[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Please answer THIS question before we try 'predicting the weather' in those other areas. "dcmacdaddy, what would be happening in Iraq now if we had followed your scenario?"

Then, once you've answered the original question we might address the subject of the logic of your arguments.

You're being obtuse. He gave you an answer, if you wanted him to expand on the answer just say so, but don't accuse him of not answering the question when you quoted the answer in your accusation.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Saddam would still be in power abusing his own people (definitely).

So can we now move on to "address the subject of the logic of [his] arguments"?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

You're being obtuse. He gave you an answer, if you wanted him to expand on the answer just say so, but don't accuse him of not answering the question when you quoted the answer in your accusation.

So can we now move on to "address the subject of the logic of [his] arguments"?

By the way there's little logic there, but I digress...

The larger issue at hand seems to evade you akcrab. dcmacdaddy is in effect saying that we'd be better off having not invaded Iraq.

I asked him "what would be happening in Iraq now if we had followed your scenario?"

He responded, "Saddam would still be in power abusing his own people (definitely)..."

His toss away response is THE POINT here.

As you have joined this discussion I will address you in your post replies and he in his.

In your limited point of view (his as well!) it seems Saddam's only consequence worth mentioning in any possible matters having to do with our invading Iraq/the Middle East/WMD's/Arabs/Muslims/Israel/Palestine/Afghanistan/WoT/OBL/9/11, is merely that Saddam was a head of state who abused his own people.

From there dcmacdaddy went on to every other issue.

I listed some of Saddam's other troubling actions as examples of why Pres. Bush and ANY reasonable leader would have to take Iraq into consideration in a WoT. AKcrab, you have invested too many keystrokes to the assertion that Saddam was not worth the trouble of an invasion. All we need do is look at Saddam's past behavior for a clue to what he would continue to do or try to do if nothing was done to prevent it/them/him.

Any psychology student would tell you past behavior is a key to understanding and predicting a person's future behavior.

You and dcmacdaddy are willing to stagger about blindly in the face of accepted psychological principle, waving a pathetic argument that is so shot with holes that no one takes the trouble of seriously challenging you on it.

A leopard can't change it's spots. Saddam was a loose cannon in search of ammo and a target within his range BEFORE the Gulf War, AFTER the Gulf War, WITH sanctions and WITHOUT sanctions, BEFORE and AFTER 9/11!!!

If we hadn't invaded Iraq Saddam would have continued his demonstrated past behavior but the difference would be that we'd be in HIS backyard (Afghanistan) and distracted by the intense focus on hunting down OBL.

An unchecked Saddam would have issued a call to all his creepy followers (and before you try to deny the existence of THOSE fellows here's a head's up: they're the ones we see blowing themselves up in Iraq today) and sent them on missions (paid for in part by oil for food dollars) to attack the US forces in Afghanistan.

And then, with Saddam's payments to the muslim Palestinian bombers fresh in his mind, OBL would be open to joining forces with a REAL leader of state to increase the attacks on the US...someone with a real following and resources and power and influence and contacts and diplomatic standing, rather than a ragtag (but effective) Taliban and now, Zarqawi.

By the way, if Zarqawi is able to give us such trouble AKcrab, do you REALLY think a predatory Saddam would have been an easier foe?

Do you really want us to believe that YOU believe Saddam would just play naughty with his OWN people when there are the HATED AMERICANS, so vulnerable and so tantalizingly near by to plot against and use to increase his own standing and influence in the M.E and use as a lever to start THE MOTHER OF ALL WARS (holy or not) and to simply attack in any number of ways (he is a proven sadist who gets off on killing and plotting the killing and suffering of others)?

Or is it that you just want everyone to believe the implausible scenario you've invested so much of your political capital into for so long because you can't stand the possibility that you'd have to go off in search of a new implausible idea to advance?

The invasion was justified and now, let's put the question to YOU!

AKcrab, what would be happening in Iraq now if we had followed your scenario?

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The invasion was justified and now, let's put the question to YOU!

AKcrab, what would be happening in Iraq now if we had followed your scenario?

The U.N. Inspectors would still be in the country looking for WMD's that may or may not exist, the country would be "contained" like it was before our invasion. It would be now as it was then. You don't agree, but it seems perfectly sensible to me.

You go on and on about what Saddam would have done as if you've looked into a crystal ball. In reality, everything you say never happened. It's fiction, just like anything dc or I say about what would have happened if we hadn't invaded. For you to poo-poo our fiction and tout your own as fact is a bit odd.

North Korea (by most expert opinions) can lob a nuke onto my house. What are we doing about that threat? Saddam was not going to nuke me.

Originally Posted by mojo2

Or is it that you just want everyone to believe the implausible scenario you've invested so much of your political capital into for so long because you can't stand the possibility that you'd have to go off in search of a new implausible idea to advance?

What? I advance all kinds of implausible ideas. Just ask any conservative here.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

The U.N. Inspectors would still be in the country looking for WMD's that may or may not exist, the country would be "contained" like it was before our invasion. It would be now as it was then. You don't agree, but it seems perfectly sensible to me.

You go on and on about what Saddam would have done as if you've looked into a crystal ball. In reality, everything you say never happened. It's fiction, just like anything dc or I say about what would have happened if we hadn't invaded. For you to poo-poo our fiction and tout your own as fact is a bit odd.

North Korea (by most expert opinions) can lob a nuke onto my house. What are we doing about that threat? Saddam was not going to nuke me.



What? I advance all kinds of implausible ideas. Just ask any conservative here.

I was reading and formulating my response and then I read the last line. LOLOL

Your last comment totally disarmed me.

[dcmacdaddy]

My "toss away" response was not intentionally flippant but I can see how you would interpret it that way.

But, I think we can agree that Saddam Hussein would stil be abusing his own people and doing a lot of saber-rattling at the rest of the world. But he was (relatively) contained and limited to having influence over a small patch of the Middle East. Remember, Saddam's brutal suppression of religion in Iraq didn't endear him to his fellow leaders in the Middle East.

So, the US doesn't invade and Saddam continues torturing and oppressing his own people and they die at his hands. Then, we invaded, and lots of Iraqi people are dying at the hands of the US military, either as fighters opposed to the invasion (i.e.: insurgents) or as innocent ystanders caught up in battles between US forces and insurgents/home-grown terrorists.

So, on the one hand we have a (relatively) isolated despot in power killing lots of his own people. On the other hand we have a (definitely) isolated democratic government presiding over the killing of their citizens who are caught up n the conflict between US forces and insurgents/terrorits.

Honestly, I see the whole matter as a compete wash, the status of Iraq and the Iraqi people hasn't really changed as far as I am concerned. Their everyday lives and struggles seem similar now (under US occupation) as they did then (under the thumb of a despotic tyrant).

So, I don't se the Iraqi people and the Iraqi nation as a whole better off because we invaded and deposed Saddam.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ghporter

This seems to be just another of mojo2's efforts to "stir up some sh*t." And it looks like he's been effective at it, too.

Tito, right now the only order in Iraq is that imposed by coalition forces and the Iraqi government-which is still rife with inexperienced and scared people.

Wrong. For instance the safest place to be at the end of the war was Saddam City. That was before the US entered the area and allowed the Mehdi Army to keep the safety there.

Since "the end of hostilities," insurgents have killed FAR more people than U.S. forces. And don't forget the Brit contingent...Oh, you HAVE forgotten them! They're the guys from the UK that have managed to turn Basra around from a lawless zone into a real city again. With consistent security, Iraqis are settling down into real life again. Yep, good things ARE happening in Iraq. But good things don't make news-it's only the bad stuff you see.

