- #211
JohnDubYa
- 468
- 1
Let me guess: You read The Guardian and Al Jazeera for your information too, right?
At least TRY to examine the situation a little more objectively.
At least TRY to examine the situation a little more objectively.
I am a national of Pakistan and have good enough information on what is going on in the heads of my nation.
Even though the dictator of ours is in favour of the US an average Pakistani does not think that we should support US in the so called war against terrorism.
If US really wanted to throw Saddam off, there was an easy way. You could have just helped his enemies [buy] arms or something.
And might i remind Americans that their partial success in Afghanistan is due to Pakistan. [No one has suggested otherwise.] Afghanis are a warrior nation and they would still not give up and i fear that this time they will also be the reason for Pakistan's destruction cause they are our friends no more.
P.S. If you think saddam was bad to his general public then why are Iraqis fighting back and was there a terrorist attack on the Deputy prime minister of Iraq today even though Prime minister is leveling the path to democracy.
JohnDubYa said:Fundamentalist Islam's wierdness is well-documented. If there is one thing we have learned in the war, the enemy we face acts very strange. There is no doubt that we saved many of these people's lives from Saddam's clutches, but they turned on us anyway.
Yes, definitely in your opinion, rather than in fact. Saddam was a complete amateur compared to the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Hitler came very close to succeeding in systematically annihilating the entire Jewish race - he managed to kill 6 million, in case you've forgotten. He slowly starved them to death, used them for slave labour and sadistic medical experimentation. Saddam's worst atrocities pale in comparison. It says a lot about your case that you need to exaggerate Saddam's evil in order to justify the war. It is utterly ridiculous to claim that Saddam is the worst dictator in two centuries, but hardly a surprising claim considering all the others; Saddam has nukes, he's planning to commit suicide by launching an attack against America, he has ties with a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists who want him dead. Next thing we'll find out is that Saddam was a lightning weilding demigod who was plotting to turn everybody on Earth into frogs with his evil magic powers handed to him by Satan. Sure, Saddam was bad, but there's about a dozen people worse than him that I don't see us attacking.JohnDubYa said:In my opinion, of all dictators that we have witnessed in the past two centuries, Saddam eclipses them all in terms of sheer cruelty.
Uday was not Saddam's designated successor; his excesses were so great that even Saddam felt he was a liability. And you're assuming that one of Saddam's sons would be able to hang onto power after Saddam's death. The upheaval following the death of Saddam would have been the point at which the regime would have been at it's most vulnerable, and most susceptible to a coup de'tat far less bloody than the American "if in doubt, bomb them" approach" which prevailed.JohnDubYa said:And don't think we could have waited for him to pass on. His sons were no better. Uday, especially, was a sheer pyschopath who carried out some of his father's more gruesome murders. Ask former members of his Olympic teams (well, if any have survived).
This is a really BIG assumption.Pyrovus said:And you're assuming that one of Saddam's sons would be able to hang onto power after Saddam's death. The upheaval following the death of Saddam would have been the point at which the regime would have been at it's most vulnerable, and most susceptible to a coup de'tat far less bloody than the American "if in doubt, bomb them" approach" which prevailed.
Yeah, I guess it is pretty strange that people don't like the Americans after having relatives blown to pieces by American bombs.
Yes, definitely in your opinion, rather than in fact. Saddam was a complete amateur compared to the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Hitler came very close to succeeding in systematically annihilating the entire Jewish race - he managed to kill 6 million, in case you've forgotten.
And you're assuming that one of Saddam's sons would be able to hang onto power after Saddam's death. The upheaval following the death of Saddam would have been the point at which the regime would have been at it's most vulnerable, and most susceptible to a coup de'tat far less bloody than the American "if in doubt, bomb them" approach" which prevailed.
JohnDubYa said:I think Saddam's sons knew exactly how to retain power once the old man died. kat is right, you are making a big assumption. No, make that a pollyanna assumption. Should foreign policy rest on such grandiose wishes?
JohnDubYa said:Read my post -- I said in terms of sheer cruelty, not numbers. The manner in which Saddam was directly involved in torture and cruel killings is far more severe than Hitler or Stalin. Other than the Night of the Long Knives, I am not sure Hitler ordered the killing of anyone (but was certainly responsible for it). If anything, only Stalin comes close to such personal involvement in killing.
The U.S. was at a point where there was increasing pressure to drop sanctions, the regime was weak because of sanctions and the military that was parked at it's door. The option was act while they were weak, drop sanctions and continue to monitor and engage on a regular basis with a military precense (which wasn't winning us any points either), or withdraw, drop sanctions... It appears Bush took your advice and acted while they were weak. Either way, there still would have been a need deal with outside interference, as there is now.Pyrovus said:Allow me to clarify:
Any regime is at it's most vulnerable following the death of it's leader. The successor has no guarantee that everyone will automatically support him; rival factions will want power for themselves. The successor will begin with a much smaller power base than his predecessor as a result. It is at this point that a popular uprising is most likely to succeed. I wasn't suggesting that we just sit and hope that Qusay's government will collapse of it's own accord. I was suggesting that it would have been far wiser to be patient and wait for the inevitable point in which the regime is weak, in which covertly support a coup de'tat against the regime, rather than hastily acting brazenly and taking the option that requires the least thinking.
And you wonder why many people do not take you seriously.JohnDubYa said:In my opinion, of all dictators that we have witnessed in the past two centuries, Saddam eclipses them all in terms of sheer cruelty. And that goes for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Baby Doc...
