:lol: :lol: :lol:
that is debateable too....
two highly questionable elections........but some will believe just about anything.
Is Saddam innocent?
- Thread starter moghrabi
- Start date
that is debateable too....
two highly questionable elections........but some will believe just about anything.
I wish I could be more specific. The accusation comes from an interview with Ritter published in the Globe and Mail before the invasion, so my memory is foggy.
Ritter was asked if he thought Saddam was a good leader. Ritter replied he was a monster, and said the worst thing he had seen in Bahgdad was the children of detainees reaching through the bars of street level cells for any water passer-bys would give them. He refused to elaborate further, expressing the fear anything he said would be used by pro-war forces.
That is how I remember it.
Also, I believe the Americans claimed to have liberated 211 children from a prison in Baghdad, some as young as 2.
I have no references, and my memory could be faulty on details.
As for the baby massacres in Kuwait, you are quite correct. The whole thing was propaganda.
I don't understand the mindset of those who would lie about such things. Face it, there were monstrous things going on in Kuwait, not the least of which were the hundreds of politicals deported from there to Iraq, never to be seen again. Lies and exaggerations are usually revealed in the end, and that allows those who oppose you to cast doubt on the truthful accusations.
Seems morally, and strategically, a serious error.
Ritter was asked if he thought Saddam was a good leader. Ritter replied he was a monster, and said the worst thing he had seen in Bahgdad was the children of detainees reaching through the bars of street level cells for any water passer-bys would give them. He refused to elaborate further, expressing the fear anything he said would be used by pro-war forces.
That is how I remember it.
Also, I believe the Americans claimed to have liberated 211 children from a prison in Baghdad, some as young as 2.
I have no references, and my memory could be faulty on details.
As for the baby massacres in Kuwait, you are quite correct. The whole thing was propaganda.
I don't understand the mindset of those who would lie about such things. Face it, there were monstrous things going on in Kuwait, not the least of which were the hundreds of politicals deported from there to Iraq, never to be seen again. Lies and exaggerations are usually revealed in the end, and that allows those who oppose you to cast doubt on the truthful accusations.
Seems morally, and strategically, a serious error.
Re: RE: Is Saddam innocent?
:roll: So was Hitler. TYRANTS can seize power from a variety of ways. Some Malevolent some Benevolent.
Colpy said:
:roll: So was Hitler. TYRANTS can seize power from a variety of ways. Some Malevolent some Benevolent.
missile said:Speaking of genicide: The Apaches, Commanches,Arapaho ,all the Indian nations were systematically wiped out by the Americans.Saddam only killed 100,000 or so of his people. This makes him only a petty criminal in comparison.
Answer - the imperialistic americans had signed treaties with the Nations of the Sioux, Apachee, Lacota etc. etc. and then under the quize of protecting prospectors and settlers (on land that was not theirs), the bastards ran campaigns of genocide against the People. I would suggest that the americans give all the land back they stole or got from the French or Spanish who also stole the land, and try to get along on Manhattan Island. That may not have been a fair trade but at least it was honoured.
You really seem to act like the fool of the day, every day. "Hussein was the elected president of Iraq before he was removed by force by your lying president.
Now comparing your moron thief to our PM shows your uneducated hit-in-the-dark answers for the sake of posting and acting as politically intelligent. Far from it. "
Yep. Hussein was the elected President of Iraq. He was, in fact so popular that he won exactly 100% of the vote. A Landslide!!!!!!!!
Uhihuh. Say no more.
Paul Martin lost an (unofficial) vote of confidence last spring. Constitutional experts urged him to immediately hold an official vote, but he stalled long enough to buy off Stronach.
Martin leads a government that has been involved in corruption (HRDC, the hotel-golf course affair of Don Jean, to say nothing of Adscam), improper use of the police (APEC, the Beaudoin affair), and the suppression of human rights (gag laws, "anti-terror" legislation, the Firearms Act).