About "insurgents killing more people than the US". Absolutely 100% pure BS. But just for the sake of argument and giving you a chance to prove that you are right. Do you have a link for that claim?

Yes, the Brits have been able to keep something similar to "peace" in their areas. Which isn't a big surprise since they are trying to implement similar ways of doing it as the UN would. Not the US "shoot anything that scares us" tactic.

Instead of a casualty count, why don't the news agencies show how many Iraqis have power today and compare that to a year ago. And how many have safe water to drink. And how many actually have jobs, too. If all we see is people getting killed (which is pretty much all focused on the actions of suicide bombers lately), then we are never going to know what's really happening there.

Because they still have less power now than they did before the invasion? Because there's less safe water now than before the invasion? Because there's a much bigger unemployment problem than it was before the invasion?

You'll never get an idea of what is going on in Iraq while the Western reporters barely go out of the Green Zone to report? At most the travel with the troops(which isn't exactly the best ways of gathering unbiased news) or call some people outside of the safety of the most heavily guarded area in Iraq at the moment.

The only reporters able to travel freely(freely here refers to without threats from the guerrillas/terrorists/Iraqis) are the ME reporters. But since the West has already decided that they aren't trustworthy no one reports on what they tell us.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Excuse me for answering a loaded question with another loaded question.

How does it feel to continue to misinterpret the reality of the situation at the time "Mission Accomplished" was proclaimed?

What do you mean, "misinterpret"?

We all thought the mission was "accomplished", and yet, we do not see any changes. Iraq is still in a state of war. This is is exactly in line with dcmacdaddy's argumentation.

And in terms of loaded question, may I remind you that you still have to show me Saddam Hussein's declaration of War against the U.S.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

At this point you have to agree that the fastest and best way to achieve peace is for the insurgents to give up or be quelled by the Iraqi govt. & coalition forces. Right?

Or:

The US withdraws, Iraqis hold truly free elections, and deal with the terrorists themselves.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Louis_SX

My view is that war IS horrible, but war is inevitable as well, and I'd rather it be fought over "there" than over "here". To that degree, I do support this war.

So you think that your war should be fought elsewhere so that innocent civilians that have nothing to do with the war suffer the most? Great thinking!

The paper tiger is obviously coming back.......

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by sanity assassin

I'll be doing my bit to honour all the forgotten dead Iraqis who died at the hands of the coalition. All the dead Afghanis. All the dead (everyone) caused by the aftermath of the invasion. All the dead in a country that has been pummeled into a cesspit of violence.

Long live the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the freedom fighters in Iraq.

Fight the scum. Don't give in to the hypocritical rhetoric of the US.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

dcmacdaddy, what would be happening in Iraq now if we had followed your scenario?

Peace? Tens of thousands of innocent civilians alive? Not an insurgency growing everyday? Finally confirmed that Iraq had no WMD's to give to any terrorists as 1) they had no WMD's and 2) because the only terrorists that were known to be in the country were in the Kurdish(read: US/UK) controlled areas? OBL had maybe finally been captured?

The list goes on.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

That's the problem I have with most science fiction, I just can't buy most sci-fi writer's visions of the future. But, in this case there's more fiction and less reason to your view of things than simply a difference of opinion with mine.

When did Saddam ever remain content, self constrained and/or contained within Iraq's geographical borders?

From the day he took control of Iraq up until he invaded Iran. And after GWI 'til today.

Consider just a FEW of Saddam's mischievous antics and you will have to admit your dogged contention just won't 'hunt:'

A years long war with neighbor Iran.

An invasion of Kuwait.

1) Supported by the US.

2) Silently supported(the invasion itself) by the US.

Attempts to attack Israel into a coalition-busting war.

An attempt on the Bush family.

An attempt to build a nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capability.

1) There was a war going on. A war Israel supported(in words). Do you remember a certain comment by Bush about "if you are not with us you are against us"? See where that "logic" takes us?

2) You mean like the US tried to take out SH? Are only the the US allowed to try that?

3) Which had been stopped and contained(effectively ended) by the first war, the sanctions and the weapons inspectors.

Success at same (proven when he wiped out a Kurdish village...in Iraq).

An attempt to build a Super Gun to attack Israel.

1) Yet the US(who were supporting Iraq at the time) blocked any attempt at getting a UNSC resolution through condemning Iraq for the attack.

2) Never heard of that. Got a link so I can read up on it.

Efforts to reward and encourage homicide bombings in Palestine/Israel.
(This so he could get the Muslim Arabs to do his bidding or come to his aid when he made his BIG move to take down the US while they are conVEEEEENiently nearby in Afghanistan.)

His diplomats, spies and 'friends' were all over the globe looking into this and getting 'involved' in that. (Who's to say Saddam's men DIDN'T meet with the 9/11 creeps??? If we still can't say for sure about the JFK killing then...)

1) So? And what are you talking about when you say "take down the US"?

2) It's sad how much you've bought into the Bush Dishonesty™. Similar "logic" could be used to say that Bush himself met with the 9/11 creeps or that Israel planned and helped the 9/11 freaks. Both are as silly as your claim.

'Participation' in the Oil for Food scandal (that's like saying Hitler was 'involved' in the Holocaust).

Continued radar targeting and shooting at coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone (a condition of the 1991 Gulf War treaty).

1. OFFP ≠ The Holocaust. FFS, you are reducing the memory of those killed in the Holocaust to nothing by these f*cked up comparisons!!

2. And the US/UK were also pretty effective in taking out whatever they wanted in those areas. But yes, he didn't accept the no-fly zones as in his opinion(and most of the world) territorial integrity and independence was more important.

Many of these offenses took place while he was supposedly being closely monitored by those in the UN who were supposedly interested in his being a good little dictator.

No. A more plausible supposed activity for Saddam if the US had failed to take action against him would be something like, he would have continued his past activities and increased those efforts that proved successful or promising.

And a never ending search for ways to achieve dominion over the whole Middle East and cause MAJOR problems for the U.S.

Like the problem I have with bad sci-fi, I just can't buy your vision.

Sorry, but I can't believe ANYONE would buy what you've cooked up here, dcmacdaddy.

Everything you mention in this part of your post could equally be applied to the US. Only it's more plausable for the US. That's all.

[Louis_SX]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So you think that your war should be fought elsewhere so that innocent civilians that have nothing to do with the war suffer the most? Great thinking!

The paper tiger is obviously coming back.......

no, actually, I think the war should be fought on the soil of the people who started it anew...it was refreshed and re-started on 9/11/01, and the US took it to the people that started it, and the Iraq was what was next.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Louis_SX

no, actually, I think the war should be fought on the soil of the people who started it anew...it was refreshed and re-started on 9/11/01, and the US took it to the people that started it, and the Iraq was what was next.

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11! You should have finished what you started in Afghanistan before invading a country and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians that had nothing to do with 9/11!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11! You should have finished what you started in Afghanistan before invading a country and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians that had nothing to do with 9/11!

That's what I have been saying all along and I am an American. We should have stayed in Afghanistan, caught Osama bin Laden, and decimated any Taleban fighters still there or in Pkaistan. These actions would have helped pave the way for a stable democracy in the WHOLE country, instead we have a central "core" of Afghanistan under nominal control with many outlying regions/provinces still under the control of anti-US and/or pro-Taleban warlords.

We made a big mistake pulling out of Afghanistan so soon to invade Iraq.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

What do you mean, "misinterpret"?

We all thought the mission was "accomplished", and yet, we... Iraq is still in a state of war. This is is exactly in line with dcmacdaddy's argumentation.

