• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Conversation I Had...

Skeptic

Banned
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
18,312
HIM (changing the subject from a completely unrelated issue): Look, everybody knows the war in Iraq is a catastrophe. We are doing nothing for them.

ME: Oh? Removing Saddam Hussein...

HIM: That would matter if we were giving them healthcare or social services. We could be using the time in Iraq to build a national healthcare or social security system there. We aren't doing that.

ME (puzzled): So it doesn't count unless they get social security?

HIM (with victory in his voice): What's the use of freedom without national healthcare and social security?

ME: I don't know. But a certain George Washington wanted freedom from the British even without these essential elements, if I recall correctly.

(No, I'm not making this up.)
 
The neoconservative idiot posted this:
Skeptic said:
HIM (changing the subject from a completely unrelated issue): Look, everybody knows the war in Iraq is a catastrophe. We are doing nothing for them.

ME: Oh? Removing Saddam Hussein...
...
Gallup shows that 42% of Iraqis want Saddam reinstated as President of Iraq, which is a farce for Bush's 'liberation':

source: Zaman Daily

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Saddam to Declare Candidacy for Iraqi Elections



Overthrown Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who was arrested by US forces last December, reportedly plans to run as a candidate in the Iraqi elections scheduled for January 2005.

Saddam's lawyer Giovanni di Stefano told Denmark's B.T. newspaper that Saddam decided during one of their discussions that he would declare his candidacy for the elections.

Stefano said that there was no law that prevented Saddam from appearing on the ballot. He added that Saddam hopes to regain his presidency and palaces via the democratic process.

Contrary to the statements of Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, Stefano claims, "Saddam has no chance to be tried before the elections. Moreover, no international law prevents him from coming forward."

Saddam's lawyer defends that the ambiguity in Iraq will favor Saddam at the polls. Stefano remarked that a recent Gallup poll indicates that 42 percent of the Iraqi people want their former leader back.

Meanwhile, evaluating the conditions of Saddam in jail, Allawi said that Saddam had asked him for mercy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Skeptic said:
ME: I don't know. But a certain George Washington wanted freedom from the British even without these essential elements, if I recall correctly.

(No, I'm not making this up.)

Yeah, I cant believe George Washington gave up national healthcare (aka a jar of leeches) for Freedom.

Your average run o the mill Iraqi proabably had a much better life when Saddam was in charge. Now the whole country is unstable and dangerous.
 
Well, I'm in a rush right now, but I recall a lot of Russians missed Stalin and wanted him back. And some of them had a strong desire for the good old USSR since its collapse.

If I remember tomorrow, I'll try to post some links, or someone else could probably find them without too much effort.
 
Luke T. said:
Well, I'm in a rush right now, but I recall a lot of Russians missed Stalin and wanted him back. And some of them had a strong desire for the good old USSR since its collapse.

If I remember tomorrow, I'll try to post some links, or someone else could probably find them without too much effort.

Putin is doing just that for them already. He is winding back democracy and playing the tough nut to perfection.
 
Originally posted by Skeptic
HIM (with victory in his voice): What's the use of freedom without national healthcare and social security?

For some, freedom doesn't mean being free to choose one's own destiny, but just being taken care of by someone else. It's too bad, but that attitude isn't uncommon.
 
Ion:
"Gallup shows that 42% of Iraqis want Saddam reinstated as President of Iraq, which is a farce for Bush's 'liberation':"

Yes, it`s a telling indictment of "The War on Terror" isn`t it?
But then, on the other hand, many UK citizens and American citizens and Australian citizens still believe Tony Blair, George Bush and John Howard are basically a threesome of honest guys motivated by the highest humanitarian ideals and pragmatic economics. Okay, once in a while they may make the occasional misjudgement or fail to present a policy in a convincing manner, but despite the bad press they get from Rory Bremner, many still believe the men have integrity.
How do you explain this phenomenon? Anyone aware of the corporate powers behind the Bush/Blair/Howard leadership and the men's real grasp of world affairs (very shallow) would laugh at the way the pro Blairite/Bus**te/Howard journalists portray them. Yet thousands of seemingly intelligent Brits, Americans and Australians, many highly educated, still believe in these guys, while others think Gordon Brown or John Kerry would make a tangible difference.
 
let us not forget Saddam had a 100% voter turn out with 100% votes for him!
 
demon said:
Ion:
...
Yet thousands of seemingly intelligent Brits, Americans and Australians, many highly educated, still believe in these guys, while others think Gordon Brown or John Kerry would make a tangible difference.
demon,

in the US, John Kerry that's all that is left to punish Bush.