I wasn't suggesting that we just sit and hope that Qusay's government will collapse of it's own accord. I was suggesting that it would have been far wiser to be patient and wait for the inevitable point in which the regime is weak, in which covertly support a coup de'tat against the regime, rather than hastily acting brazenly and taking the option that requires the least thinking.
So, because Hitler was far better at covering his tracks than Saddam, he wasn't as bad?
And he certainally had his share in direct involvment eg having many of the conspirators in the July 1944 bomb plot hung with piano wire and videotaped for his amusement.
And you wonder why many people do not take you seriously.
Now, you are going to argue that it depends on what the defintion of witness is, aren't you. Perhaps you will stop being so cruel and provide us with your definition for what constitutes cruelty.
Don't cry so loud, dubya. I repsonded to you. You never read my posts, and you wonder why you don't know what I have said.JohnDubYa said:Have you answered the question about JFK yet?
I think the term is well understood.
Now, about JFK...
Well, we are all excited for you. If you think so, then everybody should just recognize what you mean. You have no need to explain yourself, because you think that everyone should just know, somehow, what you mean.JohnDubYa said:I think the term is well understood.
The sole problem in our country is the lack of education and greed of money.
You actually said that Pakistan is a place of religious bigotry. Let me tell u my father is a shia and my mother is a sunni i.e. they belong to the two major sects in Pakistan that were involved in the fightings against each other. I've never seen them row about it.
Trying to sound like the other Dubya, I see. Do you really expect this to work?JohnDubYa said:Trust me.
kat said:The U.S. was at a point where there was increasing pressure to drop sanctions, the regime was weak because of sanctions and the military that was parked at it's door. The option was act while they were weak, drop sanctions and continue to monitor and engage on a regular basis with a military precense (which wasn't winning us any points either), or withdraw, drop sanctions... It appears Bush took your advice and acted while they were weak. Either way, there still would have been a need deal with outside interference, as there is now.
Just because they're brutal doesn't make them politically street-smart. Let us remember that Qusay's and Uday's power came not from their own efforts and abilities, but from who their father was. Once Saddam died, their position would have been most precarious, and their brutality would have become a liability. All other powerful figures in the regime would have reason to be afraid of either of the Hussein kids taking power, for as potential rivals they would be very likely to end up with a tour of the inside of Uday's mincing machine. As a result they would be likely to move against the Hussein brothers while they have the chance.JohnDubYa said:It is wishful thinking that anyone was going to rise up against the Husseins, especially Uday with his Shred-O-Matic.
JohnDubYa said:I don't recall saying anything about Hitler covering his tracks. Nor did I even imply it.
JohnDubYa said:Read my post -- I said in terms of sheer cruelty, not numbers. The manner in which Saddam was directly involved in torture and cruel killings is far more severe than Hitler or Stalin. Other than the Night of the Long Knives, I am not sure Hitler ordered the killing of anyone (but was certainly responsible for it). If anything, only Stalin comes close to such personal involvement in killing.
By trying to claim that Hitler was not as bad as Saddam, that is indeed what you are doing.JohnDubYa said:By the way, I see your tactic: You are trying to make it appear as if I am discounting Hitler's atrocities.
You're arguing that because Hitler preferred to avoid directly ordering killings in order to keep his hands clean, this makes him less sadistic than somebody who does the same stuff but on a much, much smaller scale but takes direct involvement in it.
Hitler pioneered assembly line cruelty.
By trying to claim that Hitler was not as bad as Saddam, that is indeed what you are doing
what would you say to the 11793 - 13802 innocent iraqi civilians killed by the US army? don't respond to me, but think about what you would say to a child who has just lost his father and mother in an US air strike..
JohnDubYa said:Have you ever seen the character played by Joe Pesci in Casino? Remember when he crushed the thug's head in the vise? That's the essence of Saddam's character.
JohnDubYa said:More seriously, I watched the video with the "informant" reading off the names of supposed conspirators. Everyone in the room knew what it meant to have a "yes" attached to his name. And as the men cried for compassion, Saddam's amusement just heightened. To me, his expressions told me that he was a particularly sadistic individual.
So which part was good?JohnDubYa said:Frankly, I don't care why Bush went into Iraq. He did. And whatever his motives, it was a good thing.
So which part was good?
* The thousands of corpses?
* The destruction of Iraq's infrastructure?
* The theft of Iraqi oil?
* The massive profits for Bush, Cheney, and their friends?
* The dead US troops?
* The complete loss of international trust of the US administration?
* The global impression that the US administration has turned governing a nation, going to war, and killing thousands of people into nothing more than a business opportunity?
Oh, I know. It's the removal of a bad man, right? Was it worth the things listed above?
Once again: Would it be worth it if it was your own family splattered all over the neighbourhood for Bush's profit?
This means nothing, your opinions are that of a typical westerner who's morals have been twisted and shaped by the media to the government and corporates whim.
JohnDubYa said:Your question is loaded. When you ask a reasonable question, I will answer.
I realize this shakes your foundation, but Saddam was more than a bad man. And yes, it was worth it for reasons you did not list.
Again, loaded question.
JohnDubYa said:I guess the US trained the informant to rat out those that betrayed the Ba'ath Party. Or maybe the US trained Saddam's bodyguards to shoot political prisoners with revolvers.
Of course the questions are loaded. With truth. Sometimes that can be painful and frustrating for those whose personal sense of order relies upon clinging to falsehoods. However, nothing in the questions was incorrect or misleading in any way. They are quite straightforward.