And in terms of loaded question, may I remind you that you still have to show me Saddam Hussein's declaration of War against the U.S.

Who is "We ALL???" No one surveyed me, SL.

To me Mission Accomplished meant our military invasion was no longer in doubt, Saddam would no longer rule and his ability to cause mischief was terminated. Occupation and stabilization could begin.

It's obvious you didn't then, nor do you now have a grasp of what the mission was/is.

The sneaky way to declare war is to do it the way Saddam did it. Now, go ahead and ask me to tell you exactly how Saddam did it so it will be plainly seen by all that you don't know what you're talking about.

SL, is it true that you "do not see any changes." Is that because you would PREFER there to
be no change?

Actually, if you bother to look you WILL see signs of change.

Here's a clue, the city where so many died on both sides, an area where the terrorists were beheading innocents and where the outside instigators felt safe to kidnap and hijack and subjugate the inhabitants is a far different place today, thanks to the US.

The changes you do not see ARE taking place. I suggest you do not see because you are blind.

Blinded by your ideology.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Peace? Tens of thousands of innocent civilians alive? Not an insurgency growing everyday? Finally confirmed that Iraq had no WMD's to give to any terrorists as 1) they had no WMD's and 2) because the only terrorists that were known to be in the country were in the Kurdish(read: US/UK) controlled areas? OBL had maybe finally been captured?

The list goes on.

John F. Kennedy's book, "Why England Slept" looks at the different factors that played a part in blinding the Brits to the danger of Hitler when virtually every warning sign was there to see and why a 'leader' such as Neville Chamberlain could believe Hitler posed no threat to them.

When you are planning an operation and a significant amount of time, energy and resources have to be spent on containing a POSSIBLE threat, the question you eventually ask yourself is, how much more would it cost to be rid of that possible threat completely?

Saddam WAS a possible threat to the Afghanistan operation. What he was in the position to do would have caused MAJOR instability in the entire M.E., Arab and Muslim world. That's why we DIDN'T attack Iran or anyone else, they WEREN'T as grave a threat.

What have we been able to do to keep the other countries in check since the invasion? Diplomacy.

What did we see with absolute certainty WOULD NOT WORK to contain Saddam? Diplomacy.

Anyone who says the things you say fall into one of two groups.

1) They are sympathetic to the enemy.

or

2) They are "Sons of Chamberlain."

I suggest you get a copy of the JFK book and read it.

And that's giving you benefit of the doubt.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

That's what I have been saying all along and I am an American. We should have stayed in Afghanistan, caught Osama bin Laden, and decimated any Taleban fighters still there or in Pkaistan. These actions would have helped pave the way for a stable democracy in the WHOLE country, instead we have a central "core" of Afghanistan under nominal control with many outlying regions/provinces still under the control of anti-US and/or pro-Taleban warlords.

We made a big mistake pulling out of Afghanistan so soon to invade Iraq.

People like you are one of the few reasons I still have hope that the US will be OK in the future.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Or:

The US withdraws, Iraqis hold truly free elections, and deal with the terrorists themselves.

...and the terrorism and wars and instability and famines and subjugation of women and the persecution of rival muslim sects and the danger to innocent Israelis and Americans continues to increase...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So you think that your war should be fought elsewhere so that innocent civilians that have nothing to do with the war suffer the most? Great thinking!

The paper tiger is obviously coming back.......

Hey, on 9/11 YOUR little (non) plan to manage the threat of muslim fanatics and settle your ugly little issues without the US getting involved came to an end.

Your plan went up in smoke. It didn't work for us. Now, you have to take a back seat and gripe about innocent civilians. Hah! I laugh!

You had your chances, but nooooo! You had to encourage these idiots. No, it's NOT our war. Your inability to self manage has brought this upon you and YOUR innocents.

For all you do, this war's for YOU.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

People like you are one of the few reasons I still have hope that the US will be OK in the future.

Well...

dcmacdaddy should be feeling all warm and fuzzy with THAT endorsement!

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

John F. Kennedy's book, "Why England Slept" looks at the different factors that played a part in blinding the Brits to the danger of Hitler when virtually every warning sign was there to see and why a 'leader' such as Neville Chamberlain could believe Hitler posed no threat to them.

When you are planning an operation and a significant amount of time, energy and resources have to be spent on containing a POSSIBLE threat, the question you eventually ask yourself is, how much more would it cost to be rid of that possible threat completely?

Saddam WAS a possible threat to the Afghanistan operation. What he was in the position to do would have caused MAJOR instability in the entire M.E., Arab and Muslim world. That's why we DIDN'T attack Iran or anyone else, they WEREN'T as grave a threat.

For the love of God. Stop comparing SH with Hitler. You are making a mockery of the memory of all the people dead as a result of his actions.

What possible "threat" was SH to Afghanistan and the ME? He had problems having control over his own country. The US and UK had him completely under control.

What have we been able to do to keep the other countries in check since the invasion? Diplomacy.

What did we see with absolute certainty WOULD NOT WORK to contain Saddam? Diplomacy.

You haven't needed to keep anyone in check! If anything your actions has furthered the agenda of kufrs like OBL. Iran just elected a hardliner. Terrorism has never posed as much threat to as many. thousands of people are dying each month as a direct result of your actions.

And diplomacy seems to have worked perfectly on SH. He wasn't about to invade anyone, he got rid of all his WMD's, he even went as far as scrapping a missile system because a few of the test flights went over the limit the UN set. Diplomacy had kept him in check since the first GW.

Anyone who says the things you say fall into one of two groups.

1) They are sympathetic to the enemy.

or

2) They are "Sons of Chamberlain."

I suggest you get a copy of the JFK book and read it.

And that's giving you benefit of the doubt.

Who is the enemy? Do you even know that? Yes, I'm sympathetic with the ordinary Iraqis and their Muslim brothers who fight the occupation in Iraq. I loath those who who transgress in their zeal to free Iraq as well as those murderous thugs like Zarqawi that was a no-mark thug that has all of a sudden gotten the chance to become one of the most talk about persons in this world.

So yes, if you consider the Iraqi guerrillas your enemy then I'm sympathetic to them and hope they succeed.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

...and the terrorism and wars and instability and famines and subjugation of women and the persecution of rival muslim sects and the danger to innocent Israelis and Americans continues to increase...

You don't know to much about the history and culture of the ME/Muslim world do you?

And do you really think that the danger to Israelis and Americans has decreased following the invasion of Iraq?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Hey, on 9/11 YOUR little (non) plan to manage the threat of muslim fanatics and settle your ugly little issues without the US getting involved came to an end.

Your plan went up in smoke. It didn't work for us. Now, you have to take a back seat and gripe about innocent civilians. Hah! I laugh!

You had your chances, but nooooo! You had to encourage these idiots. No, it's NOT our war. Your inability to self manage has brought this upon you and YOUR innocents.

For all you do, this war's for YOU.

It was your own fault that they were able to attack. Not mine. My plan has unfortunately never come into action as I don't follow whatever the government tells me today like most of the Bush supporters. Bush says one thing today and everyone all of a sudden agrees and then he says another thing the day after that and again everyone agrees with him. I haven't seen one conservative on this board(or in real life) that has expressed his opinion before the Bush administration decided what the official policy would be. It has just never happened.

And it's sad that you laugh about the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It's obvious the lust for blood of the terrorists is easily matched by those of people like you.

And no, this war is not for me. If anything this war has made the world a more dangerous place for me. Again, this war is not for me.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mojo2

...and the terrorism and wars and instability and famines and subjugation of women and the persecution of rival muslim sects and the danger to innocent Israelis and Americans continues to increase...

AFAICS, that is pretty much what's happening now.

