Shredded Men

by Francois 17 Replies latest social current

  • jws
    Because China or dozens of other countries are not threatening the world with the release of small pox, anthrax, VX nerve agent, Sarin, and dispersion of dirty radioactive materials - in addition to grinding up people alive, gassing their own people with mustard gas, and other oh so cute activities. And these other countries have not to our knowledge developed special relationships with Osama bin Laden and his worldwide troupe of merry men dedicated to the proposition that the entire earth should be converted to Islam by main force.

    Many of these claims have not been proven. The analysts (outside of right-wing American/British ones) say that Iraq is not a big threat outside his region. Iraqi defectors have said the sanctions have had a much more detrimental effect than we know. Reports of Iraq trying to obtain nuclear materials have been shown to be hoaxes. Aluminum tubes were for missles and fit the specs of missles, not for nuclear uses, as claimed. And Reagan/Rumsfield never cared about Saddam killing his own people. No, they tried to get more chummy with him and help him out. And no link between Al Queda and Iraq has been proven either. If there's real proof, I wish they'd lay it out on the table instead of the flimsy stuff they have.

    Is Saddam really a threat to us? I don't think so. The idea that he's an out-of-control madman is mostly from the demonising of him as part of a propaganda campaign. How mad can he be to stay in power for so long without a takeover? And if he was so bad, why was Reagan anxious to do business with him? Like Simon says, he's probably not a very nice guy and is certainly guilty of many distasteful acts. But when is it our job to decide we need to go around invading every country to bring about a regime change just because we don't like their leader?

    And by the way, exactly what is coming out of China right now? Chinese chemical warfare testing? On civilians? There's about as much proof of that as there is that Iraq has WOMD. Why not go invade China? Because we'd either get our asses kicked or fight to a stalemate. It's a war we can't win and will cost many human lives. We are the bullies here beating up the crippled kid. Iraq is weak and our motivations are political, not heroic.

    If you want me to agree with the war, you're going to have to prove Saddam is a threat. You can't manipulate me by waving a flag or by saying I'm unpatriotic to not follow the president or by bringing up 9/11. That's irrelevant. You can't sway me by making Saddam out to be Hitler and demonising him. Stick to the facts relevant to war, not character assassinations. Is there proof of WOMD? If so, then why not tell the weapons inspectors where, so they can go discover them? Why have other nations, despite having access to intellegence information, why have they not jumped on the bandwagon?

    Give me facts and proof as to why it is best that we attack before being attacked and why that will help us. Right now, there's too much heresay and hoaxes and exagerations, that no lawyer could win a conviction with.

  • Francois

    jws, the really nice part about all this is that I don't have to prove shit to you. We're going in to get Saddam regardless of what you think. You say "Many of these claims have not been proven." Proven to whom? To you? I couldn't care less. It's people like you who would have us wait while proving things to your satisfaction and by the time that was done, it would be too late.

    You say, "Right now, there's too much heresay and hoaxes and exagerations, that no lawyer could win a conviction with." Why don't you start proving what is hearsay, what is hoax, and what is exaggeration? YOU say these things exist, but who are you? And what do you really know about it? Nothing - that would be my estimation of what you really know.

    If the truth be known, I'd say you're just another knee-jerk member of the Hate America Left. Instead of demanding proof of what is obvious to anyone who is paying attention, how 'bout you start proving some of the nutty ideas you've put forward in your post?


  • Skeptic

    Well, I remain skeptical about claims of atrocities.....I remember before the Gulf War, SH's soldiers were supposedly taking newborn babies out of incubators and letting them die. The witness was supposedly an Iraqi nurse. Of course, once public support was for the Gulf War, we find out that the whole thing was fabricated. The nurse was not a nurse and had not been in Iraq!

    Do I think SH is a madman? Yup, and I think they should have taken him out when he was defeated in the Gulf War. I was furious that the troops did not finish the job.

    The U.S. needed SH then, and so let him live. Now they don't need him any more. I think this war is about control of oil and control of the Middle East.

