"Saddam's Boys"

[XMan]

Text

This was in Time a while back, I don't know how I missed it. Man, there are some screwed up people in the world . . .

 

[ProfJohn]

I think the correct response to this is:
Where's Osama?
or is it
Are we safer now?
or
Where are the WMD?
or
Mission accomplished?

I am confused as to which one fits in this situation.
Eliminating these two and their father is a great accomplishment, but only time will tell if it was worth the cost.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the correct response to this is:
Where's Osama?
or is it
Are we safer now?
or
Where are the WMD?
or
Mission accomplished?

I am confused as to which one fits in this situation.
Eliminating these two and their father is a great accomplishment, but only time will tell if it was worth the cost.

I think the correct response is: are we any closer to eliminating the behavior exhibited by these reprehensible devils? It's sort of the "teach a man to fish" principle: are you really accomplishing anything by killing three torturers, when millions are still being tortured around the world? Furthermore, on what grounds do you base your moral imperitive to kill those three, when you cheerfully suffer equally evil behavior from various groups all around the world?

 

[ProfJohn]

So Slash, are you saying:
We should go around and kill all the bad guys?
or
Because we can't kill all of them, we should not kill any of them?

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So Slash, are you saying:
We should go around and kill all the bad guys?
or
Because we can't kill all of them, we should not kill any of them?

Neither, actually. Give my post another read; I fixed a typo that may have been hindering your comprehension.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the correct response to this is:
Where's Osama?
or is it
Are we safer now?
or
Where are the WMD?
or
Mission accomplished?

I am confused as to which one fits in this situation.
Eliminating these two and their father is a great accomplishment, but only time will tell if it was worth the cost.

I think the correct response is: are we any closer to eliminating the behavior exhibited by these reprehensible devils? It's sort of the "teach a man to fish" principle: are you really accomplishing anything by killing three torturers, when millions are still being tortured around the world? Furthermore, where on what grounds do you base your moral imperitive to kill those three, when you cheerfully suffer equally evil behavior from various groups all around the world?

Actually if more people were around who thought the same way as Slash during ww2...we would all be speaking iether german or Japanese.......

Prof John has it correct!!

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the correct response to this is:
Where's Osama?
or is it
Are we safer now?
or
Where are the WMD?
or
Mission accomplished?

I am confused as to which one fits in this situation.
Eliminating these two and their father is a great accomplishment, but only time will tell if it was worth the cost.

I think the correct response is: are we any closer to eliminating the behavior exhibited by these reprehensible devils? It's sort of the "teach a man to fish" principle: are you really accomplishing anything by killing three torturers, when millions are still being tortured around the world? Furthermore, where on what grounds do you base your moral imperitive to kill those three, when you cheerfully suffer equally evil behavior from various groups all around the world?

Actually if more people were around who thouhgt the same way during ww2...we would all be speaking iether german or Japanese.......

Prof John has it correct!!

Oh dear...this post isn't so much "wrong" as it just sort of fails to even understand what it going on. I'd love to get into a lengthy debate about the vast historical differences between WWII and the Iraq War, but it's already clear that reasoned, thoughtful discussion is right out, so I'll just shut my trap and let you live with your bizarre delusions of nobility.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the correct response to this is:
Where's Osama?
or is it
Are we safer now?
or
Where are the WMD?
or
Mission accomplished?

I am confused as to which one fits in this situation.
Eliminating these two and their father is a great accomplishment, but only time will tell if it was worth the cost.

I think the correct response is: are we any closer to eliminating the behavior exhibited by these reprehensible devils? It's sort of the "teach a man to fish" principle: are you really accomplishing anything by killing three torturers, when millions are still being tortured around the world? Furthermore, where on what grounds do you base your moral imperitive to kill those three, when you cheerfully suffer equally evil behavior from various groups all around the world?

Actually if more people were around who thouhgt the same way during ww2...we would all be speaking iether german or Japanese.......

Prof John has it correct!!

This is such a stupid post that I don't even know how to effectively counter it. It'd be like you insisting that the sky was purple when it was blue and me being unable to convince you.

We have supported numerous dictators through their murderous reigns. We supported the corrupt, amoral, and unjust and continue to do so as long as they give us concessions. The second they step out of line we drop down the image of righteousness and backhand them (or attempt to).

