Day of Infamy

Day of Infamy

#juan

#61

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 5th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov

I think the US had the DUTY to lynch Saddam. I think you did too Juan, I think we all did.

How much do we shout "never again" in regards to genocide, but here Saddam is..an architect of Genocide..and you say "Well maybe this time".

No, what happened needed to.

No I didn't have a duty, at least not if we had to kill a million Iraqis to do it. Destroying the country's infrastructure along with the bloody sanctions that killed over a half million children was genocide. I would rather have left him in power and paid an assassin to take him out. Do you really imagine that Iraq will survive as a country? The killing isn't even close to being finished.

#juan

#62

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear

I've been trying to stay impartial here and just read along, taking in the various facts. I asked for a link to another of juan's 'claims', with no response, I was just debating asking for a link to some proof of that very statement.

Bear,

This will come as a shock to you, but I don't do your research. You are as capable as most here to find information on the web. You might even like it.

ITN

Are you going to tell us that the hand picked puppets that the U.S. has installed in Bagdad are free to do as they like? The orders for the lynching of Hussein came directly from Washington and you know it.

CDNBear

#63

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Bear, This will come as a shock to you, but I don't do your research. You are as capable as most here to find information on the web. You might even like it.

Of course.

How silly of me.

I guess we can post whatever nonsense we can dream up and provide no real proof or evidence to back it up. But I wouldn't think of doing that. I'll leave that to the weak kneed liberal revisionists and Arab nazi party supporters like yourself.

Hey juan, you missed the opportunity to enlighten someone. I was following along looking to be informed by the varying positions, as I have doen in other threads. Once again my attempt to hold you in a light of respect has been shot out by your own BB gun. Good shot.

Kreskin

#64

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

30 December 2006 - a day of infamy
Gabriele Zamparini, The cat's dream30 December 2006 will be remembered as a day of infamy. In violation of international law and human decency, the quisling government of occupied Iraq, a puppet, sectarian regime installed by the American occupation and supported by Iran, assassinated the legitimate President of the Republic of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. It’s been reported that after his execution the assassins shouted: "Long live Muqtada, Long live Muqtada" [Moqtada Al-Sadr] It’s also been reported that Saddam Hussein was tortured before his execution and his body was mutilated afterwards. Another source tells us: "The video shows no blood on Saddam’s face and body, TV aired video of the body showed blood, cuts and bruises on the face." (...) After the initial silence on the real scale of the horror in Iraq, when the Iraq Body Count figures were used even by the antiwar movement in spite the apocalypse was already known and after the ongoing silence on the responsibility of the sectarian militias in mass murdering and ethnic cleansing, this other silence on the lynching of Saddam Hussein raises once again fundamental questions on the role of the Western left and the anti-war movement and...
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:

If the judge had not ordered the execution he too would've been strung up by the cave dwellers in charge. What a pathetic situation. The more I see what's going on over their the more I understand why Donald Rumsefeld was shaking hands with Saddam a year after he used gas. Saddam was at war with lunatic fundamentalists, the same nuts the west is fighting today. It's too bad we didn't let him have Kuwait so he could run the Saudis out as well. The perpetrators of 9-11 would've been strung up before they got to New York.

I think not

#65

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

ITN

Are you going to tell us that the hand picked puppets that the U.S. has installed in Bagdad are free to do as they like? The orders for the lynching of Hussein came directly from Washington and you know it.

That is your personal opinion and nothing more. I would like to add that it is quite arrogant of you to presume the Iraqi's are incapable and or unable to govern themselves. I have seen your posts and you have always supported the United Nations, yet when the United Nations FULLY endorses the Iraqi elections (not to mention the EU and Canada), you don't buy it. May I ask why this double standard?

What is it that the UN, the EU, Canada and a myriad of other countries don't know about the Iraqi elections and you do? Here's the answer; you know nothing. You are expressing your opinion and are incapable of backing up your drivel with any facts.

If the Iraqi government are indeed puppets of the US, those countries who endorsed the elections (including Canada) should bow their heads in shame.

#juan

#66

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear

Of course.

How silly of me.

I guess we can post whatever nonsense we can dream up and provide no real proof or evidence to back it up. But I wouldn't think of doing that. I'll leave that to the weak kneed liberal revisionists and Arab nazi party supporters like yourself.

Hey juan, you missed the opportunity to enlighten someone. I was following along looking to be informed by the varying positions, as I have doen in other threads. Once again my attempt to hold you in a light of respect has been shot out by your own BB gun. Good shot.

