Hitler and Hussein

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by oddfellow4870, Feb 10, 2003.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. marc


    Re: Iraqi Massage Parlors

    ' Do you want oil or powder-oops, we have no powder sir'
  2. propheto


    Iraqi Massage Parlors

    I wonder if after the military intervention there would be a proliferation of Middle Eastern Massage parlors. After The Korean war many oriental massage parlors popped up and after the collaspe of the Soviet Union, Russian massage parlors opened up. I wonder if it will be the same with Iraqis
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2003
  3. oddfellow4870


    It sounds as though your version of morality is to keep a scoresheet. As soon as someone does something wrong, they have no claim to being moral or doing the right thing.

    Let me make this simple so that you can understand it.

    Who gasses their own people?
    Who uses their people as human shields?
    Who threatens their people at gun point to make them fight?
    Who has a rape room?
    Who feeds dissenters into shredders?
    Who has invited every terrorist in the world to kill every member of the other side's civilian population?

    Who is taking care to NOT kill the other side's civilian population?
    Who is bringing in humanitarian aide to feed the other side's civilian population?

    Who is trying to stop the other side from feeding its own population?
    Who is manipualting events to maximize the death of their own civilian population?

    Clearest example of good versus evil since WWII

    And if you think past mistakes negate our ability to do what's right now, then I dub you Chamberlin: appeaser and coward.
  4. skagen


    The US and Rumsfield cannot support a KNOWN dictator to gas Iranian soldeirs - and then turn round later and claim he's "evil" and must be removed on "moral" grounds. The is NO righteousness in any such cause - only convenience.

    You haven't any single clue about what morality is - spare us the bullshit.
  5. komplex


  6. Duckman

    Duckman Moderator

    Re: reality

    Of course, the Palestinians could have had their own state in 1947 http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html, free of British colonial rule, but they rejected such.
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2003
  7. Casper


    Re: War for oil

    Oh they are. Remember it's OIL for FOOD. Too bad Saddam thinks the food was supposed to be all for him.
  8. jcb625


    War for oil

    who is the #1 importer of oil from Iraq ????

    why it's none other than france !!!

    Hmmm..........that's odd...............
    I thought the french were such great humanitarians
  9. jcb625


    Skagen misses a lot of points, because he is fixated with his
    anti-american rantings.....when he runs out of things to
    rant about, he attacks you for misspelling the name of a city
    that will soon be off the map anyway.....Face it skagen, you
    are one of those anti-everything -American bitter little men
    who appeaeantly has no life beyond the "off topic" threads
    of UG....
  10. gideonmandoma



    after listening to skagen rant and rave for a while, I wanted to respond to a few of his points, because it seems to me he has some delusional disorder that does not allow him to separate the ideal from the real.

    Skagen keeps bitching about osama not being killed. He seems to have trouble understanding that osama still being alive is not due to a lack of effort on the USA's part. One can only ask that people do what they can to fix a situation, and be able to accept the reality sometimes that something is enormously difficult, and may not get done. Just because we were only partly successful with osama doesnt mean we should just throw up our hands and never attempt to fix anything again. I dont see the logic there.

    With regard to his constant assertions equating israel to terrorists and saddam b/c of the deaths of civilians, there is a simple difference. When civilians die in israel it is almost always from collateral damage. It happens to be that the civilians live in the same areas as the terrorists, and though in an ideal world no civilians would have to die, in the real world this is not the case, as we are all currently seeing in iraq as well. I am commenting on the general attitude, rather than pointing to 2 or 3 incidents during years of struggle. Israel intentionally attacking civilians doesnt make any more sense to me than America intentionally bombing an iraqi marketplace. Everyone knows it makes them look very bad, so there is no reason to believe they would intentionally do that.
    If you can't see the difference between strapping on a bomb and boarding a civilian bus vs bombing Hamas headquarters and killing 3 uninvolved palestinians in the process, then you are truly blinded by your antisemitism.

    With this thing with palestine, skagen again missed the point. The point is not whether the area ever was called palestine in the course of human history. The point is that there was never an organized arab state(you know as in flag, military, parliaments) in that area that went by the name Palestine. When people call it Palestine, the connotation is that israel walked in to an organized arab state, overthrew the government and put up their own flag.
    That is simply untrue.
  11. Reel Deal

    Reel Deal

    Re: Least we forget who the enemy is...