Interesting that you should have such little faith in Freedom and Democracy, though.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11! You should have finished what you started in Afghanistan before invading a country and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians that had nothing to do with 9/11!

You really must marvel at people who can walk and chew gum at the same time.

And if you can't figure out the connection between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq I think maybe this conversation is beyond your ability to understand complex global issues in real time.

It might help to study the well documented connections between the assassination of Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist and the rise of Adolph Hitler.

Once you understand those interactions the links between Iraq and 9/11 won't seem as perplexing.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Who is "We ALL???" No one surveyed me, SL.

Ah?

To me Mission Accomplished meant our military invasion was no longer in doubt, Saddam would no longer rule and his ability to cause mischief was terminated. Occupation and stabilization could begin.

Sounds like surveying you would have been a waste of time anyway.

It's obvious you didn't then, nor do you now have a grasp of what the mission was/is.

Yeah, right.

The sneaky way to declare war is to do it the way Saddam did it. Now, go ahead and ask me to tell you exactly how Saddam did it so it will be plainly seen by all that you don't know what you're talking about.

Please do. So far Saddam Hussein has been anything but a wind full bag of a scapegoat that required only a few days to defeat. Hussein was an easy target from the get-go, if not from right after Gulf War I. Hussein has never been a threat to the U.S. because there were no WMDs left that would have been considered a real threat after 1991. Surprisingly, some of the strains of smallpox had been given to him by the CDC. Here is more about this topic. Funny isn't it?

That he had to be removed because of his ruthlessness is a truism. That he is the only one of his type the U.S. is waisting his time on is suspicious.

SL, is it true that you "do not see any changes." Is that because you would PREFER there to be no change?

LOL

Actually, if you bother to look you WILL see signs of change.

Here's a clue, the city where so many died on both sides, an area where the terrorists were beheading innocents and where the outside instigators felt safe to kidnap and hijack and subjugate the inhabitants is a far different place today, thanks to the US.

The changes you do not see ARE taking place. I suggest you do not see because you are blind.

Blinded by your ideology.

Talk to the mirror, you'll get more sympathy from it than me.

We can digress at lenght over "right" ideologies, but reality is that the U.S. Coalition won the war on Saddam Hussein, and are likely losing the one of the population, which matters far more.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

For the love of God. Stop comparing SH with Hitler. You are making a mockery of the memory of all the people dead as a result of his actions.

What possible "threat" was SH to Afghanistan and the ME? He had problems having control over his own country. The US and UK had him completely under control.

You haven't needed to keep anyone in check! If anything your actions has furthered the agenda of kufrs like OBL. Iran just elected a hardliner. Terrorism has never posed as much threat to as many. thousands of people are dying each month as a direct result of your actions.

And diplomacy seems to have worked perfectly on SH. He wasn't about to invade anyone, he got rid of all his WMD's, he even went as far as scrapping a missile system because a few of the test flights went over the limit the UN set. Diplomacy had kept him in check since the first GW.

Anyone who says the things you say fall into one of two groups.

Who is the enemy? Do you even know that? Yes, I'm sympathetic with the ordinary Iraqis and their Muslim brothers who fight the occupation in Iraq. I loath those who who transgress in their zeal to free Iraq as well as those murderous
So yes, if you consider the Iraqi guerrillas your enemy then I'm sympathetic to them and hope they succeed.

Hitler wore a mustache. Liked brown suits. Saw the Volkswagen as a good car. Was the Chancellor of Germany. Served in WWI. Liked dogs. Was an author. Appreciated fine art and classical music.

Comparing Saddam to Hitler has little to do with making a mockery of any of the people Hitler murdered. There may be some who would reserve a SPECIAL place for his 'accomplishments.' After all, NO ONE EVER killed as many people. So no one can possibly match that level of evil or reach that ignominy.

I can feel the pain behind that way of thinking but I see people talk about Satan and the devil all the time and no one gets upset. Satan is the KING of evil. Hitler was "ONLY" Satan's leading earthly practitioner. Then, the idea of giving Hitler ANY special recognition is like giving him
more than he deserves.

No, his deeds are as inhumane as the world has ever seen and hopefully will never be seen again. The millions who died at his whim and the billions who still suffer from his evil should not have anyone making a mockery of THEIR pain and sacrifice. But to include HITLER in that SPECIAL place in our minds? Please!!!!

I prefer the Three Stooges way of belittling him and making him seem a ridiculous fool. However, in the back of my mind I DO understand he is responsible for 12,000,000+ deaths.

Having said all that, if this attitude of AWE you seem to have toward Hitler will help keep some young twits from minimizing his evil deeds, then fine.

[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0VgC5Atoa!78HYdwwcUAbfBBdA7BIAZPmnwVHQwhxQrInUWHEq XQqMrgdgYoR!APQBCjfI0wgysHCQ1SB4VDsGYUrovDmtgFAy2m PdN*r1yVKr1J43j2Hdp3JquF0JAlV/ron-mael-VS-hitler.jpg[/IMG]

I wonder what Ron Mael of "Sparks" would say to this?

By the way the Romanian Sparks fanpage says, "Ron Mael = Geniu !"

You say the US and the UN ( that's a good one! ) had Saddam "COMPLETELY" under control.
Then how did he manage to regularly shoot at UN/US/Coalition planes enforcing the No Fly?

How did Saddam supposedly pose enough of a threat that even YOU say it was a good idea for the UN inspectors to be there, if we had him under control?

How much under control was he that he was able to mount an assassination attempt on the Bush family after the end of the Gulf War?

How much under control was he that UNDER THE UN's NOSE (Shocking, I tell you!) he was able to skim money from the oil for food program?

There is ample evidence, not hard to find, easy to understand which plainly shows Saddam was still a threat as long as he was in power. And not a benign threat, but an aggressive one that was NOT going to abide by UN sanctions, that was not going to yield to our threat of economic sanctions, that wasn't afraid to duke it out militarily with the US, that was making it known (or believed) he had WMD's.

Anyone who WASN'T afraid of what he would do when we were in HIS 'neighborhood' (Afghanistan) was just naive or foolish.

You make the mistake of looking at the house being built and thinking, "Oh my god! What a MESS this is!!! I know what will be best. I will send the workmen away and I will then be happy."

Well, it doesn't work that way.

You don't send the workmen away until the house is built. Yes, there's a cost involved in having them there. Yes, it is messy. Yes, it involves sacrifice and it requires patience and plans aren't always 100% perfect and it won't happen instantly. But the ONLY acceptable plan is to get the job done as soon as possible and then the workmen will leave.

"thugs like Zarqawi that was a no-mark thug that has all of a sudden gotten the chance to become one of the most talk about persons in this world."

I can't believe you would say such a thing!!! I am flabbergasted!!!

To you, this whole thing is all about notoriety, isn't it!!!??!!!

To you that lucky undeserving bastard Zarqawi "has all of a sudden gotten the CHANCE to become one of the most talk (sic) about persons in this world." ("Oh, but if I could only be so lucky" von Wrangell sighs to himself...)

You are seriously in need of psychiatric help.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You really must marvel at people who can walk and chew gum at the same time.

And if you can't figure out the connection between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq I think maybe this conversation is beyond your ability to understand complex global issues in real time.

It might help to study the well documented connections between the assassination of Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist and the rise of Adolph Hitler.

Once you understand those interactions the links between Iraq and 9/11 won't seem as perplexing.

You probably believe in the Butterfly Effect™ too don't you?

Iraq only has to do with 9/11 as much as the US government wants it to be connected. Iraq(without US propaganda) had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. You "made" it so.