Not voting Kerry is to not punish Bush.

Make no mistake:

this little old Bush II, is a gaga religious guy who joyously screwed up a good US economy inherited from painstaking work by Clinton, and ruined in excess of 30,000 Iraqi lives in his effort to change Iraq's oil trade from Euros to US dollars -which he lies about anyway, with his gags about WMDs in Iraq and 'liberation' of Iraq-.

Bush deserves punishment, starting November 3rd., 2004.

Even if it takes a Kerry to do that.
 
Ion:
"Bush deserves punishment, starting November 3rd., 2004.
Even if it takes a Kerry to do that."

I won`t argue with that.
 
demon said:
... How do you explain this phenomenon? Anyone aware of the corporate powers behind the Bush/Blair/Howard leadership and the men's real grasp of world affairs (very shallow) would laugh at the way the pro Blairite/Bus**te/Howard journalists portray them. ...
I think the phenomonon is easy to grasp. If you are of an opinion that terror states and radical Islamism are as dangerous nascent Naziism, you'll appreciate someone who will risk his political career to deal with it while there is still a chance to stop it.

There was near universal condemnation of Saddam's Iraq by the world, and somewhat widespread recognition that if we do not have the will to stop him now while 9/11 is still fresh enough in our minds to be enraged about, there may not be the will to do it later.

If you don't look at the world that way, you'll pick your man on other attributes.
 
Atlas:
"There was near universal condemnation of Saddam's Iraq by the world, and somewhat widespread recognition that if we do not have the will to stop him now while 9/11 is still fresh enough in our minds to be enraged about, there may not be the will to do it later."

Stop him from doing what exactly?
Why are you compounding saddam and 9/11?
 
Re: Re: A Conversation I Had...

Your average run o the mill Iraqi proabably had a much better life when Saddam was in charge.

Unless he was a Kurd...
or a Marsh Arab...
or a woman one of Saddam's thugs wanted...
or anybody remotely connected to anything Saddam disliked...
or one of the 400,000 dead in mass graves...
or one of the millions starving as Saddam uses "oil for food" money to bribe UN officials, build palaces, feed the Republican Guard, etc.
or... the list is endless.

But it's good to know things weren't really that bad under Saddam.

Now the whole country is unstable and dangerous.

Indeed so. And what greater God than "stability"? That's worth a few zillion dead to achieve the goal, isn't it?

Of course, the US COULD restore stablity using Saddam's method. Gassing everybody in Fallujah to death with nerve gas would sure show those damn insurgents the US is serious about stability. And once there is stability, your mythical "average Iraqi" will be happy, will he not?

Of course, the US will not do that for about a zillion reasons, no matter how stable it will make the situation. Above all, it would be a horrendeous crime.

So why is it somehow OK to have thugs commit horrendeous crimes in the name of "Stability" (meaning: since everybody who threathens the thug's power is dead, the thug's rule is secure) if the thug is also an Arab? If it is wrong for the US to establish "stability" by genocide, which of course it is, it is also wrong for Saddam.

Don't sing the praises of "stablity" until you know its price. The thugs and opressors always claim that they will being stability--and they do, by destroying all opposition.

In the US, the last time this sort of argument was heard was when whites opposed MLK, Jr.'s civil rights movement. The average Negro (as the term was then), said the KKK leaders, surely prefers the "stability" of the good ol' days, when everybody knew their place, instead of this new civil right nonsense, with MLK stirring up our Negroes and forcing us to use more and more water cannons and lynch mobs to "keep the peace".

And they were right--the "old south" WAS more stable than the 1960s south, and I'll bet anything you COULD find some black people who, during that strife, yearned for the "good ol' days".

So what?
 
Good questions:
demon said:

...
Stop him from doing what exactly?
Why are you compounding saddam and 9/11?
.) Regarding:

"...Stop him from doing what exactly?..."