    I have always said that Americans have a short memory.

    It is obvious many still think it's 9/10 by their words and actions.

    The slide of the body hurtling, free-falling, head covered with his arms is especially chilling.
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2003
  12. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

  13. propheto


    my 2 cents

    This war has NOTHING to do with liberating Iraq. This war has very little if anything t do with oil.


    Saddam Hussein has been guilty of the mass murder of hundreds of thousands. How many years has he been in power? During that time he has executed pretty much anyone who opposed him. The unexpected resistence of the Iraqi people to American intervention is largely due to the fact that most Iraqis while maybe not Pro-Saddam aren't Anti-Saddam. Those that opposed Saddam were executed. The American Government is to blame for this. Back in the early nineties, during the Gulf War, we encouraged all Iraqis to overthrow Saddam. We they tried this, the Gulf war ended, we went home and left those people in Iraq with really big "kick me" signs on their backs. About a decade later we are again encouraging Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. Any dissidents still alive aren't buying it this time.

    Iraq has Oil, We use Oil. Although the connection seems obvious it is not neccesarrily so. Not commonly known facts. We have oil. Lots of it, Tons of it. So why are there concerns about oil in the Middle East? It's Damned Cheap!!!. That's why we import it. Oil is not renewable. It is better for use their oil first. It is not cost effective for us to get into a war with Iraq for oil. They don't have that much of it. If they did, why did they feel the need to try to reclaim Kuwait (at one point Kuwait, way back in ancient history, was a part of Iraq)

    So why are we there?
    Honesty, They are a threat, not with missiles and such but terrorism(a word that is getting thrown around so much people do not know what it means anymore) This is a preemptive strike. This is also retalliation for 9/11. This is a message that the US deal swiftly and harshly with any terrorist threat or action. It will make countries think twice about sponsering terrorists.

    Last note. (Sorry this drove me nuts)
    It is impossible for terrorism to occur during wartime against and armed force. Iraqis solders in civilian clothes attacking Coalition forces is exactly that. It is not terrorism. Pretending to surrender and attacking soldiers is a stragedy not terrorism. Terrorism occured on 9/11 in New York not on a battlefield.

    Sorry if i bored anyone
    Just ranting in response to some of the talking heads on TV
  14. oddfellow4870


    The ten commandments says thou shat not kill, but clergy have supported wars throughout our history when our cause has been just. The decision to support a just cause is not an easy one. But once made, you will undermine your will to do the job if you let yourself get distracted by collateral damage or second guessing. Those who wish to undermine democracies around the world will use the EXACT tactics you are employing. Sorry, but the arguements don't add up. I don't care if Rummmy gave Sadaam a blow job, it has nothing to do with the righteousness of our cause.

    Sadaam is EVIL. Rummy is Not. It's a moral judgement and the evidence supports it. Rummy does not let his soldiers rape the wives of his political opponents.

    Bottom line: This war is the right thing to do. And we will do it.
  15. skagen


    No, YOU get a grip. What is "moral equivalency"? Are you looking for an excuse for cold-blooded murder of unarmed civilians? There is none - especially not from people who keep bring up Hitler and the Holocaust every other second.

    As for Isrealis, no they don't blow themselves up. They kill unarmed Palestians from behind the cover of US tanks and bulldozers.

    As for Saddam and Rusfeld, no doubt the TEXT was too difficult for you to read.
  16. oddfellow4870


    Re: Hitler & Saddam? How About RUMSFELD & Saddam?

    Yes and I can show you pictures of FDR having lunch with Stalin. I guess shaking hands is a war crime now.
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2003
  17. oddfellow4870


    And you say that there aren't?

    Flimsy flimsy flimsy ....

    Sorry SK, but you've taken too many Sociology courses. When subduing an enemy camp becomes the moral equivalent of shooting your own civilians in the back of the head to keep them from running, you've lost touch with reality.

    I don't see anyone from Isreal walking into Palestinian places of fellowship and blowing themselves up.