And are you sure you aren't talking about Franz Ferdinand and WWI?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Hitler wore a mustache. Liked brown suits. Saw the Volkswagen as a good car. Was the Chancellor of Germany. Served in WWI. Liked dogs. Was an author. Appreciated fine art and classical music.

Comparing Saddam to Hitler has little to do with making a mockery of any of the people Hitler murdered. There may be some who would reserve a SPECIAL place for his 'accomplishments.' After all, NO ONE EVER killed as many people. So no one can possibly match that level of evil or reach that ignominy.

First of all. It's BS that no one ever killed as many as Hitler. You are showing an appalling lack of historical knowledge.

I can feel the pain behind that way of thinking but I see people talk about Satan and the devil all the time and no one gets upset. Satan is the KING of evil. Hitler was "ONLY" Satan's leading earthly practitioner. Then, the idea of giving Hitler ANY special recognition is like giving him
more than he deserves.

Wow, just wow. Why bring religion into this?

No, his deeds are as inhumane as the world has ever seen and hopefully will never be seen again. The millions who died at his whim and the billions who still suffer from his evil should not have anyone making a mockery of THEIR pain and sacrifice. But to include HITLER in that SPECIAL place in our minds? Please!!!!

I prefer the Three Stooges way of belittling him and making him seem a ridiculous fool. However, in the back of my mind I DO understand he is responsible for 12,000,000+ deaths.

Billions? huh? Are you drinking at the same time as you are posting?

Having said all that, if this attitude of AWE you seem to have toward Hitler will help keep some young twits from minimizing his evil deeds, then fine.

Good attempt. Didn't quite work but I'm used to this tactic from guys like you. I'm in no awe of Hitler genocide and mass murders.

You say the US and the UN ( that's a good one! ) had Saddam "COMPLETELY" under control.
Then how did he manage to regularly shoot at UN/US/Coalition planes enforcing the No Fly?

How did Saddam supposedly pose enough of a threat that even YOU say it was a good idea for the UN inspectors to be there, if we had him under control?

How much under control was he that he was able to mount an assassination attempt on the Bush family after the end of the Gulf War?

How much under control was he that UNDER THE UN's NOSE (Shocking, I tell you!) he was able to skim money from the oil for food program?

Why was he able to shoot at UN(Coalition) planes if he was contained? Easy. Because they were inside Iraqi territory. You won't find a single event of him being able to shoot at planes outside of his own borders.

You show that you don't know why the UN inspectors were there. They were there to verify that he had destroyed his arsenal of WMD's. Like has been shown, much to the embarrassment of the Bush regime and Blair government, he did in fact destroy his WMD's.

Completely under control. The attempt didn't succeed(must be yet another embarrassment for you that a police operation foiled another terrorist attempt).

He didn't pose any threat to anyone. You'll find corrupt people everywhere. Skimming money from a deficient program isn't posing a threat to anyone. But nice spin though.

There is ample evidence, not hard to find, easy to understand which plainly shows Saddam was still a threat as long as he was in power. And not a benign threat, but an aggressive one that was NOT going to abide by UN sanctions, that was not going to yield to our threat of economic sanctions, that wasn't afraid to duke it out militarily with the US, that was making it known (or believed) he had WMD's.

Of course he wasn't afraid to defend his country from an aggressive invasion. You see that many noble Iraqis agree with that and have continued to fight against the invaders. And why should he yield to a threat of economic sanctions? Iraq was an independent nation and shouldn't have to ask "how high?" when the USA says jump. I know you'd(and many USAns) would like the world to be that way but in the real world it doesn't work like that. And what UN sanctions did he fail? He destroyed his WMD's and didn't attack Kuwait. He abided by the UN sanctions. Or am I forgetting some?

Anyone who WASN'T afraid of what he would do when we were in HIS 'neighborhood' (Afghanistan) was just naive or foolish.

Or those who worried were simply paranoid. He wouldn't have been able to do anything(and as history shows us he did indeed nothing but talk) about the US invasion into Afghanistan.

You make the mistake of looking at the house being built and thinking, "Oh my god! What a MESS this is!!! I know what will be best. I will send the workmen away and I will then be happy."

Well, it doesn't work that way.

You don't send the workmen away until the house is built. Yes, there's a cost involved in having them there. Yes, it is messy. Yes, it involves sacrifice and it requires patience and plans aren't always 100% perfect and it won't happen instantly. But the ONLY acceptable plan is to get the job done as soon as possible and then the workmen will leave.

But what if the "workmen" are working on a building they had no right to rebuild from the start? The Iraqis never asked for their "house" being rebuilt. And if they wanted that they would and should be able to do it on their own. Iraqis don't need your "help" as they are quite capable of rebuilding Iraq on their own. It's the US presence that is f*cking things up.

I can't believe you would say such a thing!!! I am flabbergasted!!!

To you, this whole thing is all about notoriety, isn't it!!!??!!!

To you that lucky undeserving bastard Zarqawi "has all of a sudden gotten the CHANCE to become one of the most talk (sic) about persons in this world." ("Oh, but if I could only be so lucky" von Wrangell sighs to himself...)

You are seriously in need of psychiatric help.

This might surprise you but not everyone in the world has English as their native language. Some(like me) have it as the third language.

But I mostly stand by how I worded it. I'm talking about it from his perspective. He viewed this as a chance he'd been waiting for. And this invasion gave him the chance to be remembered. This no-mark criminal is linked to one terrorist attack before the invasion of Iraq. And that attack was still committed in the shadow of a looming war in Iraq.




ps. why do I have the feeling that this is just a new nick for someone like budster or pachead?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You probably believe in the Butterfly Effect™ too don't you?

Iraq only has to do with 9/11 as much as the US government wants it to be connected. Iraq(without US propaganda) had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. You "made" it so.


And are you sure you aren't talking about Franz Ferdinand and WWI?

I believe in the double butterfly. But let's not talk about our love lives, ok?

You have this very telling way of casually dismissing those things you don't understand. In a way, that CAN be a positive quality...IF and ONLY IF it keeps you from talking about things you have no knowledge of.

Unfortunately, you are all over the place. You DON'T know what you are talking about. So, you make silly statements without substantiation fed only by a perverse sentimentalism for the underdog, no matter how dirty and filthy or rabid the dog.

When you have that casually dismissive feeling, stop right there and see if you can get in touch with what it is you are feeling, where it comes from and why. If that doesn't work, try something more practical by looking for SUBSTANTIATION for your claims or feelings.

I mean the only people I've heard to use the argument, "everybody has a right to their opinions and mine are just as valid as yours..." are women who don't know that they must back up their claims with facts if they are to be taken seriously.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You don't know to much about the history and culture of the ME/Muslim world do you?

And do you really think that the danger to Israelis and Americans has decreased following the invasion of Iraq?

The US is just building a house we ALL can peacefully live in. It is still under construction.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The US is just building a house we ALL can peacefully live in. It is still under construction.

That EXACTLY the attitude of the colonial powers of the 19th century.

Poor, naïve benefactors that couldn't for the life of them figure out why all those brown people ended up hating their guts enough to die fighting them.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by analogika

That EXACTLY the attitude of the colonial powers of the 19th century.

Poor, naïve benefactors that couldn't for the life of them figure out why all those brown people ended up hating their guts enough to die fighting them.

Word.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by analogika

That EXACTLY the attitude of the colonial powers of the 19th century.

Poor, naïve benefactors that couldn't for the life of them figure out why all those brown people ended up hating their guts enough to die fighting them.

