Gross, I did read your post, and what I saw was you comparing the United States to Saddam Hussein. If it wasn't that, I don't understand the point of you getting so angry at me. "I agree that the number of prisoners in itself is not enough to condemn Saddam" is a direct quote from my post. Obviously your post had a lot more in it than just the statistics don't reflect that Saddam is bad. I agree with that part. You ignore the fact that Saddam did his horrid things to anyone who dissaggreed with him. You call them "traitors" and say that we too punish traitors. The law in the U.S. does not define a traitor as anyone who disaggrees with the government. If that was so, you would have been arrested by now. I don't think that all your logic is bad. We only talk about foreign policy too much on this forum. I probably agree with you much more on other issues.
We leave. Seriously. Just get the hell out of there. As soon as all the military threats are mopped up, and it's quite obvious that Sadaam and the Fedayeen are dead or in prison, we just walk out. We let the Iraqi people figure it out themselves. Everybody assumes that some governing body has to make all the decisions here... can't we just let the Iraqi people do it?
"But that will just leave the country open for another dictator!" you say.
No. A dictator needs some means of support for establishing power, such as a militia or political route. Once we get out of Iraq, it will be completely decimated. We can make sure there are absolutely no weapons of any kind, and we can make sure that every last trace of the previous government is eliminated. It will then be every man for himself. Give anarchy a brief chance. I'm sure someone will rise to power eventually, or maybe very quickly. It would be interesting to see what results from a more or less blank slate.
And Paul... I'll bet you watch Fox News, don't you?
heh heh
Hmm why don't we talk about twisting arguements Ben. You have never once answered anthing directed at you ever. And in addition in my article, you fucking moron, I said that I was not comparign the conditions of American prisons and Iraqi, but I was merely saying that we had numerous persons in jail. You decided to make some dumb ass post about something that I never ever said. "Ben and Paul I know you are going to say some dumbass thing about how the people are treated so much worse, and so on, which is obvious. My point though is that in a sheer numerical comparison we are probably right up there is not passed Iraq in number of prisons and prisoners percentage wise." That is a direct quote from my post, maybe you should fucking read something before you make some dumb ass comment about it. Secondly Ben . . . what the fuck are you talking about. I never said that people who found against Saddam were not in the right but rather I said that we treat have the same emotions and opinions regarding traitors as does Saddam, and therefore I was saying that it isn't that horrid of a thing if Saddam hates his traitors and we hate our traitors as well. You then spew this pity shit about the Iraqis and how long they have suffered in a effort to demonize me, when I never said anything of the sort. Once again fucking read a post before you make some stupid fucking counter to it. And lastly I really don't give a shit what you think happend With Walker, because what I have read both online and from the NY Times supports what I said, and you talk about political idealogy blinding someone, you have just as much of a blind fold around your head as you accuse me of. Also when did I say I wasn't happy that Saddam wasn't out of power . . . when did I say that Iraqis were not treated horridly by Saddam, and please explain how none of my arguements make sense . . . go through every arguement that i have ever made on this forum and discredit it, and also how is my logic twisted, I guess if I believe what I read by credible sources I must be twisted . . . or is that I am twisted because I don't agree with you.
And lastly lastly fuck you, you write these stupid posts that are completely unfounded ina manner to discredit me, and make up shit that I never said in my post. That is fucking bull shit and should not be allowed on this site. If you want to argue with someone good, but use actual facts no bull shit that you thought would have been convienent if I would have said. Also
Gross, let me address your points.
1) About the prisons, we have a lot of inmates in the United States to be sure. I guess you can twist anything I say andrew. When I say that Iraq had children prisons where they placed children of Saddam's political opponents, you would say that we have Juvenile prisons. When I meantion torture chambers, you would say that American prisons aren't such great places either, such is your twisted logic. I agree that the number of prisoners in itself is not enough to condemn Saddam, but the reasons for which they were being held and the conditions they were kept in speaks volumes about the regime. I am glad it has fallen and you should be too. Unfortunately, your political ideology has blinded you.
