From: Tagnut_McDangleberry@dangleberry.co.uk
In message <20041022105710.29613.00001183@mb-m05.aol.com>, Moyehoist
writes
>>As you're aware, the worst of Saddam's crimes against humanity were
>>commited while that country enjoyed the support of a US Republican
>>government.
>>As a person commited to human dignity and liberty, what were your
>>thoughts on this at the time?
>>
>>
>>
>>Tagnut
It is so revealing of your mindset, the excuses that now follow for the
support given to cruelty, murder and carnage perpetrated on an enormous
scale by totalitarian thugs, purely because it suited the short term
goals and material interests of your country.
>
>Iraq was instrumental in suppressing communist and Islamofascist forces in
the
>80's.
No it wasn't.
How could Iraq, a Ba'athist state (ie. one which had adopted Arab
Socialism including an economic and social programme of Soviet-style
state control) and which had been supplied with weapons by the Soviet
Union, be seen as a suppressor of "communist forces"?
I suppose by "Islamo-fascist forces" you mean the Islamic Republic of
Iran? Not a model of liberal democracy, granted. But, by any standards,
Iraq's human rights abuses *dwarfed* those of Iran:-
Iran:-
-did not invade its neighbouring countries starting a war
costing a million lives,
- didn't use chemical weapons against its Kurds and its
neighbours,
-didn't engage in genocide against Iranian Kurds and other
minorities,
-didn't repeatedly massacre tens of thousands of it's own
civilians,
-didn't systematically destroy the land and livlihood of
minority groups (see the Marsh Arabs).
This newsgroup is devoted to one of the greatest minds England has
produced in the 20th century, a man who spent his life fighting
totalitarianism, in print and in person.
But you're not really interested in human rights or democracy are you?
Your message seems to be: "totalitarianism's alright, just so long as it
serves the narrow economic interests of my country". Orwell would have
disagreed. It makes me feel slightly queasy to see you dragging his name
through the mire.
>Let's not forget that the communists slaughtered 80 million in the last
>millenium and it was covered up by leftists like you.
Leftist? I've not really concerned with politics here, except insofar
as politics affects democracy and human rights. Let's face it mate, this
has nothing to do with you caring about the millions killed by Stalin
and Hitler and everything to do having a political axe to grind and a
crude national self interest of the "my country right or wrong" variety.
You'd do better to avoid name-calling and concentrate on addressing the
points under discussion.
>
>But Sadam proved himself to be a murderous despot
He was known to be a totalitarian dictator in 1980, when he invaded
Iran. The US then proceeded to support him throughout the 1980s, despite
ample knowledge of his crimes. Why was Rumsfeld shaking him by the hand
in '83, three years after the invasion of Iran? Why, in 1986, did the
United States block Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use
of chemical weapons, and refuse to sign a Security Council statement
condemning Iraq's use of these weapons?
> also and the only support
>that the Republicans proffer now is that which keeps him secure from those
>Iraqis that would string him up now.
>
>And make no mistake about it, the real reason we are in Iraq is not only to
rid
>tghe world of a WMD (sadam) but to also secure oil fields and preempt another
>crippling Oil Embargo as we had in the 70's
Refreshing honesty.
So the 18 months of carnage we have seen in Iraq is acceptable, because
it'll help to maintain the US as the richest and most powerful country
the world has ever seen. Great.
> - also to take the war from
>Manhattan to the terrorists backyard.
Iraq wasn't a terrorists' backyard until about a year ago.
Any progress with your response to Thelasian's demolition of your crappy
assertions re Iran's nuclear program?? Thought not.
Ta ra!
Tagnut
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