I wonder if Rummy was remorseful when Hussein was hung, as he seemed to like the guy from those pictures, they seemed to get along quite well. But I guess that was when Hussein didn't dare step out of line, despite him being just as evil then as he was recently.

Ohh yes, the American hypocricy and "good guys (tm)" effect is always in full swing.

Iraq's justifications and "proof" were a hoax and the ala carte way of presenting them was a sham. Eventually most people will realize that.

As far as Japan and Germany, last time I checked Hussein didn't even get close to invading half of the Middle East, nor did he wipe out 6 million people. Nor did he launch a massive attack against the majority of our naval fleet.

To compare the two is to diminish not only the historical significance and sacrifice of WW2, but also diminishes your apparent image (or lack thereof) of intelligence.

 

[ProfJohn]

Slash? answer my question.
We can?t solve all the problems in the world, not even close.
However, we may be able to make an impact in certain areas.
Do we try and help where we can or do we just decide that since we can?t do it all we shouldn?t do anything?

We went into Iraq with a high minded noble purpose, to give the Iraq people a chance at freedom and democracy free of Saddam. We did this not so much because we decided that we should remove Saddam on the moral grounds that he was a bad guy. But because we felt we could no longer live with the risks that Saddam in power meant to us. (The whole WMD, ties with terror thing.)

There was no moral imperative to kill these three. Two were killed in a shot out with American soldiers; they could have turned themselves in and lived. One was killed by the Iraqi people via a trial. If you remember we even offered Saddam a chance to leave Iraq peacefully before the war started, had Saddam taken that offer he might still be alive some place enjoying the good life as so many deposed dictators do. Our goal was not to kill Saddam, but to remove him and his regime from power.

Slash, explain to us your moral imperative.
Do you think we should have left Saddam in power?
And as I asked before, since we can?t solve all the worlds problems, should we not even try to solve some of its problems?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I wonder if Rummy was remorseful when Hussein was hung, as he seemed to like the guy from those pictures, they seemed to get along quite well. But I guess that was when Hussein didn't dare step out of line, despite him being just as evil then as he was recently.

Look at what I found:
Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin together they seem to be getting along quite well.
JFK and Khrushchev shaking hands wow guess JFK liked commies huh?
Clinton and Arafat look at how Arafat seems to be looking up to Clinton. Obviously Clinton must love terrorists because of this picture huh?
Reagan and Gorbachev hanging out in cowboy hatswe all know how much Reagan loved commies as well.

I think I made my point; you can't look at a picture of world leaders and draw a conclusion from it. EVERY President in the last 50 years has meet with someone who we oppose politically and every one of them had pictures taken that made them look like good buddies. It is part of foreign relations. Rumsfeld did not go to Saddam because he thought Saddam was a great guy, but because he was our best and only hope of balancing out the threat of the Iranians.

Interestingly, the Soviets also supported Iraq in its war again Iran, they too worried about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism via Iran.
Great historical document about the meeting between Rummy and Iraq
Click on that link and read the whole thing. Will educate you on why we built relationships with Iraq in the 1980's.
Remember this was only 3 years after Iran had held 53 Americans hostage for over a year.
Then head to page 9 and read this line "I made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us citing the use of chemical weapons. Possible escalation in the gulf. And human rights."
The meeting in this memo took place before Saddam had committed his worse atrocities in gassing and killing the Kurds.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Yes, there are some screwed up people in the world. There have always been. That should not be amazing. What is amazing is that at this late date, there are people still defending the war in Iraq

Bush 41 halted Desert Storm when he had the the numerically correct sized force assembled to take on the occupation of Iraq. He did so because his coalition supported the ouster of Iraq from Quwait but not the invasion and occupation of Iraq. GW Bush has proven how wise the father was in making that decision.

No one talks about the failed Shia uprisings supported and encouraged by GHW Bush and administration. The Shia of Iraq have much grievance against the US prior to this war.

Care to look up how many Iraqis have fled the country since March 2003? Anyone with the means has done so. These are the people Iraq needs the most, its middle class.