The Canadian Prime Minister is MUCH more powerful than the American President. The President, because of the separation of powers inherent in the American political model, can be thwarted by Congress or by the courts, both of whom are largely independent of his power.
In Canada, the Prime Minister simply appoints whatever compliant Liberal he can find to the bench, then ignores the court at will. He can rule by Order-in-Council without Parliament, and he is in complete control of his caucus. Especially when there is a majority in Parliament, our Prime Minister is a dictator elected to a five year term.
Now comparing your moron thief to our PM shows your uneducated hit-in-the-dark answers for the sake of posting and acting as politically intelligent. Far from it. "
Yep. Hussein was the elected President of Iraq. He was, in fact so popular that he won exactly 100% of the vote. A Landslide!!!!!!!!
Uhihuh. Say no more.
Paul Martin lost an (unofficial) vote of confidence last spring. Constitutional experts urged him to immediately hold an official vote, but he stalled long enough to buy off Stronach.
Martin leads a government that has been involved in corruption (HRDC, the hotel-golf course affair of Don Jean, to say nothing of Adscam), improper use of the police (APEC, the Beaudoin affair), and the suppression of human rights (gag laws, "anti-terror" legislation, the Firearms Act).
The Canadian Prime Minister is MUCH more powerful than the American President. The President, because of the separation of powers inherent in the American political model, can be thwarted by Congress or by the courts, both of whom are largely independent of his power.
In Canada, the Prime Minister simply appoints whatever compliant Liberal he can find to the bench, then ignores the court at will. He can rule by Order-in-Council without Parliament, and he is in complete control of his caucus. Especially when there is a majority in Parliament, our Prime Minister is a dictator elected to a five year term.
"Answer: must you be reminded that children are in detention in Guantanimo? ."
If you are old enough to engage in combat, throw hand grenades, and kill an American medic, you are old enough to be detained.
If you are old enough to engage in combat, throw hand grenades, and kill an American medic, you are old enough to be detained.
Ok, but Kissinger takes the prise for most mass murder -
http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html
http://www.rense.com/general32/handsfull.htm
Re: RE: Is Saddam innocent?
Answer - so, what you are saying then is that it was right and good that Hussein detained children, after all his reqime had the right of defence equal to any other nation. So why even mention the detention of children other than for propaganda purposes? Or is it one of those things like 'our torture good torture, their torture bad torture'. In other words don't try and claim the moral highground when your leadership is venal.
Colpy said:
Answer - so, what you are saying then is that it was right and good that Hussein detained children, after all his reqime had the right of defence equal to any other nation. So why even mention the detention of children other than for propaganda purposes? Or is it one of those things like 'our torture good torture, their torture bad torture'. In other words don't try and claim the moral highground when your leadership is venal.
Re: RE: Is Saddam innocent?
Hitler never won a majority, even in the 1933 vote which consolidated his power.He won 44% of the vote, and that only after closing down opposition newspapers, and using the SA to violently break up opposition meetings.
In conjunction with the Nationalist party, Hitler had the leaders of the Socialist and Communist Parties arrested, and seduced the Ceter Party with carrot and stick. He then had the two thirds majority necessary to suspend the Constitution and assume dictatorial powers.
Hardly a freely elected Chancellor.
After 1933, I suppose he could have had an election and matched Saddam's 100% landslide. Not hard when all your opponents are terrified, dead, or jailed, and your terrified friends are counting thee ballots.
Jo Canadian said:
Hitler never won a majority, even in the 1933 vote which consolidated his power.He won 44% of the vote, and that only after closing down opposition newspapers, and using the SA to violently break up opposition meetings.
In conjunction with the Nationalist party, Hitler had the leaders of the Socialist and Communist Parties arrested, and seduced the Ceter Party with carrot and stick. He then had the two thirds majority necessary to suspend the Constitution and assume dictatorial powers.
Hardly a freely elected Chancellor.
