XPost: rec.sport.tennis, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.china
XPost: soc.culture.latin-america, soc.culture.iraq, soc.culture.pakistan
XPost: soc.culture.german
From: acoustic@panix.com
In article <92f8d07b-1912-4c7b-97d1-87519f55faff@googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
>On Saturday, August 23, 2014 5:18:50 PM UTC-7, lo yeeOn wrote:
>> In article <68834df7-a349-4da6-a373-91729ba587c3@googlegroups.com>,
>> wrote:
>> >On Friday, August 22, 2014 2:20:01 AM UTC-7, lo yeeOn wrote:
>> >> And the revival of the slogan "Saddam was a monster, no question"
>> >> is just the accompaniment to reviving a conflict we never had a
>> >> justification to be in in the first place.
>> >
>> >Once again, you still don't seem to understand that one can be opposed
>> >to US foreign policy yet recognize what kind of person Saddam was. You
>> >seem to have a pathological inability to say anything negative about
>> >Saddam, North Korea, etc.
>>
>> And therefore, you were making this pretentious statement as a follow
>> up to jdeluise's post below?
>
>You calling *anyone* pretentious is a severe case of the pot calling the
>kettle black.
I did not call "*anyone*" pretentious. I called your absurd statement
"pretentious". I hope you can see the difference.
[I then wrote, quoting bmoore's pretentious words of "challenging the
neocons". I say that because bmoore runs errands for the neocon
propaganda machine at the SCC newsgroup.]
>> bmoore wrote:
>> The real point IMO is that opposition to the US invasion of Iraq
>> should not have been based on challenging the neocons' assertion
>> that Saddam was a monster, because he most certainly was. It should
>> have been based on the fact that shaking up the status quo in that
>> part of the world would with high probability make things worse,
>> which it did.
>>
>> Notice that you use the specious words of "challenging the neocons"
>> who asserted, as you have, repeatedly that Saddam was "certainly" a
>> "monster".
>>
>> I was not challenging any assertions until when you came out of the
>> closet and started to whip Saddam's corpse. Whip, whip... Saddam
>> was bad, and that's why he's dead. Whip, whip,...
>
>What's this - now you're the protector of Saddam's corpse? Who gives a
>shit about Saddam?
You can't hide. I wasn't protecting Saddam's corpse. I have always
been trying to protect the lives of innocent people whenever
Washington's War Party, aka the neocons currently, want to trot out
another bogeyman in order to start another bombing mission somewhere
on this planet!
>> You are the one who keeps whipping Saddam's corpse on behalf of the
>> neocon propaganda machine to retroactively justify their crimes of
>> waging a totally unjustifiable war that resorted to big lies and to
>> proactively justify a new military adventure in Iraq and Syria.
>
>Not true at all. Just pointing out a fact.
Your posts tell the truth of what you've been doing.
>> The "evidence" that you cited for "Saddam was a monster - no
>> question" are urban legends.
>
>Bullshit. If you can't see how awful Saddam was then you're blind.
No, I studied the records of your singular citation that "Saddam was a
monster": his health minister in the early 1980s, at the time when
Iraq suffered bad losses in the face of Iran's human waves response.
I saw that your story was full of holes and various accounts that
existed about that health minister showed wide variations. And that's
why I said your citation "Saddam was a monster - no question" were
"urban legends". I continue to stand by my assessment. And thanks
for bringing that story out. That health minister might have been a
victim of Saddam's inhumanity; but the stories were greatly inflated
in different ways, reflecting their urban legend character.
As for dictators' inhumanity, I grew up learning about the inhumanity
of both Mao and Chiang. They were both utterly ruthless. And that,
in my view, was the reason why they could remain to be on top. But
why is it that I have heard you talk about these two guys as monsters?
Mao Ze Dong and Chiang Kei-Shak. I have heard many more inhumanity
about these two than the singular example you attributed to Saddam.
So, who is the blind one?
And in any case, when a ruler is judged, it is always the benefits
versus the suffering they have brought for their people - never very
much about how they treated their competitions. And above all, why
should Iraq have been destroyed and so many Iraqis killed and suffered
just because of what the West said about Saddam Hussein?
Why did the West not try to capture Hussein and send him to the Hague
and make answer for his crimes?
The fact that George Bush and his cabal didn't care to take the lawful
way to make Saddam answer his inhumanity renders the claim that
"Saddam is a monster" totally suspect.
>> Even if true, that's no basis to bring hundreds of [thousands]
>> Iraqis to their premature deaths and millions more to lost their
>> homes, and the entire country of Iraq wrecked.
>
>That's what I said. You're the one who seems preoccupied with
>defending Saddam. How idiotic.
No, you never said that. Citation is absolutely needed here.
>> Why is ISIS so powerful today? It's not because Saddam killed his
>> health minister. It is because our bombs and bullets drove
>> millions of Iraqi citizens to despair and hopelessness.
>>
>> Don't forget that you are the one who cited a couple of unsupportable
>> stories of a gruesome nature and mega-sensationalist tone that have no
>> logical basis for a term like "monster" except to fan the flames of
>> war and justify your whipping of Saddam's corpse, with your
>> condescending
>>
>> "He is a monster, no question."
>>
>> Saddam took ten years to assume power since he and his "Trotsky"
>> counterpart seized control in the 1968 July 17 revolution.
>>
>> He didn't just overthrow a president and assumed power for life.
>> He was one among many Baathists - a kind of communists or Trotskyist
>> in Iraq at the time. He just happened to be the most ruthless, like
>> Stalin in the USSR and like Chiang and Mao in China.
>>
>> So Saddam became a dictator and was ruthless - and so what? That I
>> have repeatedly stated this fact and you repeatedly ignored it
>> doesn't mean that there was any real content to your assertion
>> about Saddam other than its obvious political/propaganda
>> motivations.
>>
>> I have repeatedly asked why Mao and Chiang were not branded, by our
>> government, as "monsters" and used as a basis to go to war with
>> China, theoretically at least twice, since they certainly committed
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