The outcome to date has explicitly illustrated what a bizarre decision has been made. Iraq has been set back nearly to the stone age with the help of neanderthal leadership from the US.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Slash? answer my question.
We can?t solve all the problems in the world, not even close.
However, we may be able to make an impact in certain areas.
Do we try and help where we can or do we just decide that since we can?t do it all we shouldn?t do anything?

We went into Iraq with a high minded noble purpose, to give the Iraq people a chance at freedom and democracy free of Saddam. We did this not so much because we decided that we should remove Saddam on the moral grounds that he was a bad guy. But because we felt we could no longer live with the risks that Saddam in power meant to us. (The whole WMD, ties with terror thing.)

There was no moral imperative to kill these three. Two were killed in a shot out with American soldiers; they could have turned themselves in and lived. One was killed by the Iraqi people via a trial. If you remember we even offered Saddam a chance to leave Iraq peacefully before the war started, had Saddam taken that offer he might still be alive some place enjoying the good life as so many deposed dictators do. Our goal was not to kill Saddam, but to remove him and his regime from power.

Slash, explain to us your moral imperative.
Do you think we should have left Saddam in power?
And as I asked before, since we can?t solve all the worlds problems, should we not even try to solve some of its problems?

Your "question", as such, was a (I can only assume) deliberate misinterpretation of my post designed to draw out a response that could be further nickel-and-dimed until we began discussing topics entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and therefore I determined that it was not worth dignifying with a response. Furthermore, the following sentence: "We went into Iraq with a high minded noble purpose, to give the Iraq people a chance at freedom and democracy free of Saddam.", shows just how out of touch you are with anything resembling a reasonable response to objective reality. This isn't an ad hominem attack, just an explaination for why I will not be responding to anything in your post, or any of your further posts. If you demonstrate yourself capable of mounting something that approaches a rational thought, please, let me know, I'd be glad to discuss the issue further. As it stands, I bid you good day.

 

[ProfJohn]

Slash, if you don't agree with my interpretation of why went into Iraq why not respond with your own?

If I am so out of touch with reality why don?t you explain to me what reality really is?

You accuse me of not being able to express a rational thought, and yet you have not expressed any yourself. All you have done is disagree with what I said without posting any opinion of your own. Or you have asked a bunch of rhetorical questions ?are we any closer to eliminating the behavior exhibited by these reprehensible devils?? etc

If you want a reasonable debate on the subject at hand then you have to do more than disagree with what I and other say. You have to put forth your own ideas and opinions.

Oh... and to answer your question I quoted above: Yes we are, Saddam was the foremost "reprehensible devil" in the world. The removal of him and the Taliban means that 50 million people are no longer living in repression.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So Slash, are you saying:
We should go around and kill all the bad guys?
or
Because we can't kill all of them, we should not kill any of them?

Tough call, these days.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So Slash, are you saying:
We should go around and kill all the bad guys?
or
Because we can't kill all of them, we should not kill any of them?

Tough call, these days.

maybe we shouldn't create and prop up so many bad guys...

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So Slash, are you saying:
We should go around and kill all the bad guys?
or
Because we can't kill all of them, we should not kill any of them?

Tough call, these days.

maybe we shouldn't create and prop up so many bad guys...

Yes, it is always our fault. :roll:

 

[Craig234]

John,

Yes, the three of them were terrible - but you are Clintonesque in your selectivity on these issues. Not a word, for example, about our ulterior motives and other policies, including such things as wanting to put Chalabi in as our puppet who would implement the radical right's structure for economics in Iraq and sell off their assets to US corporations cheaply.

It seems your position is that things like torture is justification for attacking or killing the people we name as enemies, and is something to ignore with the 'it's for more important geopolitical needs' when it's someone we want to ignore it with. How convenient - a license to attack or not with a double standard at will.

So Slash, are you saying:
We should go around and kill all the bad guys?
or
Because we can't kill all of them, we should not kill any of them?

You beg the question here by implying that we are always against 'the bad guys' and the only issue is the limitations of how much good we can do. However, this is a very false account of history. As I've recounted before, for example, we've used terrorism through proxies in countless situation in recent decades, and condoned it in many more.