2) The prisoners that "had fought wars against Iraq" are the lucky ones, for they were not killed as most people like them were. When they say that they were "fighting wars against Iraq," it is another way of saying they were opponents of Saddam Hussein. These were the people Saddam was most scared of, the Iraqis who rose against him. According to one iraqi in Baghdad, "he killed millions of us." There is a reason why Iraqis were jubilant when his regime fell. It was their fellow countrymen who were imprisoned by Saddam. It was their fathers, Uncles, and cousins who were tortured, given chemical baths, and put in human shredders. This imprisoning of political opponents would never happen in the United States (Don't even think of fucking jumping on me for that). It would be like Bush putting Ted Kennedy in prison for opposing the war.
3) Finally, your Johnny Walker conspiracy theory is incredible. He did not get arrested and sentenced for his beliefs, he was because of his actions. If you went to a military base and started shooting at soldiers, you would be arrested too. Why, of all people, would they choose to arrest this one 19 year old? If makes no fucking sense, but neither do the rest of your arguments or your twisted logic.
I dont' actually mean that obviosly but the topic shall come to an end soon after this, but there are still some fundamental errors that I want to clear up. Firstly, Ben you said a while back that the UN is looking forward to the prospect of an ICJ . . . umm Benny they have had the ICJ for quite some time now. Also I would like to clear up something that Frason said about how could the UN depose a leader, and actually the UN is able to go into a country and remove a dictator forciablly if neccessary if he is convicted of war crimes . . . which Hussien prolly could have been convicted of. I think that about clears it up for blatent miss understandings of the UN, a body that has done a great deal to increase peace and stability in this world, while at the same time in desperate need of nations to be supportive of it and to pay their dues . . .
I heard three very funny things on the televesion from a man by the name of Dan Rather a couple of seconds ago and I thought everyone would like to hear them.
1) Dan Rather was talking about how there are so many prisons in Iraq and how many prisons there are. I found it some what humurous because in the US we have over 2,000,000 prisoners, and yet we make it sound like Iraq is such a horrid place because of the number of prisons . . . Ben and Paul I know you are going to say some dumbass thing about how the people are treated so much worse, and so on, which is obvious. My point though is that in a sheer numerical comparison we are probably right up there is not passed Iraq in number of prisons and prisoners percentage wise.
2) Dan Rather said something about how many of the prisoners had been detained for fighting in wars against Iraq and speaking out against Iraq. Firstly, if any American were to join the Iraqi side and fight against the US we would detain them and throw them in the slammer for being a traitor . . . which isn't a bad thing it is just hypocrital that Rather was making a big point out of it.Then next he talked about how they were arrested for speaking out against the government . . . John Walker Lindh was basically black listed and accused of the ultimate treacheroury against the US. This isn't true as we now know that he went to Afganistan to study what a jihad was and to become familiar with Islam. What makes it even worse that is that a women who reported the story was basically black listed by the government and lost her job and was unable to get a new job.
3) Dan Rather said in a perfect world we our coverage of the war would be completely unbiased . . . hmmm, does this seem unsettling to anyone else, I would think that in a perfect world we wouldn't have any need for war, hahaha, I guess I stand corrected. I know what he meant and I am just making a joke, he probably would like peace as well, but who knows, he is making lots o cash of this war!
And last I hope you conservatives are happy because I criticized a less conservative person, but don't come back and say that oh well the conservatives would never say anything like this and that everything that you just mentioned is just a liberal thing . . . the points he made are more heavily argued by the right so don't give me any of that backwards ass bull shit.
Paul that is the same arguement that you have said over and over and over again, but nontheless you still have fundamental issues that are wrong. THe UN can go into any nation as long as that nation gives consent . . . therefore the UN is not a police force of any kind, but yet it is an agent to rebuild nations. It rebuilds them by reducing poverty and aids and getting humanitiarian help to the citizens. Also it helps maitain stability in a region by employing troops for a short resolution to a problem. And lastly it through its body allows for the democratic process in a country to work, while at the same time introducing the nation into a world economy and not just that of US's allies.
