Saddam & Protests
(<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32416-2003Feb19.html"; target="_blank">clicky</a>)
From the Washington Post:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 19 -- President Saddam Hussein's government, apparently emboldened by antiwar sentiment at the U.N. Security Council and in worldwide street protests, has not followed through on its promises of increased cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors, according to inspectors in Iraq.
Very interesting.
I don't know if anyone is genuinely surprised that Saddam's regime isn't really interested in cooperating with inspectors or the U.N. in general.
The question here is what role do these protests play? Those who protest claim there is great import, that millions of marching citizens sends a message to their nation's leaders that they do not want war.
Well, since protests are a public form of speech, it seems that their leaders weren't the only people who got the message.
"We have done what was asked of us -- and the whole world sees that," a senior Iraqi official said, noting that Iraq last week acceded to U.N. demands for a presidential decree banning weapons of mass destruction and to allow U-2 surveillance planes to fly over the country. "All these criticisms are just raised by the Americans as a way to justify their aggression."
I wonder what point will be reached in the anti-war movement where those involved find themselves agreeing with Saddam a little too much for even their own taste.
(*disclaimer* - I am not saying that the anti-war movement is pro-Saddam. If that's the impression you get, take some deep breaths and read again.)
From the Washington Post:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 19 -- President Saddam Hussein's government, apparently emboldened by antiwar sentiment at the U.N. Security Council and in worldwide street protests, has not followed through on its promises of increased cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors, according to inspectors in Iraq.
Very interesting.
I don't know if anyone is genuinely surprised that Saddam's regime isn't really interested in cooperating with inspectors or the U.N. in general.
The question here is what role do these protests play? Those who protest claim there is great import, that millions of marching citizens sends a message to their nation's leaders that they do not want war.
Well, since protests are a public form of speech, it seems that their leaders weren't the only people who got the message.
"We have done what was asked of us -- and the whole world sees that," a senior Iraqi official said, noting that Iraq last week acceded to U.N. demands for a presidential decree banning weapons of mass destruction and to allow U-2 surveillance planes to fly over the country. "All these criticisms are just raised by the Americans as a way to justify their aggression."
I wonder what point will be reached in the anti-war movement where those involved find themselves agreeing with Saddam a little too much for even their own taste.
(*disclaimer* - I am not saying that the anti-war movement is pro-Saddam. If that's the impression you get, take some deep breaths and read again.)
Comments
I thought he might do this; through his stupidity and malicious sick-fcukerry more people are certainly going to die, him included.
Muppet.
It shows the true intentions of the "anti-war" movement. It's anti-US. Funded by overt anti-american communist groups that are still upset that the US won the cold war.
It's one of those situations where the leftist go around spouting off about how the corporate media doesn't tell the whole story and were all being lied to .... when the exact opposite is true.
[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>What a twat he is.
I thought he might do this; through his stupidity and malicious sick-fcukerry more people are certainly going to die, him included.
Muppet.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i have no doubt that we will be going in very soon, i just hope we nail his ass one way or the other. not being able to capture or kill this prick will be highly embarrasing to, not only the current administartion, but to the nation as well.
ha ha....
which movement is this??? i tell you what...why don't you pro-war and murder people have a few marches...get out on the streets and show your support for a war...i support your right to do that with all my heart...
while i have marched for peace and dialog, i have never marched for saddam no matter how you try to spin it....silly people...at least i got a nice laugh this morning....g
ps...i have always supported a one shot to the head vs thousands of men women children killed by raining down bombs on a civilian city...it we want to kill sadam, then kill him...but sending a few thousand cruise missles at a crowded city is maybe a grade c student way of doing it...i think we should think harder than that....
[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>The other aspect of the pro-Saddam movement is how mute they are about Saddam himself. They are not for peace and disarmament. If they were 90% of the message would be a strong condemnation of Saddam. The oil for food money diverted to weapons programs, never complying with UN resolutions, invasion of Kuwait explained away, every lie that comes out of that place is gobbled up by the pro-saddam left as truth. Rather than hold Saddam's feet to the fire they blame it all on the US and Bush.
It shows the true intentions of the "anti-war" movement. It's anti-US. Funded by overt anti-american communist groups that are still upset that the US won the cold war.
It's one of those situations where the leftist go around spouting off about how the corporate media doesn't tell the whole story and were all being lied to .... when the exact opposite is true.
[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
BRING BACK MACARTHY!
WITCHHUNTS FOR ALL!
(I intend satire, but... er, that's actually what the guy wants. Anyway, back to the thread.)
<strong>
BRING BACK MACARTHY!
WITCHHUNTS FOR ALL!
(I intend satire, but... er, that's actually what the guy wants. Anyway, back to the thread.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea that's exactly what I'm saying
edit: wrong use of the wourd route.oops
[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: Outsider ]</p>
Excellent work.