Saddam was trading his oil in Euros not in US dollars, to Bush's dismay;

.) Regarding:

"...Why are you compounding saddam and 9/11?"

Atlas is another feeble-minded who didn't resist Bush's propaganda.
 
Re: Re: Re: A Conversation I Had...

No kidding.

Our resident US neoconservative, is at work in giant essays which I select from:
Skeptic said:

...
Unless he was a Kurd...
or a Marsh Arab...
or a woman one of Saddam's thugs wanted...
or anybody remotely connected to anything Saddam disliked...
or one of the 400,000 dead in mass graves...
or one of the millions starving as Saddam uses "oil for food" money to bribe UN officials, build palaces, feed the Republican Guard, etc.
or... the list is endless.
...
42% of Iraqis who want now Saddam for President, that must be lots of:

he was a Kurd...
or a Marsh Arab...
or a woman one of Saddam's thugs wanted...
or anybody remotely connected to anything Saddam disliked...
or one of the 400,000 dead in mass graves...
or one of the millions starving as Saddam uses "oil for food" money to bribe UN officials, build palaces, feed the Republican Guard, etc.
or... the list is endless.


In fact, dear imbecile Skeptic, Saddam was US' best ally in the Middle East in the 80s, and he could have remained US' best secular ally in the Middle East in the 90s up until now.

Bush I, and Bush II, they screwed up the Middle East, Skeptic.
 
Skeptic:
"or one of the 400,000 dead in mass graves..."

Not so fast.
Blair made claims about mass graves found in Iraq and they are, like so much else, bogus. His press release on the capture of Saddam Hussein referred to -
"The remains of four hundred thousand human beings already found in mass graves."
(http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/page4995.asp)

Downing Street admitted in July that the true figure for bodies found was about 5,000.

Unless someone has found 395,000 corpses in the meantime - which I'm sure we would have heard about - it's clear Bliar is lying again.

quote:
Unrecorded victims
Tony Blair and others claim 300,000 bodies have been found in Iraqi mass graves. In fact, there have been no official exhumations - or count

Brendan O'Neill
Wednesday July 21, 2004
The Guardian

We now know that the public was misled over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But have we also been misled over the even more emotive issue of Iraq's mass graves.
There are without doubt many mass graves in Iraq, into which the bodies of thousands of Iraqis killed by the Ba'ath regime were dumped over the past 25 years. Coalition officials have claimed that they contain the bodies of 300,000 Iraqis. In November last year, Sandra Hodgkinson, then head of the coalition's mass graves action plan, told the press that 260 grave sites had been located, which contained the bodies of "at least 300,000".

In comments and speeches, Labour ministers and MPs have repeated this figure time and again. Tony Blair told the Today programme in April: "We have found the mass graves of 300,000 people already in Iraq. It doesn't get a great deal of publicity, but it's true." At the end of last year, Stephen Ladyman, Labour MP for South Thanet, declared: "We are rebuilding a nation where we found 300,000 bodies in mass graves so far." According to Denis MacShane, minister for Europe: "We've now uncovered 300,000 bodies in mass graves, there because of [Saddam Hussein's] torture and tyranny."

Some journalists took such comments as evidence that thousands of bodies had already been retrieved. In a press conference with a senior US official on November 20, a journalist asked about Blair's claim that "400,000 [sic] bodies have been exhumed from Iraq". The US official said: "We've seen numbers that are in the hundreds of thousands. It's certainly absolutely at least 300,000 or more; it could be as high as ... 500,000."
For pro-war commentators, claims that there were at least 300,000 bodies in mass graves became the trump card in debates about the war, overriding the anti-war lobby's concerns about the failure to find WMD or the chaos caused by the coalition's military intervention. "According to the latest estimates, the mass graves in Iraq contain the remains of at least 300,000 people, but we're still arguing about whether the war was 'justified'," wrote Mark Steyn in the Daily Telegraph.

So what is the coalition's evidence to substantiate the numbers cited? The coalition's claims are based less on investigation and excavation than on guesswork.