So the question is not, should we accept the practical limitations in plahing policeman to the world; the question is, should we do better at our own polices, for example, our error in claiming we had a need to kill over two million vietnamese as a threat to our national security, pouring flaming jellied gas on farmers; should we have respected the voters of Nicaragua and not only not tried to pour millions in to sway their elections, but not set up a literal terrorist army to sway their election, just because some of our 'interests' decided they would rather have a different result; perhaps we should not have overthrown democracy in Chile, killing the elected president (and trying to prevent him even taking office) because some corporations were greedy and demanded it, and so on. But let's look at your argument on our 'need' to support Iraq because of Iran:

Remember this was only 3 years after Iran had held 53 Americans hostage for over a year.

Remember that was only 0 years after the US had removed their democracy and put in place a tyrant with a brutal security force for 25 years. I'd say that holding 53 people for a year - and then releasing them unharmed - is about the mildest response to that sort of thing I can recall ever occuring. And you think it justified our pushing a war with a million casualties.

How frickin' typically immoral of the right.

Unbelievably, the other part of your defense is to cite the *lack* of any serious reaction by the US to Saddam's use of WMD, as we instead rewarded him with closer relations, by citing a report that documents how we did nothing to change our policy, but merely told him his actions made the support we were determined to give him politically 'difficult'.

So, at the time, they're not an excuse for pushing UN sanctions, or cutting off relations, much less invading and overthrowing him - but 15 years later, they're find grounds for utterly hypocritcal excuses for an illegal war and our praising the execution of the man for the same types of actions that made it 'diffictult' as we increased aid.

And your only defense is that we had a problem with Iran - so John, are you having a double standard or saying everyone in the world can act this way, with WMD's used and excused as long as one nation is upset with another so they turn a blind eye?

Have you lost all capacity for any sort of idea of consistency and equal treatment and principles, that not every wrong act is excused if it has the slightest benefit to our desire for power?

Then head to page 9 and read this line "I made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us citing the use of chemical weapons. Possible escalation in the gulf. And human rights."

The removal of him and the Taliban means that 50 million people are no longer living in repression.

And again, very loose with the facts. The people of Afghanistan are still under comparably bad conditions because we did not do almost any of the things needed - and the nearly absent opium trade under the Taliban has resumed to provide 90% of the world market's demand and is the #1 crop and export from the country once again. You are aware that the president of Afghanistan has virtually no control outside the capital city and is mocked as the 'Mayor of Afghanistan'? You are aware that in Iraq, the Kurds were already functioning as an autonomous nation under Saddam, where he had no political control or military presence in the north of Iraq? That the people of Iraq absolutely still live under terrible repression, of a different sort, with some problems relieved and others far worse - but you see no need to mention the full story? Just the catchy phrase '50 million freed from repression' says it fine for you in an utterly misleading - and as I said, Clintonesque, and I'm being hard on Clinton - comment?

 

[slash196]

Craig, you have far more patience than I. I'm so sick and tired of arguing with right-wing brick-wall nutjobs. It never does a lick of good, they stick to their party line no matter how untenable it becomes. You can't argue with someone who KNOWS he's right.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the correct response to this is:
Where's Osama?
or is it
Are we safer now?
or
Where are the WMD?
or
Mission accomplished?

I am confused as to which one fits in this situation.
Eliminating these two and their father is a great accomplishment, but only time will tell if it was worth the cost.

I think the correct response is: are we any closer to eliminating the behavior exhibited by these reprehensible devils? It's sort of the "teach a man to fish" principle: are you really accomplishing anything by killing three torturers, when millions are still being tortured around the world? Furthermore, where on what grounds do you base your moral imperitive to kill those three, when you cheerfully suffer equally evil behavior from various groups all around the world?

Actually if more people were around who thought the same way as Slash during ww2...we would all be speaking iether german or Japanese.......

Prof John has it correct!!

Your statement is foolish and has absolutely no basis in reality.

In fact, most Americans did not want to be militarily involved in World War II until after the attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR wanted to get involved in the war prior to that, but knew that it would be too unpopular.

Saddam didn't attack the United States so I think you would have had a hard time selling the Gulf War II to people of that era.