    What concerns me is not that they want to remove SH, but my concern is that the public is being lied to.

    If SH is so bad, why wasn't he killed after the Gulf War? Was he a nice guy then and turned bad later? Please.

    Gee, if the Iraq people weren't opposed before, at the time of the Gulf War, and are now, could it be.....due to the U.N. Sanctions? And if they were opposed before, why didn't anyone care?

    Don't tell me SH was OK at the time of the Gulf War and has suddenly become an madman.

    This isn't about saving the Iraqi people or the world. It is about power and control and oil. And the U.S. getting what it wants.

    Iraq is too weak be a threat to anyone. I would feel better if the U.S. simply told us it was to control oil and the Middle East.

    When I first heard of the ultimation, I knew it would be a farce. And it is, though not as stupid as I thought they would make it.

    Iraq will be free to rule itself, the U.S. says. Yes, it will. A puppet government will be set up, and we will get what we want. Hopefully, the Iraqi people will have a better life too, but that will be a side benefit, and is not the real purpose of this war.


  • unclebruce

    ooo you're stir'n up a hornets nest here francois

    Yep, Saddam is truly the butcher of Baghdad - only trouble is, most other Arab states are run the same way and we don't hear a murmer of complaint from mr. Bush and his circus. Dictators, tyrants, despots these words are serious descriptions of a quarter of the worlds leaders ..

    fuck 'em all i say! .. just don't anybody try and kid me that Bush is sending in the boys because he hates tyrany. .. pleeeease ..i doubt he can spell the word .. the CIA and US muscle have been replacing democratically elected governments with dictatorships for much longer than i can rememmber. This isn't about morality or christianity or democracy folks just the almighty dollar.

    America keeps losing wars .. it pretty well lost it in Korea, it lost the Vietnam war, it lost the war on drugs, it's elite forces cocked up bigtime in places like Cambodia, Laos , Grenada etc... it lost the war on poverty, Osama Bin Laden's Mujahadin kicked the US out of many countries such as: Somalia, Lebanon etc... the US has virtually lost the war on AlQuaeda and desperately needs a win .. .. anyone catch my drift?

    my sheikls worth

    ps: a loser as powerful as the US is a very dangerous beast can almost feel the frustration of the US from here .. i hope they win this one.


    well said skeptic (just the sight of rumpsfelt or bush is enough to turn an honest mans stomach)

  • jelly

    This war is not about humanitarian issues or even freeing the Iraqi people those are just positive side benefits. What this article and Saddam’s record of human rights violations do accomplish however; is a complete dismissal of the leftist argument that we should not prosecute this war because innocents will die. Innocents are dying now. I’ll break it down like this:

    Argument to remove Saddam
    A: Saddam is attempting to build WMD’s
    B: He has used them before and we fear he will use them on us
    C: We need to enforce the cease-fire he signed 12 years ago or remove him from power

    Argument to keep Saddam in power
    D: But innocents will die

    E: Read the above article innocents are dying now

    Of course, this argument has no effect on people that blame all deaths on America no matter what the situation. Or who think one person killed on a marine base equals the 100k’s killed by Saddam. But really, when people think like that no arguments will ever work.

  • Skeptic
    well said skeptic (just the sight of rumpsfelt or bush is enough to turn an honest mans stomach)

    Thanks, unclebruce. I enjoyed your posts as well....very thought-provoking, as I learned somethings I never heard before.


  • Solace

    OMG Francois.

    Thats not even human.

  • unclebruce

    unfortunatley it is all too human heaven (ever read the bible story about the Israelite who cut open the Cannanite womans stomach, removed the baby and smashed its head against the wall? all with "Jehovah's" blessing of course. Sorry, i'm in a bible free zone and can't quote the scripture off the top of my head)

    ... or was that a Moabite woman? .. geez my memory is slipping


    We might differ on this war bullshit Francois but i respect you greatly bro. you being a champion of free speech and anti fascism an all.

    happy trails, lee

Share this