    Get a grip
  18. skagen


    As for the Pakistanis and Saudi's in this coalition to "free" Iraq, I guess you think they DIDN'T celebrate Sept 11th? Moron!

    And you, whatever handle you dredged up today, when you're done enjoying the picture of Rumsfeld smiling and shaking Saddam's hand, you can free to relocate to whatever sewer you crawled up from.

    PS: lil bonus for you. B-A-S-R-A
  19. jcb625


    I should have known

    I haven't visited the site for awhile, but I could have bet it all
    on the fact that due to current world events,Skagen would be spouting more of his anti-American bullshit ...you must be really eating all of this up Skagen.......gives you something to live for, coming on UG and showing off your psuedo-intellect...maybe you should relocate your sorry ass to france with the rest of the chicken-shit ungratefull cowards...or better yet, iraq where
    sadam would make you one of his deputies while protecting you
    with some women or children as human shields......Oh by the way, did you see the mural of the jet crashing into the building
    that was found in Bosra ??? That should tell you something about your foul smelling arab friends.......
  20. skagen


    Part 2 of "Rumsfield and Saddam"

    The United States claimed to be officially neutral during the Iraq-Iran war and claimed that it provided arms to neither side. Well, not directly maybe. Arms were shipped to Iran via Israel and various countries in Europe, Asia, and South America. Initially, the Iraqis started with a Soviet-supplied arsenal but needed more as the war raged. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive and the United States decided that an Iranian victory would not be in U.S. interests. So they accelerated contact with Baghdad, removed Iraq's name from a State Department list of nations supporting terrorism, pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing and to enhance its credit standing to allow it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The United States Agriculture Department provided taxpayer guaranteed loans to Iraq for the purchase of American commodities.

    Although formal relations with Iraq were not established until November 1984, the U.S. had begun several years earlier to provide Iraq with intelligence and military support (in secret, and contrary to official U.S. neutrality policies) on direct order of Ronald Reagan. And about this time, the U.S. began to funnel weaponry and military equipment to Iraq. It came either through intermediary nations or by deliberately turning a blind eye to the obvious; for instance, in April 1984 the State Department willingly accepted the declaration of Bell Helicopter Textron that the helicopters they were selling to Iraq's Ministry of Defense were not in any way configured for military use. No doubt they were for covering the morning traffic reports for Radio Baghdad.

    During the spring of 1984, the U.S. reconsidered its policy of selling nuclear-related equipment and knowledge to Iraq. The documents reveal the U.S. was certain that even after the conflict with Iran was ended, Iraq would continue to develop its nuclear program up to the point of possessing nuclear weapons. Although Iraq resides in a dangerous part of the world, no one had blinked when Israel stockpiled a large cache of nuclear weaponry because proliferation was not a priority for Reagan's administration. Throughout the earlier part of the 1980s, the Reagan White House had downplayed Pakistan's nuclear program in order to avoid congressionally mandated sanctions against Pakistan. This was to ensure that the U.S. could continue to provide massive military assistance to Pakistan in return for its support of the Afghanis who were fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

    What makes this whole matter so perverted is that the current U.S. administration uses against Iraq exactly what a former U.S. administration gave to Iraq. Bush and Rumsfeld describe Iraq in stark, moralistic terms to persuade a skeptical world that a premeditated and pre-emptive attack on Iraq is just. They claim that this all arises because Saddam has nasty weapons, although the U.S. administration, partly with the assistance of Rumsfeld, looked the other way during the time that Saddam may actually have been using those nasty weapons. In Reagan's days in office, chemical warfare conducted by a country with which the U.S. wanted to be friendly was a potential embarrassment but they found a way around that obstacle. Now, a past history of chemical warfare is enough reason for the Bush government to wipe away the former position of the United States that the "objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq (is)inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations."

    At least now we can all see clearly that the morals of the United States are only those of convenience.

    Paul Harris is self-employed as a consultant providing Canadian businesses with the tools and expertise to successfully reintegrate their sick or injured employees into the workplace. He has traveled extensively in what North Americans refer to as "the Third World," and he believes that life is very much like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. Paul lives in Canada.

    Paul Harris encourages your comments: [*****]pharris@YellowTimes.org[/*****]
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2003