The difference is that once the house is built it's on the inhabitants to keep it up as they see fit as housekeepers. But we are giving them lessons on that so that no matter what THEIR fashion might be a real representative gubmint will still be there once everything settles.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The difference is that once the house is built it's on the inhabitants to keep it up as they see fit as housekeepers. But we are giving them lessons on that so that no matter what THEIR fashion might be a real representative gubmint will still be there once everything settles.

It's exactly the same thing.

The only difference is that you're already talking about the post-colonial phase, as well.

The process that got much of the middle east and Africa into exactly the horrific situation they're in today is a result of the exact same benignly condescending attitude.

Your country is "giving them lessons" but would be much better off learning its own.

The poor, unedumacated little brown ****ers will have a Real Representative Gubmint™ once everything settles. Of course, it won't be representative of THEIR interests, and a whole lot of them will be DEAD, but that's secondary to your school of thought.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The difference is that once the house is built it's on the inhabitants to keep it up as they see fit as housekeepers.

Wasn't that what was going on before the Coalition intervention's?

But we are giving them lessons on that so that no matter what THEIR fashion might be a real representative gubmint will still be there once everything settles.

It is nice to give lessons.

So far, I wonder what you have learned...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by analogika

It's exactly the same thing.

The only difference is that you're already talking about the post-colonial phase, as well.

The process that got much of the middle east and Africa into exactly the horrific situation they're in today is a result of the exact same benignly condescending attitude.

Your country is "giving them lessons" but would be much better off learning its own.

The poor, unedumacated little brown ****ers will have a Real Representative Gubmint™ once everything settles. Of course, it won't be representative of THEIR interests, and a whole lot of them will be DEAD, but that's secondary to your school of thought.

I say the Iraqi people, if they were given the opportunity without coercion or intimidation would choose to breathe free. But freedom is difficult to manage for those not used to it and it often fails in new 'democracies.' So, in the belief that the people would choose freedom if given the free choice, the only responsible thing to do is to guide the fledgling gubmint until it's existence is pretty well assured in the hands of the Iraqis.

Your guys refuse to allow a free gubmint to exist and will use any and every tool to keep freedom from the Iraqi people.

It would be different if we were trying to push something on the people they don't want.

THEY DO WANT FREEDOM. People everywhere want freedom. If your guys stopped their campaign of car bombing, kidnapping, beheading and other means of intimidating the Iraqi populace you and the world would have to concede the people want to be free and need help in creating an effective gubmint.

But your guys know what the outcome would be. THAT's why they fight. They know they have EVERYTHING to lose.

It takes two to tango and the 'terrists' are intentionally killing Iraqi policemen, the very SYMBOL of Iraqi autonomy.

By the way did you hear the latest wealth rankings, by nation?

I think it was USA in first place followed by Japan and then Germany...the 2nd and 3rd wealthiest nations on earth. BOTH of which go their own way and call their own shots and often take different and sometimes even opposing positions from the USA. And that has long been the case.

Your fear of colonialism has no basis in fact or modern day precedent.

The Iraqis want freedom. The US is going to help them get what they want. When that freedom is secured our troops will come home and the Iraqi troops will be there to keep the terrists in check. And freedom will reign.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Wasn't that what was going on before the Coalition intervention's?

It is nice to give lessons.

So far, I wonder what you have learned...

No, Saddam Hussein did not give the Iraqi people freedom. Ask the families of Mr. Hussein's victims. In a country with a population of about 22 million figures of 1 million dead Iraqis through terror or other non-natural causes may not be far from the mark. Assume a conservative estimate that each dead person left behind only two family members and one friend. That means at least four million people who would say the Iraqi people were definitely NOT practicing housekeeping as the term applies to this thread, where it means the Iraqi people taking the reigns of their own gubmint and deciding their own fate free from intimidation.

1 in 5 people were DIRECTLY touched by Saddam's murderous hand. That would be like 60 million Americans killed or having a relative or friend who was killed by Saddam.

That's something I learned.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

No, Saddam Hussein did not give the Iraqi people freedom. Ask the families of Mr. Hussein's victims. In a country with a population of about 22 million figures of 1 million dead Iraqis through terror or other non-natural causes may not be far from the mark. Assume a conservative estimate that each dead person left behind only two family members and one friend. That means at least four million people who would say the Iraqi people were definitely NOT practicing housekeeping as the term applies to this thread, where it means the Iraqi people taking the reigns of their own gubmint and deciding their own fate free from intimidation.

1 in 5 people were DIRECTLY touched by Saddam's murderous hand. That would be like 60 million Americans killed or having a relative or friend who was killed by Saddam.

That's something I learned.

I see you have all the right answers. But you still cannot deal with your own contradictions.

Iraq has always been in the hands of Iraqis. What if that had been their choice to let Saddam rule the way he did? After all, everyone knew they were under a totalitarian regime, didn't they? How many revolutionary groups were there then? What was the support provided then by countries like, say, the U.S. to the Iraqi Resistance?

And if your numbers are right (although I will ask for proof rather than assumptions), why was Iraq worse than, say, North Korea, which had WMDs already? Or China, where Human Rights are non-existent? Or Rwanda, where there was a genocide? Or East Timor, where a genocide occured several years ago and barely anyone did anything about it?

Why is "US House Keeping" so good for Iraq, and not for other countries where dictatorship is just as bad as Hussein's today, and poverty far worse? Why attacking Iraq, which was barely able to defend itself already?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

I see you have all the right answers. But you still cannot deal with your own contradictions.

Iraq has always been in the hands of Iraqis. What if that had been their choice to let Saddam rule the way he did? After all, everyone knew they were under a totalitarian regime, didn't they? How many revolutionary groups were there then? What was the support provided then by countries like, say, the U.S. to the Iraqi Resistance?

And if your numbers are right (although I will ask for proof rather than assumptions), why was Iraq worse than, say, North Korea, which had WMDs already? Or China, where Human Rights are non-existent? Or Rwanda, where there was a genocide? Or East Timor, where a genocide occured several years ago and barely anyone did anything about it?

Why is "US House Keeping" so good for Iraq, and not for other countries where dictatorship is just as bad as Hussein's today, and poverty far worse? Why attacking Iraq, which was barely able to defend itself already?

If you are asking if the Iraqi people merely went along with whoever rose to power in Iraq and some rulers were just better than others, I can't say for sure, but that's the way it looks. (And let's make it clear Saddam was not elected. Below is a short description of how he came to office.)

A clue to the level of depravity and brutality is found in the fact that Saddam's son tortured Iraq's national soccer team members for not playing well. No one goes along with that sort of thing unless they are immune or hope to escape such treatment. Yes, the people knew they were living "under a totalitarian regime" but most Iraqis, due to lack of money and visas, would be unable to move to a different country to escape his brutality. Anyone who tried to oppose him was killed or imprisoned and tortured. (See article below) The US and the UN were content to do as some are suggesting here now, to let Saddam rule his country however he wanted and to brutalize however he wanted...just as long as he kept his nose clean as it pertained to being a threat to other nations and/or violating the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease fire.

No, the brutality of Saddam's rule is old news. Sadly, the UN sanctions against him were unable to stop his internal atrocities (which wasn't part of our purview) nor his aggressive aspirations outside the borders of Iraq, which was very much our business.

As mentioned in previous posts, Saddam wasn't going to be deterred in his attempts to attack his enemies: the US or it's leader who brought him down in the Gulf War, George Bush Sr. or Israel or Iran.

He wasn't going to stop trying to become the 'Strongman' of the Middle East and so he continually sought to create ties with other Arab groups despite the fact that he might not have the ideal background to suggest a harmonious relationship. That's why he began the payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. To further his pan-Arab ambitions.