Got any more nonsense you'd like to share with us? :roll:

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the correct response to this is:
Where's Osama?
or is it
Are we safer now?
or
Where are the WMD?
or
Mission accomplished?

I am confused as to which one fits in this situation.
Eliminating these two and their father is a great accomplishment, but only time will tell if it was worth the cost.

I think the correct response is: are we any closer to eliminating the behavior exhibited by these reprehensible devils? It's sort of the "teach a man to fish" principle: are you really accomplishing anything by killing three torturers, when millions are still being tortured around the world? Furthermore, where on what grounds do you base your moral imperitive to kill those three, when you cheerfully suffer equally evil behavior from various groups all around the world?

Actually if more people were around who thought the same way as Slash during ww2...we would all be speaking iether german or Japanese.......

Prof John has it correct!!

Your statement is foolish and has absolutely no basis in reality.

In fact, most Americans did not want to be militarily involved in World War II until after the attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR wanted to get involved in the war prior to that, but knew that it would be too unpopular.

Saddam didn't attack the United States so I think you would have had a hard time selling the Gulf War II to people of that era.

Got any more nonsense you'd like to share with us? :roll:

QFFT (quoted for f*ckn truth)
It is absolutely AMAZING how many people today believe FDR and the US declared war on Germany( Japans ally) after Pearl Harbor.
It wasn't until days later when GERMANY declared war against the US that the US THEN declared war against Germany.
Even talking about ww2 and irag in the same paragraph is utter nonsense.
WW2 was about the US being attacked by one country and having war declared against it by another country.
Iraq was about a group of draft dodgers who believed they were the elite and were so smart that they were going to do something normal people knew was grandiose and based on a flawed premise. Re-making the Middle East in the US/Republican image because everyone in the world secretly loved us and would welcome us with open arms.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
Yes, there are some screwed up people in the world. There have always been. That should not be amazing. What is amazing is that at this late date, there are people still defending the war in Iraq

Bush 41 halted Desert Storm when he had the the numerically correct sized force assembled to take on the occupation of Iraq. He did so because his coalition supported the ouster of Iraq from Quwait but not the invasion and occupation of Iraq. GW Bush has proven how wise the father was in making that decision.

No one talks about the failed Shia uprisings supported and encouraged by GHW Bush and administration. The Shia of Iraq have much grievance against the US prior to this war.

Care to look up how many Iraqis have fled the country since March 2003? Anyone with the means has done so. These are the people Iraq needs the most, its middle class.

The outcome to date has explicitly illustrated what a bizarre decision has been made. Iraq has been set back nearly to the stone age with the help of neanderthal leadership from the US.

If you were to read about GW:1, Bush Sr. couldn't have gone into Iraq. The whole coalition and agreements with the Saudis and other countries specifically restricted the US and coalition from going into Iraq as an occupying force. Furthermore, members of the coalition that contributed forces specifically stated that they would not allow for an actual invasion utilizing their troops.

The whole coalition would have distintegrated the second we went from a liberating to a conquering army, leaving us alone with a lot of troops to support and no infrastructure to do so.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
What is amazing is that at this late date, there are people still defending the war in Iraq

Originally posted by: slash196
I'm so sick and tired of arguing with right-wing brick-wall nutjobs.

It never does a lick of good, they stick to their party line no matter how untenable it becomes.

You can't argue with someone who KNOWS he's right.

It seems they are all here in P&N.

At least they are now "contained" and not a voting power anymore. :laugh:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Slash, if you don't agree with my interpretation of why went into Iraq why not respond with your own?

If I am so out of touch with reality why don?t you explain to me what reality really is?

You accuse me of not being able to express a rational thought, and yet you have not expressed any yourself. All you have done is disagree with what I said without posting any opinion of your own. Or you have asked a bunch of rhetorical questions ?are we any closer to eliminating the behavior exhibited by these reprehensible devils?? etc

If you want a reasonable debate on the subject at hand then you have to do more than disagree with what I and other say. You have to put forth your own ideas and opinions.

Oh... and to answer your question I quoted above: Yes we are, Saddam was the foremost "reprehensible devil" in the world. The removal of him and the Taliban means that 50 million people are no longer living in repression.

LMAO, congrats to Slash for being another one added to the not going your BS games list.