From: Tagnut_McDangleberry@dangleberry.co.uk
In message , Black
Minorca Pullets writes
>Tagnut McDangleberry wrote in
>message news:...
>> In message <20041022105710.29613.00001183@mb-m05.aol.com>, Moyehoist
>> writes
Apologies for the delay, I''ve been working.
>> >>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.
>
>There were no complaints when we saved your ass in WWII.
Interesting argument. Because a given country did the right thing on
one occasion, it cannot be criticised for doing the wrong thing on
another occasion.
You helped to save our "ass". It was the Red Army that did the lion's
share of "ass" saving. Presumably, according to your logic, this means
that because they were on the right side in WWII the post-war USSR is
immune from criticism?
>And what
>enormous scale do you speak of ?
> The bastards came close to killing
>50,000 on 9/11.
Please try and concentrate. I'm not talking about the current occupation
of Iraq, I'm talking about Iraqi human rights abuses during the 80s,
whilst that country was supported by the US and governed by (your words)
"the biggest mass-murderer of the 1990s". And the 1980's too don't
forget.
Why do you maked half-arsed excuses for US support of a totalitarian
regime committing, and known to be committing, genocide/war crimes on an
enormous scale? The answer is simple, your beef isn't with
totalitarianism per se, but with regimes which oppose your country.
It's as simple as that.
You wanna quote Orwell??
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed
by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing
about them.”
G.O.
>Our troop casualties average 15/20 per week. A small price to pay to
>keep terrorists out of Big City, USA
How many Iraqis die each week?
How many have died so far?
I know you couldn't give a flying fuck, but it's about 100,000 according
to a study published today in The Lancet.
>> >
>> >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"?
>
>Easily - Read your history book. Do'nt you remember the Soviet
>invasion of Afghanistan? Iraq was next in line and Sadam turned on
>his one time friend.
Crap. Where's your evidence for this?
In order to invade Iraq, the Soviets would have had to invade Turkey or
Iran, or both.
IIRC the invasion of Afganistan was to shore up a friendly (but nasty)
regime beseiged by mujahedin (you know the sort; the ones that are *now*
in league with the Antichrist, but were *then* your pals).
>> 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,
>
>The Iranians are killing their Kurds. Pick up a real news source
>instead of the quasi bolshevick BBC and Times.
There's undoubtedly been oppression of Kurds in Iran, as in all the
modern states that have Kurdish populations. Persecution has been far
worse in US ally Turkey, than it has in Iran, for instance.
However, the likes of you are always banging on about moral
equivalence; provide the evidence for anything *like* an Iranian
*genocide* of the Kurds.
>> -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).
>They did invade Iran and committed war on us.
What? Iran invaded *Iran*?
You're losing it aren't ya?
>Iran treated the US civilians at the embassy like dogs. They continue
>to persecute their own Kurds and they stone teenage girls for petty
>offenses.
>They invaded Iraq
When did they invade Iraq?
>and they are as imperious as any of the
>islamofascists. They are biding time till they develop the bomb -
>which we will never let happen.
Strange how islamofascism was the perfect ally in the 1980s, but now
it's the Heart of Darkness.
Not strange when you realise that brutal Islamic theocrats are worthy of
support when, lo and behold, they happen to serve US interests.
Again, you have no problem with such people, provided they're on your
"side".
> If you like thenm so much, why don't you live there?
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...
So the Iranians are/were governed by an undemocratic theocracy, they are
"imperious" whatever that means, they mistreated Americans (horror of
horrors). Say what you like about them, but you know and I know that
they were nowhere *near* as bad as the regime in Baghdad during the
1980s. Reagan opted to side with the savagery of Saddam, because it was
seen to be in your interests, and you had a gob on cos of the iranian
hostage crisis.
>
>>
>> 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".
>What's narrow about terrorists declaring war on western civilization?
You seem to be hopelessly confused.
We are discussing american backing for a genocidal totalitarian iraq
which had just invaded its neighbour, not the war on terror.
>
> Orwell would have
>> disagreed. It makes me feel slightly queasy to see you dragging his name
>> through the mire.
>
>Orwell had his John Wayne side. He believed in a "gun hanging from
>every cottage wall"
You're rambling again. We're not talking about gun ownership. We're
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