If you think a post is nonsense, or even questionable, you have two choices. One, is to ignore it. Two, is to bring your own proof to refute whatever statement you dissagree with. This is your enlightenment for today. Don't hurt yourself....

#juan

#67

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

That is your personal opinion and nothing more. I would like to add that it is quite arrogant of you to presume the Iraqi's are incapable and or unable to govern themselves. I have seen your posts and you have always supported the United Nations, yet when the United Nations FULLY endorses the Iraqi elections (not to mention the EU and Canada), you don't buy it. May I ask why this double standard?

What is it that the UN, the EU, Canada and a myriad of other countries don't know about the Iraqi elections and you do? Here's the answer; you know nothing. You are expressing your opinion and are incapable of backing up your drivel with any facts.

If the Iraqi government are indeed puppets of the US, those countries who endorsed the elections (including Canada) should bow their heads in shame.

ITN

Are you living in a cave somewhere in the wilds of New England? A civil war has been raging in Iraq for months now, That civil war is killing three or four thousand Iraqis a month. The current, puppet "president" can't wait to resign...I don't blame him.

If the situation is so rosy and enlightened in Iraq, why doesn't the U.S. just pull out and go home? I will tell you. If the U.S. left, the so-called government you speak of in Iraq could probably count their remaining time on this Earth in hours. They would be sought out and killed immediately.

CDNBear

#68

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

If you think a post is nonsense, or even questionable, you have two choices. One, is to ignore it. Two, is to bring your own proof to refute whatever statement you dissagree with. This is your enlightenment for today. Don't hurt yourself....

So in other words, what you wrote was shyte and baseless nonsence?

I'ld accept that coming from the likes of you.

#juan

#69

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear

So in other words, what you wrote was shyte and baseless nonsence?

I'ld accept that coming from the likes of you.

You know I didn't say that. I said that if you think a post is wrong, it is up to you to prove it wrong. Yours is the type of bellicose, non-sequitur, drivel I try to stay away from.

Last edited by #juan; Jan 6th, 2007 at 03:35 PM..

CDNBear

#70

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 7th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

You know I didn't say that. I said that if you think a post is wrong, it is up to you to prove it wrong. Yours is the type of bellicose, non-sequitur, drivel I try to stay away from.

Yes, because I back my shyte up with facts based on reality, not the lofty delusional lamentings of a liberal revisionist. You like to avoid nothing, you have pointed your bony self righteous fingure at me a couple times, trying to embarass or harass me, in the forum. Give up your quest for martyrdom, you haven't got half the skills your Dear leader Jean had, and he failed miserably too.

Curiosity

#71

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 7th, 2007

Juan

Well I celebrate your last raving because you have a new subject to gnaw on....other than the old ones you have been using for years....the U.S. late entry into the World Wars, the detonation of the two Atomic Bombs on Japan, the VietNam tragedy, their "foreign policy" which remains unnamed because Clinton was running the show (or pretending to)....the trade imbalance with Canada (softwood/bovine), unpaid bills for energy from Canada, and on and on and on....until the lastest daily death count you report with barely disguised superiority.

What a great patriot you are Juan - a true Canadian.

The very kind of personae you damn the people of the U.S. for.... patriotism.

I have the benefit of up close and personal comparison of the two nations and unfortunately for you they are not so different at all ... which must scare the hell out of you. As you say....

Cheers

#juan

#72

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 7th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity

Juan

Well I celebrate your last raving because you have a new subject to gnaw on....other than the old ones you have been using for years....the U.S. late entry into the World Wars, the detonation of the two Atomic Bombs on Japan, the VietNam tragedy, their "foreign policy" which remains unnamed because Clinton was running the show (or pretending to)....the trade imbalance with Canada (softwood/bovine), unpaid bills for energy from Canada, and on and on and on....until the lastest daily death count you report with barely disguised superiority.

What a great patriot you are Juan - a true Canadian.

The very kind of personae you damn the people of the U.S. for.... patriotism.

I have the benefit of up close and personal comparison of the two nations and unfortunately for you they are not so different at all ... which must scare the hell out of you. As you say....

Cheers

Judging by the responses, there was plenty of room for debate in all the subjects you mentioned, which is why they were posted.

