Legion]

Of course, everyone opposed to war is a supporter of Saddam.

as everyone who supports the war is out for oil....

Kind of goes well with the "You are with us or with the terrorists" rethoric of GWB,

You implying the same so i ought to think it works well for the opposition.

I hardly think thats what GWB was implying. You are more than likely taking him out of context after reading some INdy media rendition of what he said.

His implications were more along the lines if you allow for terrorism to exist in your nation and actively support it you are our enemy. What else would he be suggesting?

but completely beside the point. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator put in place by the CIA that later became inconvenient

Bullshit. Prove the CIA put him into power. He was a military leader put into power by supportors from his own people.

... Just like that other former CIA-puppet, Osama Bin Laden.

To hell with your assertions! Provide evidence!

God damn The CIA is the indy media's Illuminati/Masons of the late 20th century

M. Pot, I would like to introduce you to M. Kettle.

I think they met in your last response.

Speaking of dodging the facts, where are the supposed WMDs and the Al Quaida connection?

There are any possibly explanations as to what happened to the WMD or whether they ever existed.

As far as AL quaida is concerned you'll have to show me where it was suggested they were linked.

You know, the WMDs of which the US government possessed a very comprehensive list, and that failed to materialize since it ilegally invaded Iraq ?

It legally invaded Iraq. Iraq had been in violation of various resolutions of the UN security council for some time.

Any of those WMDs could have been destroyed or moved in the time provided to Saddam before the war. I imagine we'll have a lot to learn from Saddam about this.

 

[Clashman]

Beats waiting until Pearl Harbor, I'd say...

Was it really the US' war before then?

In fact it was. However, a few too many of our business leaders were fighting on the other side. Including the grandfather of a certain current president of the United States.

 

[Legion]

In fact it was.

Oh, how so? Because you assume Hitler would eventually try to take over the world?

However, a few too many of our business leaders were fighting on the other side.

You mean to say they sold them products the Nazi's purchased. Their choice.

Can you see any reason at the time they shouldn't have done this?

Including the grandfather of a certain current president of the United States.

How was he "fighting" for the other side?

 

[CorwinB]

As far as AL quaida is concerned you'll have to show me where it was suggested they were linked.

http://lunaville.com/wmd/ALQ_UGGAB.aspx

I don't think I need to demonstrate your hypocrisy further on this point...

It legally invaded Iraq. Iraq had been in violation of various resolutions of the UN security council for some time.

When will the US invade Israel, who has been in violation of Security Council resolutions since 1967 ?