9a7937b1   
   XPost: soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.british   
   XPost: soc.culture.iraq, soc.culture.hongkong, soc.culture.indian   
   XPost: soc.culture.pakistan   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   I don't know of a "Yale Mar" to ask your question sauced in profanity.   
      
   I'm sorry.   
      
   Ignoring my freedom of speech, bmoore threatened/instigated violence   
   thus:   
      
     ">Given your defense of not only Saddam, but Kadaffy and the North   
      >Korean monsters, you deserve to have the shit beaten out of you."   
      
   This is a prime example of monsterhood, isn't it, when you can't even   
   express a difference of opinion, without being physically threatened.   
      
   Shocking!!!   
      
   lo yeeOn   
      
   For more detail response to bmoore's violence and profanity, please   
   read further.   
      
   In article <1ff403ba-7de2-40c0-8603-a0dcb2002880@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,   
   bmoore@nyx.net  wrote:   
   >On Mar 24, 5:26 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:   
   >> In article   
   >,   
   >> bmo...@nyx.net  wrote:   
   >> >On Mar 20, 5:47 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:   
   >> >> Why did so many Iraqis have to die just because we see Saddam as a   
   >> >> "monster"?   
   >>   
   >> >> An Iraqi in exile Karl Sharro @KarlreMarks said:   
   >>   
   >> >> The invasion of Iraq forced my entire family there to leave   
   >> >> permanently and I don't know when will I see it again. Sorry for   
   >> >> not cheering.   
   >>   
   >> >> Who are we, Americans and British under Bush and Blair, to tell Karl   
   >> >> that he and his entire family should lose their home and their country   
   >> >> just because we said Saddam was a "monster"?   
   >   
   >I didn't say we should have invaded Iraq. I said Saddam was a monster,   
   >and I am right.   
      
   Just because you didn't say "we should have invaded Iraq" doesn't mean   
   that you were opposed to the Iraq war at all.  All the indications is   
   that it was merely a war "not worth it".  I think that your succinct   
   reply of "of course it was not worth it" and your remark to me earlier   
   saying "but Saddam was a monster" tells where your heart was and is.   
      
   Plus, I have never seen you post anything to condemn the war and the   
   other wars in the genre of "war on terror" or regret the deaths.   
      
   It has no meaning to talk about whether it was "worth it" or not when   
   the crime is so great to launch that world under the whopper lie!   
      
     The invasion of Iraq forced my entire family there to leave   
     permanently and I don't know when will I see it again. Sorry for not   
     cheering.   
      
   Such a sentiment can be easily heard from many Iraqis' mouths today   
   who are lucky enough to survive our shock-n-awe bombing campaigns.   
      
   Why do we have so much to say about what they should or should not   
   have Saddam around?  Saddam was not about to create another crisis.   
   Iraq was minding its own business.  Iraq was at peace with itself and   
   its neighbors, after the mishaps in 1990.  Haven't we done enough to   
   defang Saddam's regime.  The answer was of course.  Except that we   
   defanged his regime enough so that we could easily assault and invade   
   the country on a hugely false and deliberately made-up lie.   
      
   That kind of a war has no place for the talk of whether it was "worth   
   it" to invade.   
      
   It's not our prerogative to hoist the banner "but he was a monster"   
   and use it as excuse to invade!   
      
   To give you an example of why it is not.   
      
   The wikipedia has a long biography of a Chinese general named Bai   
   Chongxi who flourished under Chiang Kai-shek's rule.  And if you read   
   the following paragraph, you can easily see that he is some kind of a   
   "monster" like the Taliban and like Saddam.  Fortunately, he died in   
   1966, in Taipei, according to the wikipedia.  If he were alive and   
   were living in Guangxi, those things that he did in the past would be   
   enough for our neocons to build up a war against China.   
      
   He talked just like a jihadist.  But Chiang Kai-shek accepted him and   
   many of his contemporaries in China accept him.  Who are we to decide   
   that because of him or what he did, that we should invade China?   
      
     During the Northern Expedition, in 1926 in Guangxi, Bai Chongxi led   
     his troops in destroying Buddhist temples and smashing idols,   
     turning the temples into schools and Kuomintang party   
     headquarters.[46] It was reported that almost all of Buddhist   
     monasteries in Guangxi were destroyed by Bai in this manner. The   
     monks were removed.[47]   
      
     Bai led a wave of anti-foreignism in Guangxi, attacking American,   
     European, and other foreigners and missionaries, and generally   
     making the province unsafe for foreigners. Westerners fled from the   
     province, and some Chinese Christians were also attacked as   
     imperialist agents.[48]   
      
     . . .   
      
     Bai Chongxi was interested in Xinjiang, a predominately Muslim   
     province. He wanted to resettle disbanded Chinese soldiers there to   
     prevent it from being seized by the Soviet Union.[53] Bai gave a   
     speech in which he said that the minorities of China were suffering   
     under foreign oppression. He cited specific examples, such as the   
     Tibetans under the British, the Manchus under the Japanese, the   
     Mongols under the Outer Mongolian People's Republic, and the Uyghurs   
     of Xinjiang under the Soviet Union.   
      
     . . .   
      
   >   
   >> >You *don't* have any sanity.   
   >>   
   >> Hurling insults and non sequiturs in mid-sentence shows that you have   
   >> no counter-argument.   
   >   
   >Saddam was a monster. Go fuck yourself.   
      
   Yes, by all account Saddam "was a monster", if you accept G W Bush and   
   the Establishment's view of him.   
      
   But if human history will have a say, he may not be worse than many   
   generals, like Bai Chongxi, that have existed in history.  After all,   
   history is said to be written by the victors.  Since we did not win   
   the Iraq war and Iraq continues to be in a miserable, failed state, I   
   am pretty confident that Saddam would not be described as a monster in   
   any respectable history book in the long run, particularly ones that   
   are not written for American children!   
      
   >   
   >> >> we know that many accusations against Saddam   
   >> >> are taken out of context.   
   >>   
   >> >This is why I ignore most of your blather.   
      
   Not blather.  I gave a detailed accounting of those famous   
   "accusations" and shot them down one by one.   
      
   Those accusations against Saddam were really taken out of context,   
   Unless you have something solid to refute my analysis, I'm not   
   convinced that we could ever justify, worth it or not, invading and   
   occupying Iraq and cuasing so many deaths and so much destruction.   
      
   >> >I have already stated that   
   >> >the war wasn't "worth it". But you can't admit that Saddam was a   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)