I don't hate Americans, or damn them for their patriotiism. If I damn Americans for anything, it would be for their arrogance in thinking they can impose their particular form of democracy on a country where they have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of it's people, and destroyed almost all of the infrastructure. The civil war that has ensued was predicted by many but those predictions were ignored. Tell me you think the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.

.

CDNBear

#73

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 7th, 2007

Just a quick question juan...

What is your take on the blatant violation of International law, when Saddam fired SCUD rockets into Israel(a non combatant in that little escapade), during the Persian Gulf War part I?

#juan

#74

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 7th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear

Just a quick question juan...

What is your take on the blatant violation of International law, when Saddam fired SCUD rockets into Israel(a non combatant in that little escapade), during the Persian Gulf War part I?

These countries were the coalition in the first Gulf War. As you can see, that coalition contained a number of Arab states. In a desparate move, Saddam fired SCUDs into Israel hoping to draw Israel into the conflict. Had it worked, the coalition could have lost some or all of the Arab support. In hindsight, we know it didn't work. There is not much left to say about it.

s -- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --

versus

-- --

CDNBear

#75

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 7th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

These countries were the coalition in the first Gulf War. As you can see, that coalition contained a number of Arab states. In a desparate move, Saddam fired SCUDs into Israel hoping to draw Israel into the conflict. Had it worked, the coalition could have lost some or all of the Arab support. In hindsight, we know it didn't work. There is not much left to say about it.
s Kuwait
United States
United Kingdom
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:

So you see it as a strategic move?

#juan

#76

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 7th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear

So you see it as a strategic move?

What else? Why else would you shoot at a non-combatant while engaged in a war with eight other countries. Saddam should have sued Russia or China for selling him junk like the SCUDs that were only capable of hitting the ground..............somewhere.

Curiosity

#77

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 7th, 2007

Of course Juan.... let's hear your reasons....

Quote:

I don't hate Americans, or damn them for their patriotiism. If I damn Americans for anything, it would be for their arrogance in thinking they can impose their particular form of democracy on a country where they have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of it's people, and destroyed almost all of the infrastructure. The civil war that has ensued was predicted by many but those predictions were ignored. Tell me you think the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.

I believe I have read enough of your criticisms of the United States to know with you everything they do is strictly personal with you. For some reason embedded in your brain you feel you have to carp at everything that country does, proclaim their errors self-righteously as if you were privy to all their reasons and never giving them the benefit of doing the work the world should be doing.

Carp away Juan - It is merely personal coming from you and has no basis in fact other than what trash you tend to pick and choose from the negative baloney the media prints out.

As I said before there is nothing you can do about it except relieve your hatred which may keep your BP under control. See even the U.S. is of benefit to you.

The invasion of Iraq

I have never enjoyed seeing three family members sent over to that hell hole - the Iraq people can look after themselves for all I care. They aren't worth one good U.S. life (or the life of any of the coalition members).... but because the U.S. chose to invade.... I have no say but I don't go off on a tirade which you do whenever you have the opportunity.... and you have lost nothing, given nothing, done nothing with regard to the invasion of Iraq except trumpet your irrational ire.

The Iraq Invasion is merely another reason to display your hatred for the United States.

#juan

#78

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 7th, 2007

Quote:

the Iraq people can look after themselves for all I care. They aren't worth one good U.S. life

Do all Americans think like that? I would have though there would be some compassion for the million odd Iraqis the U.S. have killed, with bombs, bullets, or sanctions.

L Gilbert

#79

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 7th, 2007

As an ex-firefighter I can tell you that people are simply people, be they caucasian, asian, muslim, buddhist, christian, American, Brazilian, Chinese, etc. Ain't one worth any more than another when the bottom line is reached: we all die as our parts shut down, simple as that. Then we are about $5 worth of chemicals.

CDNBear

#80

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 7th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

What else? Why else would you shoot at a non-combatant while engaged in a war with eight other countries. Saddam should have sued Russia or China for selling him junk like the SCUDs that were only capable of hitting the ground..............somewhere.

So Saddams actions were strategic, but the US's invasion of Iraq, or Israel's reaction to being bombarded with Hezbollah or Hamas rockets, is just criminal.

Me thinks, I smell your hypocracy again.

<snip>

Last edited by Kreskin; Jan 9th, 2007 at 12:40 AM..Reason: Unacceptable post: 1 week locked account

Curiosity

#81

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 7th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

Do all Americans think like that? I would have though there would be some compassion for the million odd Iraqis the U.S. have killed, with bombs, bullets, or sanctions.

