XPost: rec.sport.tennis, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.china   
   XPost: soc.culture.iraq, soc.culture.palestine, soc.culture.pakistan   
   XPost: soc.culture.british   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   In article <87egw9st5i.fsf@wintersun.localdomain>,   
   jdeluise   wrote:   
   >bmoore@nyx.net writes:   
   >>   
   >> You're welcome to spew your endless screed trying to convince us that   
   >> Saddam was not a monster, but it's not very convincing.   
   >>   
   >> You still don't seem to understand that one can be opposed to US   
   >> foreign policy yet recognize what kind of person Saddam was.   
   >>   
   >> There's no question, at all, that Saddam was a monster.   
   >>   
   >   
   >No doubt lo yeeOn would welcome any and all new laws requiring him to   
   >register with the US government to write on his "blog" here.  After   
   >all, he seems to have no problems at all with Russia doing the same.   
   >   
   >The fact is all the superpowers do evil things to acquire and keep   
   >control/power, yet he points his finger only in one direction.  He's   
   >either remarkably blind or has an agenda, likely bought and paid for.   
      
   Oh, jeez, you think that I am not keenly aware of the fact that I am   
   being keenly aware that you and I and everybody else are being watched   
   by the NSA, the FBI, and any US government agency which keep tabs on   
   the internet all the time?  I started posting only since G W Bush'   
   invasion of Iraq on phony excuses.  I was reading rec.sport.tennis   
   since the days of Dar, Shen, and Mei-ling who admired Stefan Edberg,   
   though I always abstained from posting.   
      
   I started posting as a kind of missionary work, opposing the wars and   
   pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of the narratives that   
   justified Washington's interminable and insane campaign to garrison   
   the planet.   
      
   In this case, why did Washington go to such extremes of deception to   
   bring about a case for the Iraq War in 2003?  Iraq was at peace with   
   itself and did not threaten the security of the American people.   
   There was no Qaeda, no ISIS fighters, and no raping of women.  In   
   fact, Iraq was one of the most progressive Arab countries where women   
   prospered professionally.  But the policy makers in Washington had to   
   wreck that country in the name of fighting terrorism, when in fact   
   whatever terrorism it had under Saddam Hussein, it was nothing   
   compared with what came after G W Bush's invasion and occupation.   
      
   Let's make no mistake, ISIS is a product of Washington's evil work of   
   destroying the nation of Iraq.  When the OP bears the subject line   
      
     "Saddam doesn't seem so bad now does he?",   
      
   I think the poster was alluding to this fact.   
      
   In fact, there is a term for Washington's creation of ISIS.  It is   
   called radicalization.  When our war machine chase away a large number   
   of people from their modest desire to be just alive and have a family   
   to share a warm fresh dinner with everynight, it drives them to   
   desperation.  Washington has radicalized Iraq and its neighbors.   
      
   And it is not just Iraq.   
      
   Libya is another victim of the warmongers, the neocons in Washington   
   in England and France.   
      
   Libya, like Iraq before the first Gulf war, was a prosperous as well   
   as progressive state among its Arab peers.  And most importantly, it   
   had worked with Washington to prevent terrorism from growing in Libya,   
   just as Iraq under Saddam was.  Now, Libya is state infested with   
   terrorists and ungovernable.   
      
   But both Saddam and Gaddafi have been bandied about by the neocon   
   operatives as monsters.   
      
   If these people were like the illiterate Russian country folk who were   
   obsessed with fairy-tales about witches who live in three legged huts   
   that roam freely in the cold dark Siberian forests, it wouldn't have   
   been so bad.  But these guys in Washington are supposed to know   
   something, for crying out loud.   
      
   Every time, when Washington is about to launch a war that it needs to   
   convince the American people that it is justified, its operatives come   
   out and say that such a country is ruled by "monsters".  So, labeling   
   foreign heads of states as "monsters" is a tool for the warmongers in   
   Washington to justify their evil war agenda.   
      
   If Saddam was bad, what can we say about Franciso Franco, or Augusto   
   Pinochet, Mao Ze Dong, or Chiang Kei Shek?   
      
   I have the feeling that Saddam was just learning from Mao when he   
   asked for "candid advice" and then executed the one who offered him   
   one.  During the early days of Mao's reign of China, it was called the   
   period of "let a hundred flowers bloom".   
      
   I have taken care to compare Saddam with Mao, and Chiang, and Franco.   
   But why did we not hear demonizations of Mao, Chiang, and Franco,   
   despite their comparable work of evil with Saddam?   
      
   Chiang regularly murdered his critics without a trial, including Wen   
   Yiduo, one of the foremost intellectuals and scholars of his time.   
      
   The professor was gunned down in broad daylight in a teeming   
   marketplace in Kunming for his criticism of Presideent Chiang's   
   policies.  (A nice quiet statue of him now graces Tsinghua Yuan, the   
   campus of Tsinghua University where he used to teach, which you can   
   check out on wikipedia.)   
      
     He became politically active in 1944 in support of the China   
     Democratic League. His outspoken nature led to his assassination by   
     secret agents of the Kuomintang, right after eulogizing his friend   
     Li Gongpu's life at Li's funeral in 1946. (wikipedia)   
      
   So why didn't Washington's propaganda machine ever called Chiang a   
   monster?   
      
   And Francisco Franco was so bad to the Basque people, at Guernica, an   
   episode immortalized by Pablo Piccaso's eponymous painting.  And as I   
   pointed out, Franco's victory and his subsequent dictatorial rule of   
   Spain came with torture, including the torture-death of Spain's most   
   famous poet Garcia Lorca, in the same way Gaddafi was tortured right   
   before his death.  So, if Gaddafi was such a "monster", why was Franco   
   spared?   
      
   So why, why didn't Washington's propaganda machine ever called Franco   
   a monster?   
      
   And why was there not a campaign of demonization against Mao, despite   
   who he was?   
      
   There was a simple explanation in the case of Mao, namely, Washington   
   was, for one reason or another, not ready to bomb attack China.   
   Rather Washington needed Mao to weaken the USSR.  Isn't that about   
   right?   
      
   In general, when we are not ready to attack a country, we keep mum   
   about their dictators.  Isn't that also about right?   
      
   And, sir, that is what I have been talking about.   
      
   Calling Saddam a monster serves no purpose other than an active and   
   sinister political agenda.  (See below about "whipping the corpse".)   
      
   On the other hand, in every case when Washington's propaganda machine   
   starts beating the drum of war, we hear a frenzy of demonization of   
   the target country's rulers.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)