After 1933, I suppose he could have had an election and matched Saddam's 100% landslide. Not hard when all your opponents are terrified, dead, or jailed, and your terrified friends are counting thee ballots.
:lol: I'll just wait til someone brings up the 2000 elections. :lol:
My point was is that there's more than one way to create a tyrant.
My point was is that there's more than one way to create a tyrant.
Re: RE: Is Saddam innocent?
There are children, and then there are children.
I stand by what I said.
Saddam held children as young as two for the supposed sins of their parents. You know, kept them nice and handy in case you wanted to dice them up in front of their parents.
The USA detains those who engaged in combat against them.
There is no moral equivalency between these two things.
PoisonPete2 said:
There are children, and then there are children.
I stand by what I said.
Saddam held children as young as two for the supposed sins of their parents. You know, kept them nice and handy in case you wanted to dice them up in front of their parents.
The USA detains those who engaged in combat against them.
There is no moral equivalency between these two things.
Jo Canadian said:
Yeah, and I know Bush lost the popular vote in that election. To me, the electoral college system is an anachronism, and should be dumped by constitutional amendment.
BUT, the Americans CHOOSE to be ruled by the constitution and the Supreme Court as it is, so the election of Bush is (and was) perfectly legitimate.
Colpy said:
Answer - as was the election of Hitler - The French referred to him as 'Hitler legite' -
go back to the philosophy of Rousseau, one of the underpinnings of both the French and American revolutions. To paraphrase: the right to rule is not inherent, won by usurpation or through a vote, but by carrying out the will of the people and always bearing in mind the benefit of the people.
It would appear that the American people, by the last election, have chosen to be ruled by a tyrant (and a lyin' one at that). At least Hussien was generally an honest tyrant.
so then they deserve exactly what they got... :roll:
maybe the original question should read: Is Saddam innocent of______________( list of crimes he is not guilty of.....like possessing STOCKPILES of WMD that were such a threat to the idiot cowboy in the oval office. ) He is guilty of many...... but some logic must prevail..... and that does not exclude the bush crimes committed in this mess.
Brgadier General Janis Karpinski has admitted there were children as young as 11 in Abu Ghraib. There have been reports of children being raped by US service personel there, including while cameras rolled. There have also been reports of children being mistreated in front of their parents in an attempt to get the parents to talk.
Don't use Saddam's crimes, many of them tacitly condoned by the Reagan administration, to try to justify American crimes, Colpy. It's like saying that Manson was better than Daumer because at least Manson didn't eat his victims...that we know of.
Don't bitch too loudly about Saddam's rise to power either...the CIA was standing behind him the whole way and the Reagan administration protected him when the rest of the world said Saddam was committing crimes against humanity.
Don't use Saddam's crimes, many of them tacitly condoned by the Reagan administration, to try to justify American crimes, Colpy. It's like saying that Manson was better than Daumer because at least Manson didn't eat his victims...that we know of.
Don't bitch too loudly about Saddam's rise to power either...the CIA was standing behind him the whole way and the Reagan administration protected him when the rest of the world said Saddam was committing crimes against humanity.
It's pretty clear that Saddam was/is a monster. He should be tried and executed or given whatever is the maximum penalty allowable for his crimes.
Moreover, those Americans who helped him acquire chemical and biological weapons, who gave him targetting information about the Kurdish villages he gassed,who helped train his torturers, who allowed his regime to stay in power for a decade after he had been defeated militarily-- they should all be tried and sentenced. Every last one, from Donald Rumsfeld, to George HW Bush.
That would be justice.
Moreover, those Americans who helped him acquire chemical and biological weapons, who gave him targetting information about the Kurdish villages he gassed,who helped train his torturers, who allowed his regime to stay in power for a decade after he had been defeated militarily-- they should all be tried and sentenced. Every last one, from Donald Rumsfeld, to George HW Bush.
That would be justice.