See Juan - that's where you start up with the phony "caring" chat about how mean the people in the U.S. are.... you are so obvious. Not all Iraqi people have been killed by U.S. missiles....you are beginning to disintegrate.

I guess we should have let Kofi and his fellas continue starving the people there? In your little corner of the world that would have been the best thing.

Do I know what all "Americans" think - of course not - I only know what I think. I think I can do nothing - the same as you choose to do nothing - and the young in my family have done enough.

I see you are also on Israel's case today - you are on a roll.

EagleSmack

#82

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 11th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

So, ITN thinks the illegal invasion of Iraq and the killing of over a million Iraqis by bombing or brutal sanctions was completely okay, and that the lynching of saddam Hussein by the puppet government that the U.S. military has installed, was fine too. These latest puppets were installed much like the U.S. helped to install Saddam Hussein years earlier. No matter how many gingoes they invent, like, "Operation Iraq Freedom", it was still an illegal invasion and a lynching. Funny how the world never heard Saddam Hussein's story about his dealings with the U.S, but that would have been an embarrassment, wouldn't it?

What another misconception. Can you name the US operation that put Saddam into power? I'd like to hear it. Well let me save you the trouble... there isn't or wasn't one.

Saddam was a thug from his early youth on. Because of his thuggery and heavy handedness in the Baath Party he climbed the ranks. He was eventually appointed by the Iraqi Ruler in charge of Iraq's Secret Police. Once he was there he told the leader that it was time for him to retire and Saddam took charge of the country. Shortly after seizing power he called a general session of Iraq's governing body and once the meeting started he said this.

"There are traitors among us."

He began reading names and his Secret Police led them out to be executed. But he did not read them all at once. It took hours. Every man had to sit and pray that they were not on the list. He would read a few names and then some other words would be said. Most went quietly but one man whose name was called protested

"Saddam... I've known you all my life. Since we were kids... how did I betray you? I have been loyal to you all my life... how am I a traitor?"

"Get him out!" Saddam said "OUT!"

The point was if that guy was a traitor EVERYONE could be one. When Saddam cried (he faked it) they all cried with him. By the end the men left were all shouting

"SADDAM! SADDAM!"

His power was secured. He was in charge. The CIA couldn't even orchrestrate something like that. It was all him baby.

AND it is even on video... the whole thing and I have watched it a number of times.

hermanntrude

#83

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 11th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Daz_Hockey

Gotta agree Juan, and who exactly says the "American" model is in any way better anyway?.

There are far worse dictators in the world than Saddam, so why exactly did they pick on him?......

Daz

I think you know the answer to that question daz. it has 3 letters

hermanntrude

#84

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 11th, 2007

if i were an evil dictator, and planning on pulling something like that which eaglesmack just described... why would i video it?

EagleSmack

#85

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 11th, 2007

It was filmed and has been on every documentary, although not in it's entierty, about his life and rise to power.

I did see the whole thing once. Chilling.

hermanntrude

#86

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 11th, 2007

freaky. why would he allow it to be filmed?

he must have been insane

EagleSmack

#87

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 11th, 2007

It was a message.

"I am in charge."

hermanntrude

#88

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 11th, 2007

it was also a message "I am a criminal"

EagleSmack

#89

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 12th, 2007

That too.

I tried finding a clip on line with at least part of it so I could put it here for you. It is in black and white but the quality is pretty good and it had subtitles. Let me hunt around more and see if I can find it.

#juan

#90

Re: Day of Infamy

Jan 12th, 2007

The tendency to treat Saddam and Iraq in a historical vacuum, and in isolation from the superpowers, however, has hidden from Americans their own culpability in the horror show that has been Iraq for the past few decades. Initially, the US used the Baath Party as a nationalist foil to the Communists. Then Washington used it against Iran. The welfare of Iraqis themselves appears to have been on no one's mind, either in Washington or in Baghdad.
The British-installed monarchy was overthrown by an officer's coup in 1958, led by Abdul Karim Qasim. The US was extremely upset, and worried that the new regime would not be a reliable oil exporter and that it might leave the Baghdad Pact of 1955, which the US had put together against the Soviet Union (grouping Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Britain and the US). (Qasim did leave the pact in 1959, which according to a US official of that time, deeply alarmed Washington.) Iraq in the 1940s and 1950s had become an extremely unequal society, with a few thousand (mostly Sunni Arab) families owning half of the good land. On their vast haciendas, poor rural Shiites worked for a pittance. In the 1950s, two new mass parties grew like wildfire, the Communist Party of Iraq and --. They attracted first-generation intellectuals, graduates of the rapidly expanding school system, as well as workers and peasants. The crushing inequalities of Iraq under the monarchy produced widespread anger.

