 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Perspective on Saddam Hussein
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Perspective on Saddam Hussein |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: Perspective on Saddam Hussein From: GUEST,An American in Paris, Texas Date: 22 Sep 02 - 05:48 PM Here's my take on the conflict with Iraq. Now I agree that Bush's war is about oil, not Saddam Hussein's weapons. BUT BUT BUT Since he came to power in 1979, Saddam Hussein has been directly responsible for more than two million deaths (and that's a conservative estimate) of his own people. More than a million Iraqis were killed in the war that he started with Iran. More than half a million Iraqi Kurds have been massacred on Saddam's orders. Estimates are of several hundred thousand Iraqi deaths in the Gulf War of 1990-91 that he started. The list goes on. An average of at least 90,000 Iraqis a year since Saddam Hussein came to power have been killed because of his actions. Noam Chomsky, the official policy dictator of the new left, has stated that George Bush would be an international war criminal if he invaded Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein because 5-10,000 innocent Iraqis would, undoubably according to Chomsky, die in the conflict. OK, so lets leave Saddam Hussein in power for another 10 years. Based on his own record thus far, that means we'd probably see about a million innocent Iraqis killed. Follow Bush, and 10,000 innocent Iraqis might die. Follow Chomsky, and 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis might die. If I was an Iraqi, and I thank God I'm not, I'd prefer my odds with Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Perspective on Saddam Hussein From: leprechaun Date: 22 Sep 02 - 06:31 PM Bonjour American. I really like what you've presented. But But But many of the people in this forum are soon going to tear you a new asshole for comparing Bush favorably to Saddam. Do like I do and use your new asshole to fart in their general direction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Perspective on Saddam Hussein From: Greg F. Date: 22 Sep 02 - 06:39 PM Try "since he was PUT in power by the United States in 1979"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Perspective on Saddam Hussein From: Gareth Date: 22 Sep 02 - 07:16 PM Follow Chomsky, and 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis might die - Delete might - Insert will. Does anybody remember the Nueremberg trials. The ambition, if decency and justice means anything, should be the Sadam is given the same chance to justify his actions. Gareth - And yes I know the Kissinger and others should be there as well - but, hey, lets concentrate on what is possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Perspective on Saddam Hussein From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 02 - 09:14 PM Yo GUEST. While I might question the stats, but won't since so many get thrown around that after a while no one cares if they are real, I'll agree with you that Saddam ain't a nice person. Now, the "Ain't a nice person" list is a very long one that includes a lot of folks right here at home. But jsut for the sake of discussion that after Saddam, who's next. And after who's next, who's next. And after... See where I'm going here? There are better ways to make "Ain't a nic person's" nicer but, heck, if you can justify killin' one, why not just kill 'em all? Problem is that there's this line where "Ain't a nice person" folks maybe ain't quite as "Ain't a nice person" as the one that we just killed where we say, "Hey, this "Ain't a nice person" ain't all that bad and maybe we shouldn't kill this one. Problem is, with Bush's desoire to save his own butt and try to do what Senior couldn't do, he make have to kill about half the folks in the world before he gets to *that* line... Hmmmmmmmmm? Think about it. Who's next... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Perspective on Saddam Hussein From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Sep 02 - 11:04 PM The responsibility for many of those deaths, especially the ones in the war against Iran, is shared by the USA, who aided and abetted Iraq in that war. So far as I know no effort is being made by the US government to punish the people responsible for that.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Perspective on Saddam Hussein From: JohnnyBGoode Date: 23 Sep 02 - 12:02 AM thanks guest, for starting a conversation about this. personally i'm confused, don't know who to believe...but conversation about it is seems right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Perspective on Saddam Hussein From: Bert Date: 23 Sep 02 - 12:22 AM If you want a TRUE perspective on Saddam then you might want to research the historical origins of the border conflict between Iran and Iraq. I know Saddam is a bad guy but you won't further your cause by getting your facts wrong. I know that at least one of the border skirmishes was initiated by the The Shah or Iran in order to push the border back just far enough to gain a foothold into the edge of the Dehloran oil field. It was a source of much annoyance to Iraq that Iran was the first country to produce oil from this oil field which was originally all within Iraq's border. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Perspective on Saddam Hussein From: paddymac Date: 23 Sep 02 - 01:39 AM If I might toss a wee clod in the churn, there are those who look to the middle east (and other contemporary "hot spots" in the world) and see the footprint of British colonialism. Perhaps the collapse of British Colonialism may be more accurate. Boundaries for emerging political entities following the collapse of the Ottoman empire were drawn in such a way as to retain control by optimizing tension. The US is rather a "late comer" to the area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Perspective on Saddam Hussein From: leprechaun Date: 23 Sep 02 - 02:06 AM It's everybody's fault except the Irish! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Perspective on Saddam Hussein From: Teribus Date: 23 Sep 02 - 08:15 AM "....there are those who look to the middle east (and other contemporary "hot spots" in the world) and see the footprint of British colonialism. Perhaps the collapse of British Colonialism may be more accurate. Boundaries for emerging political entities following the collapse of the Ottoman empire were drawn in such a way as to retain control by optimizing tension. The US is rather a "late comer" to the area. "
The Ottoman Empire - dates back to the Moorish expansion, so we are talking about a period going back some 1000 years. The first World War and the Treaty of Verseilles put an end to the Ottoman Empire in 1919 - in comparison not that long ago. In line with the ludicrous point made, and insisted upon, by US President Woodrow Wilson that any and every ethnic group had the right to call itself a nation and establish itself as a country (I acknowledge the over simplification), gave birth to among others: Austria Now with regard to the middle east states created, the League of Nations (which Pres Wilson had to good sense to steer clear of having created the pot mess), recognised that as some of the above hadn't any idea what the concept of nationhood was they would need looking after. It did this by mandates. The French looked after Syria and the Lebanon, the British looked after Egypt, Palestine (including Israel), Iraq, the Trucial States and Oman. I don't know if Paddymac thinks that all these people lived in harmony and that everything was sweetness and light up until 1919, but a few facts - no British colonies in the middle east - ever. In fact the British involvement in that part of the world dates back to the Napoleonic times, and only then because the French were attempting to cut British trade and reduce British influence in India. We're pretty new on the block ourselves chum. |