That's one of the main reasons he started the war with Iran, that and because he feared Iran's Islamic revolution would adversely affect his ambitions and his own country's delicate Sunni/Shia balance.

Iran still wanted his ass and the Iranians knew he was weakened but to what extent? No one knew for sure.

What everyone DID know was that Saddam was a BIG question mark. A loose cannon who could go off with a bing BANG to explode the whole region in war or on the other hand he might have just been a big nothing in terms of his threat to the region, oil, the Israelis and the US forces in the field to hunt OBL.

But, why did he toy around with the UNSCOM inspectors??? If he was innocent all he had to do was give the inspectors full and open access to anything and everything the inspectors wanted to see. Instead, he denied access, he delayed access and played games which made it appear he was hiding something.

This guy wasn't going to abide by UN sanctions. He had made that very clear. He wasn't going to stop his pan-Arab aspirations and his efforts to encourage more terrorism in the M.E. He wasn't going to stop taking UN food for oil money. He wasn't going to stop trying to attack his enemies.

And now he wasn't going to come clean with his WMD capability.

The only way to MAKE SURE Saddam was not going to prove himself a threat was to disarm him and depose him on the basis of many of his documented past offenses (Which we'll see detailed in his upcoming trial).

One thing to note that I haven't seen anyone here mention is that if Saddam HAD come completely clean to the UNSCOM inspectors, (assuming he didn't have any hidden WMD's) it would have cost him his ass, because iran would have invaded him and the final chapter would have closed on him and our backing him against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war.

And if he had been attacked by the Iranians I believe we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. See, even though the Iranians are no great friends of the US, at least they are relatively stable, which is the last thing that could have been said about Saddam.

The Iraqis would have been beaten. The Iranians would have been weakened and both would cease to be a threat to the US and any terrorism would be directed at each other and, meanwhile in the hunt for OBL, OBL would have fewer safe places to hide if two possible haves were involved in war. With less room to hide, OBL would have been easier to narrow down to a smaller geographical area.

But Saddam called our bluff. Which meant instead of a distracted and disarmed Saddam we had a pissed off Saddam (who knew the game we were playing) and he was going to get his hated enemy the US, by any means necessary.

The US HAD to take him out.

Here's some background info. I'm tired and my fingers hurt.

TTYL.

Iraq, Iran blame Saddam for Kuwait invasion

Associated Press

Updated: Sat. May. 21 2005 8:01 AM ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraq and Iran have issued a joint statement blaming Saddam Hussein and his henchmen for being the aggressors in the 1980-88 war between the two countries and Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

The statement, issued Thursday during Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi's historic trip to Iraq, comes as the Shiite Muslim-dominated governments of both countries try to forge better ties following Saddam's ouster two years ago.

The former Iraqi dictator, who was captured in December 2003, is facing charges including killing rival politicians during his 30-year rule, gassing Kurds, invading Kuwait in 1990 and suppressing Kurdish and Shiite uprisings in 1991. He is in U.S. military custody with several of his former top aides awaiting trial. No trial dates have been set.

Iraqis in the new government and Iran's Shiite-led theocracy have previously blamed the former Iraqi dictator for starting the bloody eight-year war against Iran, in which 1 million people died.
But the latest statement marks the first time Iraq has joined Iran in accusing the former Iraqi president of being the aggressor in the war.

"The two sides confirm the necessity of trying the leaders of the former regime in Iraq in a fair trial because they committed war crimes and crimes against humanity and their military aggression against the Iraqi people, Iran and Kuwait," the statement said.
Iraqi and Iranian officials were not immediately available for comment Friday, a weekly religious holiday in both countries.

Iran has said previously it is considering filing a suit against Saddam for invading Iran, which says it is owed billions in war damages.

Iraq also owes billions to Kuwait for damage to oil facilities and the environment caused during Iraq's seven-month occupation of Kuwait that began August 1990 and ended with the February liberation by a U.S.-led coalition during the Gulf War.

Ties between Kuwait and Iraq have resumed since Saddam's fall.

During that seven-month Gulf crisis, Iraq flew 120 military and civilian planes to Iran for safekeeping. Tehran since has said it would keep the planes as compensation for war damages it sought from Iraq.

Iraq had started to pay through the United Nations billions of dollars to Kuwaitis who lost possessions and relatives during the Iraqi occupation and the Gulf War.

Views among Iraqi Shiites toward Iran range from hate to devotion. Despite 60 percent of Iraq's 26 million people being Shiite, many harbor resentment toward Iran over the war.

Some Iraqi Shiite leaders have previously said that their country should compensate Iran over the war, comments that have angered many Iraqis.

© Copyright 2002-2006 Bell Globemedia Inc.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew..._name=&no_ads=

It isn't easy to summarize Saddam Hussein's rise to power...

The current leader of Iraq was born in 1937 to a sheep-herding family in the village of al-Auja in north-central Iraq. At age 10, Hussein moved to Baghdad to live with his uncle, Khayrallah Tulfah. It was Tulfah who first introduced Hussein to politics and instilled in the boy a deep bitterness towards Western imperialism.

After schooling in Baghdad, Hussein joined the Baath Party, a socialist political group committed to Arab nationalism. In 1956, he took part in an unsuccessful coup attempt against King Faisal II of Iraq. Two years later, a non-Baathist group led by General Abdul Qassim (or Kassem) overthrew the king. In 1959, Hussein and other Baath supporters tried to assassinate General Qassim. They failed, so Hussein fled to Syria and then Egypt where he briefly studied law.

In 1963, the Baath Party assassinated General Qassim. Hussein returned to Iraq and became an interrogator and torturer for the Baath Party. The party went through various upheavals, and Hussein was imprisoned, yet eventually, in 1966, he became Secretary-General of the party with the help of his cousin, General Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr. In 1968, Bakr's faction of the Baath Party seized power, and Hussein became Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. This put him in charge of internal Iraqi security and gave him the number-two position in the Baath Party. By 1973, Hussein was vice president of Iraq under President Bakr.

Throughout the 1970s, Hussein consolidated his power. He placed many of his own family members and people from his hometown in important positions in the Iraqi government and military. Family and tribal connections are crucial in Iraq, and Hussein used these ties to his advantage throughout his political career. He also utilized criminals to torture and murder people he perceived as threats.

In 1979, President Bakr resigned under pressure from Hussein, who then became president. Immediately after his succession, Hussein called a Baath Party meeting and had all of his opposition systematically murdered. As president, Hussein continued to reinforce his power base by enlarging security forces and employing family members in the government. One 1984 analysis indicated that 50 percent of Iraqis were either employed by the government or military or had a family member who was -- thus making the population intimately connected to and dominated by Hussein.

For the past two decades, Hussein has tyrannically ruled Iraq. He started a war with Iran, and his invasion of Kuwait led to the Persian Gulf War. While his abuses are widespread, opposition groups receive little popular support, and uprisings have been minor and easily squelched. Fear of reprisals forced nearly unanimous positive votes for Hussein in the 1995 and 2002 referendums on the presidency. In addition, many in the Middle East seem to believe that if Hussein is deposed the country will break into pieces, leading to more problems in the already troubled region.

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20021023.html

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I believe in the double butterfly. But let's not talk about our love lives, ok?

You have this very telling way of casually dismissing those things you don't understand. In a way, that CAN be a positive quality...IF and ONLY IF it keeps you from talking about things you have no knowledge of.

Unfortunately, you are all over the place. You DON'T know what you are talking about. So, you make silly statements without substantiation fed only by a perverse sentimentalism for the underdog, no matter how dirty and filthy or rabid the dog.