Blair stated that the graves of 300,000 have already been found. Yet when I asked Joanna Levison of the US state department how many bodies have been exhumed, she said: "Through official procedures? None." Levison, who has taken over from Sandra Hodgkinson as head of the coalition's mass graves action plan, says that more than 270 grave sites have been reported and over 50 confirmed. At some of these there have been "community-led exhumations", where Iraqis have desperately dug around for the remains of loved ones, "but no coalition-led exhumations".

Jonathan Forrest of Inforce, the International Forensic Centre for the Investigation of Genocide at Bournemouth University, also says that no bodies have been exhumed, except unofficially by Iraqi communities.

Inforce is one of many teams of scientists from Europe that has carried out initial forensic tests on grave sites, to verify that they are graves and to estimate how old they might be. Forrest's team worked in Iraq for five months last year. "I do not believe that any forensic scientists have exhumed any bodies in Iraq at all," he says.

With no evidence by way of officially exhumed bodies, how did the coalition arrive at the estimate of 300,000 buried in mass graves? Levison says there is an "international consensus" that this number of Iraqis perished under the Ba'athists. Forrest believes that he might, inadvertently, have played a part in giving prominence to this figure. He says journalists in Iraq constantly asked his team how many were in the graves. "So we adopted the Human Rights Watch figure of 290,000, and rounded it up to 300,000."

Yet HRW's figure is an estimate for the number of Iraqis who disappeared under the Ba'athists, "many of whom are believed to have been killed" - not for the number buried in mass graves. HRW itself refuses to use its figure of 290,000 as an estimate for the number of bodies in mass graves. The group's senior researcher in Baghdad says: "How can we conclude that they are all in mass graves? We won't know that until there have been full-scale exhumations of the grave sites. There have been no official exhumations yet."

The estimate of 300,000 Iraqis killed by the Ba'athists also includes deaths for which the western powers arguably bear some responsibility. According to the US state department, most of the graves discovered to date correspond to five major atrocities committed by the Saddam Hussein regime: the 1983 attack against Kurds of the Barzani tribe; the 1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds, for which estimates of the numbers killed vary from 50,000 to 180,000; chemical attacks against Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988; the 1991 massacre of Shia Muslims during their uprising at the end of the Gulf war; and the 1991 massacre of Kurds who fought for autonomy in northern Iraq after the Gulf war.

Saddam's brutal attacks on the Kurds in the 1980s occurred as part of the Iran-Iraq war, during which the Reagan administration supported and armed his regime. When that war ended in 1988 Saddam sought to consolidate his rule at home; in the Anfal campaign he sent forces to quell the Kurdish uprising in the north (supported by the Iranians), again with US consent. The massacre of the Shias in 1991 took place after they were encouraged by the first Bush administration to rebel following the first Gulf war, and then abandoned to their fate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Ion said:
Saddam was trading his oil in Euros not in US dollars, to Bush's dismay;

I've seen this theory a few times. Usually by the same woo-woos that claim what a tragedy it was when the Federal Reserve was created and how screwed we were when we were taken off the gold standard.

It's the same conspiracy theory dressed up in a new way. Oh, evil Saddam was secretly threatening us by taking our currency off the oil standard! Economic collapse was imminent!

It's nonsense.

Does this really have a place on a skeptics board?
 
Forget this:
Mycroft said:
I've seen this theory a few times. Usually by the same...
...
The first order by Bush after invading Iraq, was to change the trade of the Iraq's oil from Euros to US dollars.

Bush did show his true colors then.

Quod Erat Demonstratum

(The rest:

.) WMDs is a lying claim,

.) 'liberation of Iraq from a dictator' is a lying claim since Bush aids a dictator in Uzbekistan)
 
Mycroft said:
I've seen this theory a few times. Usually by the same woo-woos that claim what a tragedy it was when the Federal Reserve was created and how screwed we were when we were taken off the gold standard.

It's the same conspiracy theory dressed up in a new way. Oh, evil Saddam was secretly threatening us by taking our currency off the oil standard! Economic collapse was imminent!

It's nonsense.

Does this really have a place on a skeptics board?

Of course it does. To claim it was the sole reason for the invasion would be ridiculous, to claim it was part of the overall urge for war would be quite valid. The US is always keen to protect it's interests. The war for Iraq was for various reasons, curiously enough, not for the stated ones.
 

Back
Top Bottom