And to Ben, you don't understand aspects of the UN to well either, when I am talking about Koffi as a person I am not talking about the UN because he has no more control over the UN than I do. The only difference is that who is and his posisition gives him respect from the securtiy council to advocate what goes on in the UN, therefore I am not saying that one man should rule over Iraq, as Koffi wouln't have any power in Iraq, and instead I am advising that an actual coalition (not Bush's three nations) rebuilds Iraq.
Kudos to you Gross for sugar coating the continued ineptitude of the UN Security Council, grossly exaggerating the facts, and manipulating the truth. To you, the Security Council's failure to act upon the blatant disregard of its resolutions by the Iraqi government was the result of the UN respecting sovereignty. If that was the case, then what right does the UN have to enter Iraqi territory now that Sadam's regime has been overthrown. According to your interpretation, the UN would be violating sovereignty. Contrary to what you wrote, this refusal to follow through on blatant violations of its policy has everything to do with rebuilding Iraq. The decade long incompetence of the council raises serious questions as to the ability of the council to make the hard decisions rebuilding Iraq will entail. I talk about humanitarian aide, because at the moment, the coalition (primarily the US and England) are paying for it, and on that note, are the ones who fought to open the port and the supply lines to deliver it to the Iraqi people. The UN had more than a decade to address the situation in Iraq, but as I documented, refused to make the hard decisions that were required to prevent the escalation of the Iraqi situation. The UN had the ball in its court for 13 years but was content doing little more than pass the burden from meaningless resolution to meaningless resolution. How can you have such blind faith that an organization, whose track record in Iraq over the last decade has been such a dismal failure, with the job of rebuilding a nation torn apart by 30 years of terror? There is a clear distinction between a democratically elected government and one that worships the ground the US walks on, though your ability to blur the two blows me away. Perhaps you missed the thousands of Iraqi's celebrating at Sadam's demise.
As badly as I hoped the UN would intervene and take action, in light of their failure to do so, I would rather see the US, UK, Australia, S. Korea, e.t.c. handle efforts to rebuild the country. In terms of Aide, the US fought to reopen the door to sufficient humanitarian aid operations. The UN's only response to the Iraq issue was to put in place an oil for food program (the majority of the proceeds of this program have been funneled into Sadam's coffers not the welfare of his people. In addition to that, you easily cast aside the fact that Sadam has embezzled nearly $7 Billion and not spent a cent on his people. The UN has developed a bad habit of ensuring itself in a web of resolutions, forcing alternate coalitions to act. Gross, you have demonstrated a tremendous ability to latch onto information you find favorable, and blindly reject information that refutes your beliefs. While you are correct that toppling Sadam's establishment will have a tremendous impact on the middle east and indeed the world, you seem to have eliminated the very real possibility that this change can and will be for the betterment of Iraq and the world; be more careful with your use of the "regime" word and let the situation play out before you assume a worst-case scenario that is yet to manifest itself.
That is very observant of you to notice the self-centeredness of the pro-war signs. It is probably just another one of the subliminal messages that our government uses all the time in order to brainwash for support. Keep cracking on those signs! One thing that I always noticed about the ant-war signs how they are brown, and not red, white, and blue. Before the anti-war people were proven completely wrong about the entire thing, they were claiming that they were the true patriots because they didn't want to see American troops get hurt. If they were the true patriots, shouldn't the "No War in Iraq Signs" have been more patriotic? Makes you think...
I was watching the news, and I took a closer look at the Pro-war signs. Wow, I just noticed how self-centered and ass-backwards this sign is. You'd think a sign with the purpose of trying to gain support for "liberating Iraq" would put more emphasis on the Iraq. But is this how it looks? Of course not. Half of the sign is the american flag; the other side says help iraq. And even though the message is supposed to help iraq, it's not the one underlined word, which one would think to be something liberate or iraq, instead says "our". That's right, the message is essentially saying that once we take Iraq, it's ours.
And before you jump down my throat about this, I do plan to take a closer look at the anti-war signs now too.