When you have that casually dismissive feeling, stop right there and see if you can get in touch with what it is you are feeling, where it comes from and why. If that doesn't work, try something more practical by looking for SUBSTANTIATION for your claims or feelings.

I mean the only people I've heard to use the argument, "everybody has a right to their opinions and mine are just as valid as yours..." are women who don't know that they must back up their claims with facts if they are to be taken seriously.

What's interesting about this post is that not once do you show me were or how I'm wrong. You just say I'm wrong. So I take it you have accepted the fact that you are wrong

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The US is just building a house we ALL can peacefully live in. It is still under construction.

Ah, neo-colonialism at it's best.

Again, you had no right to tear down someone elses house to then later build it up again like you want it to be. Especially not when that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

What's interesting about this post is that not once do you show me were or how I'm wrong. You just say I'm wrong. So I take it you have accepted the fact that you are wrong

Thank you. In your indictment of me you were right. I was being a bad mojo2.

You have distinguished yourself by your graceful response.

You deserve better.

I apologize.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

You probably believe in the Butterfly Effect™ too don't you?

Iraq only has to do with 9/11 as much as the US government wants it to be connected. Iraq(without US propaganda) had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. You "made" it so.


And are you sure you aren't talking about Franz Ferdinand and WWI?

I only became aware of the Butterfly Effect as a result of your post and Wikipeding it. As a matter of fact, yes, I do believe in interconnected causes and effects and those who don't believe it have what to suggest instead, constant randomness and chaos?

Last nite I posted an article outlining Saddam's rise to power and another which describes Saddam's decision to attack Iran. Anytime you examine an historic event you will see leading up to that event a series of OTHER events...such as the assassination of Archduke FRANZ Ferdinand (tyvm). That is what makes life, and in the case of the Archduke and his wife, death.

We do things for a reason. We don't do things for a reason. We do things and don't do things in a certain way for a reason. We do or don't do these things or those other things in a particular manner and at a particular time or another...for a reason.

To fully understand the significance of an event or a person you look at those events and the decisions prior to the event under scrutiny.

If we look at why President Bush chose to invade Iraq you must examine as many of the factors concerning that decision AT THAT TIME (not in retrospect) as is possible to know.

I hope when you look at all the FACTS of that moment in time (only some of which I have tried to point out) you will begin to see that his decision could easily have been different had Saddam acted differently. I hope you would entertain the POSSIBILITY that President Bush faced a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" decision that COULD have resulted in the capture or death of OBL AND the capture or death of Saddam Hussein. That it didn't happen is partially his responsibility, because he IS the President. But we should also recognize the difficulty of the decision he made and try to envision the OTHER possible choices he COULD have made.

And when we look at the choices he could have made but didn't, it is important that we at least TRY to divorce ourselves from what we know NOW. As they say, hindsight vision is 20/20.

Then, when you look at the factors surrounding his choice and the factors surrounding his non-choices it helps to cross check your answers against at least two possible supposed end results. One is the result you believe he had in mind. The other being the end result, the desired effect I assert he had/has.

Then tell me which seems more plausible.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

If you are asking if the Iraqi people merely went along with whoever rose to power in Iraq and some rulers were just better than others, I can't say for sure, but that's the way it looks.

Thank you for the history lesson, I was aware of all of it, but that was not my question.

You actually did not answer any of my questions so far, although you are quite good at spreading it thick that the US had to do "it".

But no explanations as to why it's the U.S. that had to do "it".

I have asked you questions going along this for quite a whilke now, and haven't seen much of a hint of a shadow of it.

And has much as you blamed others for their speculations, they have nothing to envy you so far...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Thank you for the history lesson, I was aware of all of it, but that was not my question.

You actually did not answer any of my questions so far, although you are quite good at spreading it thick that the US had to do "it".

But no explanations as to why it's the U.S. that had to do "it".

I have asked you questions going along this for quite a whilke now, and haven't seen much of a hint of a shadow of it.

And has much as you blamed others for their speculations, they have nothing to envy you so far...

Yesterday on NBC-TV's Meet the Press, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Chairman of the Armed Services Committee put it quite succinctly and I'm sorry if I have appeared dense or intentionally unresponsive.

"If we don't change the world, the world is gonna change us..."

Last week President Bush reminded us,

"After September 11th, I made a commitment to the American people, this nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

Rep. Hunter, continued:

"...and if we're successful in Iraq, and I think we're going to be, and Afghanistan and Khadaffy continues to unload his weapons apparatus out of Libya and ship it to the U.S. and doesn't destablize, at some point we will have neutralized three potential launching points for terrorism over the next many years..."

Once again I apologize for my failure to present my points in a more effective manner. Thanks for your patience and for giving me the opportunity to do so.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Thank you. In your indictment of me you were right. I was being a bad mojo2.

You have distinguished yourself by your graceful response.

You deserve better.

I apologize.

Don't worry about it. It makes for a much more constructive debate when we can put our points forth without attacking each other personally.


I'll respond to your points tomorrow. Too tired at the moment to make any sense.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Don't worry about it. It makes for a much more constructive debate when we can put our points forth without attacking each other personally.


I'll respond to your points tomorrow. Too tired at the moment to make any sense.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Yesterday on NBC-TV's Meet the Press, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Chairman of the Armed Services Committee put it quite succinctly and I'm sorry if I have appeared dense or intentionally unresponsive.

Sorry. I do not have TV and I am not American, so I cannot follow this vein argumentation the way you do.

Last week President Bush reminded us,

"If we don't change the world, the world is gonna change us..."

I can't help to rewrite that quote as ""If we don't change the world, the world is gonna change U.S...."

That would be for a totally different thread, and I do not want to troll this further.

Yet, there is something that makes me extremely uncomfortable with this quote from Bush. It really is as if this planet has 2 entities; the U.S. and the rest. That bothers me to a point that you have no idea. It is such a binary vision that eradicates any concepts of "middle", "gradation" ... It is also quite antagonistic; if you are not U.S., you are none of "us", but you are also not much (you know, these speaches about "God bless America", "We're #1", etc... mojo2 I invite you to check some of the threads on this very topic in this forum to have a better sense of what others understand or at least, have a deeper appreciation of what non-U.S. (and some U.S.) participants of this forum can perceive from such a statement.

It's like saying, "The U.S. is so good, it cannot be nothing but a blessing on the world and it cannot be touched so we have to clean house everywhere else". It is with that spirit that Iraq was invaded (at least publicly; my take is that there is a lot more to gain economically about it than just make friends or free a population from a dictator, even if there are many who deny that)

That is exactly what neo-colonialism is about. Good people with a too high appreciation for themselves wanting to spread it around regardless of of those who receive the "blessing". But in this case, we are talking about icing on a cake that is much more interesting for a minority; such ideas hide the real advantages of intervening in Iraq. Invading Iraq is just a way to better control the oil flow in the area, make a dent in OPEP's stronghold, isolate Iran further and create a some Pax Americana in the Middle East.

IMHO, obviously, more ME populations want democracies (Iran is an excellent example of that since the Clergy there has lost its foothold and it spopulation is turning far more liberal now than it probably was at the time of the last Shah. Saudi Arabia's population is reacting more and more to its totalitarian state and although they may turn one day into another religious state, it is my impression that it will not last long. ME is and will turn towards democracy sometime soon, maybe in a few decades. But military interventions are only antagonizing the powers there now and delaying a process that capitalism has well lubricated for some time.

Of course, I may be totally wrong.

Once again I apologize for my failure to present my points in a more effective manner. Thanks for your patience and for giving me the opportunity to do so.

We may disagree, but I respect you in this disagreement. Looking forward for more exchanges...