Practically everybody opposed to the war, I rather fancy, is praying that Saddam will co-operate with the inspectors and will actually decide that his brand of despotism is best served by disarming. Doing this is certainly going to lose him the 'support' of those opposed to the war.
Everybody hates him.
[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: Hassan i Sabbah ]</p>
like i said before though....what can we do other than rain down missiles on a populated city??? we need "A" student thinking...we have the best (or second best behind the sharon government) military planes, training, intelligence....don't you think that the bush and sharon government can find a couple of small crack forces to go in a take out saddam and most of him regime in like 30 minutes...maybe it is a mostly suicide mission, but you would find people willing to do that...maybe thirty of our forces die and about 3 to 4 times that in Iraq...so less than 200 die and they are all military or high government people....thousands of cilivians are spared and we have great press around the world and at home....g
<strong>Excellent work Scott, kill a viable thread with your typical paranoid Rush Limbaugh rantings and in your extremist views you give the anti-war movement an out so instead of having to face a very reasonable and realistic flaw in their logic they can instead cry foul at your non-sensical rantings.
Excellent work.
OH FCUK YOU PRICK! So I added my opinion. Go fcuk yourself if you don't like it. I think Hassan i Sabbah was the first with and irrelevant comment so if you want to be pissed at someone let be him. Asshole.
<strong>The other aspect of the pro-Saddam movement is how mute they are about Saddam himself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While hoping the thread stays useful, heh, I can't help but respond.
I call him a "Twat," a "muppet" and a "sick fcuk." And yet I know Scott has me in the "pro-Saddam movement." Yep, me and Osama Bin Laden, pro-Saddam ... after all, OBL called him an "infidel" and a -- gasp -- "socialist" so OBL and me. Pro-Saddam all the way.
Twat.
<strong>
OH FCUK YOU PRICK! So I added my opinion. Go fcuk yourself if you don't like it. I think Hassan i Sabbah was the first with and irrelevant comment so if you want to be pissed at someone let be him. Asshole.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was first, you're right, but you couldn't have been more inflammatory if you'd tried, Scott: really, what did you expect?
Anyway, for my part, apologies Groverat.
Targeted assassination is streng verboten in the U.N.
It's a very naughty practice to them. Very naughty indeed.
Not only that but the political turmoil created by a suddenly headless bloody regime with no occupying force to keep peace might make for a horrible horrible civil war between the south and north.
Taking a policy of targeted assassination would only increase Saddam's paranoia as his friends are killed off and his political killlings would only rise. A Stalin-esque cleansing (though Saddam doesn't have the same population #s to work with) would certainly follow.
just asking...is this the new USA
occupy Iraq
occupy Korea (well, maybe not korea, they don't have anything we want)
occupy Iran
occupy Venezuala
are we now an attack and occupy nation?? makes you kinda long for those isolationist days....if we are to become an attack and occupy nation, the president needs to really really REALLY hard sell that to the american people....
if we were to really address terror and possible release of WOMD to terrorist....we need to attack and occupy russia...they have the most missles, most nukes, most plutonium and a very weak, poor government....g
[quote] Targeted assassination is streng verboten in the U.N. <hr></blockquote>
but mass bombing a cilivian city is not??
[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>yeah, it was a great out....ha
like i said before though....what can we do other than rain down missiles on a populated city??? we need "A" student thinking...we have the best (or second best behind the sharon government) military planes, training, intelligence....don't you think that the bush and sharon government can find a couple of small crack forces to go in a take out saddam and most of him regime in like 30 minutes...maybe it is a mostly suicide mission, but you would find people willing to do that...maybe thirty of our forces die and about 3 to 4 times that in Iraq...so less than 200 die and they are all military or high government people....thousands of cilivians are spared and we have great press around the world and at home....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well ideally that would be great. Lets hope it pans out to be only double the casualties. i think if more people understood that if by 'war' we mean the eradication of Saddams regime with no or minimal civillian casualties, people would be less inclined to protest it. This won't be like Vietman. Hopefully it will be more like the Original Gulf War with even less casualties.
<strong>
OH FCUK YOU PRICK! So I added my opinion. Go fcuk yourself if you don't like it. I think Hassan i Sabbah was the first with and irrelevant comment so if you want to be pissed at someone let be him. Asshole.</strong><hr></blockquote>
wow.
scott = hi my name is scott and i'm a knee-jerk-aholic.
everybody = hi scott.
[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: running with scissors ]</p>
<strong>so U.S. occupation is the way to go??</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the case of Iraq, absolutely.
Not all situations are the same, ignorant to think otherwise.
[quote]<strong>but mass bombing a cilivian city is not??</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is "mass bombing" and what is a "civilian city"?
Come on, gelding, you know these emotional arguments don't fly with me!