If one visits the title link, or the Juan Cole link, one will find more backtrack links and information to each item listed below:

1} The first time the US enabled Saddam Hussein came in 1959. In that year, a young Saddam, from the boondock town of Tikrit but living with an uncle in Baghdad, tried to assassinate Qasim. He failed and was wounded in the leg. Saddam had, like many in his generation, joined the Baath Party, which combined socialism, Arab nationalism, and the aspiration for a one-party state.

2} After the failed coup attempt, Saddam fled to Cairo, where he attended law school in between bar brawls, and where it is --, being put on a stipend by the agency via the Egyptian government. He frequently visited US operatives at the Indiana Cafe. Getting him back on his feet in Cairo was the second episode of US aid to Saddam.

3} In February of 1963 the military wing of the Baath Party, which had infiltrated the officer corps and military academy, made a coup against Qasim, whom they killed. There is evidence from Middle Eastern sources, including interviews conducted at the time by historian Hanna Batatu, that the CIA cooperated in this coup and gave the Baathists lists of Iraqi Communists (who were covert, having infiltrated the government or firms). Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer of the 1960s, alleged that the US played a significant role in this Baath coup and that it was mostly funded "with American money.". Morris's allegation was confirmed to me by an eyewitness with intimate knowledge of the situation, who said that that the CIA station chief in Baghdad gave support to the Baathists in their coup. One other interviewee, who served as a CIA operative in Baghdad in 1964, denied to me the agency's involvement. But he was at the time junior and he was not an eyewitness to the events of 1963, and may not have been told the straight scoop by his colleagues. Note that some high Baathists appear to have been unaware of the CIA involvement, as well. In the murky world of tradecraft, a lot of people, even on the same team, keep each other in the dark. UPI quotes another, or perhaps the same, official, saying that the coup came as a surprise to Langley. In my view, unlikely.

4} In 1968, the civilian wing of the Baath Party came to power in a second coup.

5} The second Baath regime in Iraq disappointed the Nixon and Ford administrations by reaching out to the tiny remnants of the Communist Party and by developing good relations with the Soviet Union. In response, Nixon supported the Shah's Iran in its attempts to use the Iraqi Kurds to stir up trouble for the Baath Party, of which Saddam Hussein was a behind the scenes leader. As supporting the Kurdish struggle became increasingly expensive, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlevi of Iran decided to abandon the Kurds. He made a deal with the Iraqis at Algiers in 1975, and Saddam immediately ordered an invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan. The US acquiesced in this betrayal of the Kurds, and made no effort to help them monetarily. Kissinger maintained that the whole operation had been the shah's, and the shah suddenly terminated it, leaving the US with no alternative but to acquiesce. But that is not entirely plausible. The operation was supported by the CIA, and the US didn't have to act only through an Iranian surrogate. Kissinger no doubt feared he couldn't get Congress to fund help to the Kurds during the beginnings of the Vietnam syndrome. In any case, the 1975 US about-face helped Saddam consolidate control over northern Iraq.

6} When Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, he again caught the notice of US officials. The US was engaged in an attempt to contain Khomeinism and the new Islamic Republic. Especially after the US faced attacks from radicalized Shiites in Lebanon linked to Iran, and from the Iraqi Da`wa Party, which engaged in terrorism against the US and French embassies in Kuwait, the Reagan administration determined to deal with Saddam from late 1983, giving him important diplomatic encouragement. Historians are deeply indebted to Joyce Battle's Briefing Book at the National Security Archives, GWU, which presents key documents she sprung through FOIA requests, and which she analyzed for the first time.

7} The US gave -- during the Iran-Iraq War:

8} The Reagan administration worked behind the scenes to foil Iran's motion of censure against Iraq for using chemical weapons.

9} The Reagan administration not only gave significant aid to Saddam, -- for him.

10} After the Gulf War of 1991, when Shiites and Kurds rose up against Saddam Hussein, the Bush senior administration -- and to massively repress the uprising. President GHW Bush had called on Iraqis to rise up against their dictator, but when they did so he left them in the lurch. This inaction, deriving from a fear that a Shiite-dominated Iraq would ally with Tehran, allowed Saddam to remain in power until 2003.