So are you in denial that Saddam was your countries (and others) bitch Gawain Hmmm....interesting
Printable View
So are you in denial that Saddam was your countries (and others) bitch Gawain Hmmm....interesting
Damn I thought Britain was.Quote:
So are you in denial that Saddam was your countries (and others) bitch Gawain Hmmm....interesting
No more then any other country out there. Then it seems someone is forgetting that in world politics countries ally for awhile and then diverge from each other when the common cause is no longer priority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I note in the report that more deaths have resulted from criminals. Didn't "Saddam" release all these criminals just before the invasion and that is what is now causing the most loss of life today ? Was he so "astute", as to how best to de-stablise the country ?
Very much so. If I cant play Im taking my ball and going home.Quote:
Was he so "astute", as to how best to de-stablise the country ?
Then it seems someone is forgetting that in world politics countries ally for awhile and then diverge from each other when the common cause is no longer priority.
I am forgetting nothing Redleg , I am just pointing out the pure bull that people are using Saddams actions when he was their friend to make comparisons .
If you support a murderous dictatorship then how can you turn round and say that you had to act because it was a murderous dictatorship .
If you support a killer then you are complicit in the killings he commits .
I never said anything about why we acted- you're still dodging. I asked 'How can you say deaths resultant from Saddam's overthrow are senseless and useless when he was the cuz of hundreds of thousands of deaths himself?' The assertion was that the 'left' is against senseless/useless death. So what was going on under Saddam? Did those deaths serve a purpose and were therefore exempt? Were they not totally senseless? How can you be against senseless deaths and then opposed to the overthrow of the one perpetrating it? And if deaths result from that overthrow, its tragic to be sure, but isnt it disengenous to say they were useless and senseless?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Again your confusing being an ally with being a friend. Russia was an ally during WW2 - but the USSR was never a friend. Iraq was an ally against Iran - and because Iraq chose to go to war with Iran - the United States supported the enemy of our enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Because its really rather simple - after the Gulf War of 1991 - Saddam continued his murderous dictatorship ways.Quote:
If you support a murderous dictatorship then how can you turn round and say that you had to act because it was a murderous dictatorship .
So is all the free world who were allied with Russia against Germnay complicit with the killings done by Stalin's regime? Because that is exactly what you are saying here.Quote:
If you support a killer then you are complicit in the killings he commits .
Because that is exactly what you are saying here.
Is it ? Not at all redleg.
If someone had supported Stalin while he was fighting against Germany , then went and overthrew Stalin and used the attrocities that Stalin had committed against Germans and Russians(amongnst others)as an example of why it had to be done and claims that even though their present actions do result in uneccacary killing they are nothing compared to the previous killing, yet ignores the fact that they themselves helped him commit those attrocities and supported him while he was doing it .
Then that is hypocracy of the highest order .
Because its really rather simple - after the Gulf War of 1991 - Saddam continued his murderous dictatorship ways.
What the hell did you expect him to do ? He was a murderous dictator , do you think a military defeat would make him start being nice ? It didn't happen after his earlier military defeat .
So the lesson of today is ...write to your political representives of whichever country you live in and politely ask them to stop supporting murderous dictators because murderous dictators are not very nice people .
you're still dodging.
Dodging what ? Saddam thought all those he killed were worth it , they were a real or percieved threat to his rule , those who supported Saddam thought they were a price worth paying because they were a threat to their friendly murderous dictator.
Now you have some of the same people saying that the new deaths are a price worth paying because the murderous dictator isn't their friend anymore and must be removed from power .
So the only losers are the the people who were killed so Saddam could remain in power and the people who were killed so that Saddam could be removed from power .
Since its the same groups of people who made both descisions to support and remove the dictator then they are all as guilty as the man himself , possibly even more guilty as it isn't even their country in the first place to decide who should be in power and who should not .
So there you have it , lots of unneccasary deaths over a long time , all because of bloody politicians .
Yes it is Tribesman remember the cold war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
you would be correct - however one must expect nations to sometimes take a slightly different approach when attempting to meet their own interests first. No nation is completely innocent of this I believe.Quote:
Because its really rather simple - after the Gulf War of 1991 - Saddam continued his murderous dictatorship ways.
What the hell did you expect him to do ? He was a murderous dictator , do you think a military defeat would make him start being nice ? It didn't happen after his earlier military defeat .
So the lesson of today is ...write to your political representives of whichever country you live in and politely ask them to stop supporting murderous dictators because murderous dictators are not very nice people .
Yes it is Tribesman remember the cold war.
????? Nope , you have completely lost me there Redleg , when did the allies overthrow Stalin and put him on trial for the crimes he committed when he was their ally ?
So the difference, apparently, is that we continued to allow Stalin to murder people after we supported him- therefore we're not responsible. Whereas, we're guilty of all of Saddam's murders plus even more guilty than those that are blowing up civillians today because we took steps to overthrow him. Yup, makes sense to me. :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Stop the knuckle dragging for the sake of it Xiahou .
If you support someone when they are killing people , you cannot then go and say that you have to kill more people because the person you were supporting was killing people and try and distance yourself from your support of his killings in the first place .
So, by your logic, the 1st Gulf War was also hypocritical?
So, by your logic, the 1st Gulf War was also hypocritical?
Yes completely , you backed a murderous dictator against another country whose population had just evicted another of your local pets , while at the same time your military and administration was supplying weaponry to the very people who had not only evicted you friendly little puppet but had attacked the US embassy and kept US hostages for over a year .
Now after the 3rd Gulf war , to round off the hypocracy you are supporting the "terrorists" who Saddam was slaughtering , and supporting the "terrorists" who Saddam supported and who were actively involved in the embassy attack , and you are supporting the "terrorists" who were fighting the "terrorists" that were supporting Iran , and have helped put in high office in Iraq the very Iranian backed radicals who you have claimed to be the root of all the problems in the first place .
By YOU I do not mean you personally .
So is their any end to the hypocracy concerning the middle-east ?
If you want some more we could examine the whole Turkey-Syria-America love hate relationship in this so called war on terror . That would be fun ~;)
after WW2 the USSR and the USA went into a cold state of hostilies between each other fighting proxy wars with each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
after WW2 the USSR and the USA went into a cold state of hostilies between each other fighting proxy wars with each other.
Ah ......I understand now Redleg . So because Stalin was a murderous dictator it was decided that instead of overthrowing the former ally at home you would back other murderous dictators in in effort to defeat him in someone elses home .
Now what was the lesson for today ?
Not even close TribesmanQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Your arguement of I am forgetting nothing Redleg , I am just pointing out the pure bull that people are using Saddams actions when he was their friend to make comparisons .
I am pointing out the error in your arguement - just like you are pointing out the error mentioned above.
No lesson at all - other then that nations use other nations as allies when it suits their needs, and those nations become enemies when conflicting interests overtake the mutual interest.