The Pro-Saddam left would never have a bad word for their beloved leader.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you genuinely believe that those who oppose the war do so out of support for Sadddam Hussein? Is it impossible that the situation could exist in anything other then black and white terms?
I do think that a small fraction of the "anti-war" movement are in fact pro-saddam in a "my enemy's enemy is my friend" way. It's well documented that many of the "anti-war" funding groups are in fact front groups for anti-US groups. Also there are the groups if jihadis and pro-Sadadm arabs that are vocal in the "peace" movement
The "anti-war" movement is shockingly uncritical of the Saddam regime. If they are so for peace why don't they protest against Saddam? Why doesn't someone like SJO spend as much time speaking about on the complete tyranny of Saddam? The torture, rape, murder. SJO doesn't even think Saddam gassed his own people. Letting this tyrant off the hook for his actions can only be seen as pro-Saddam.
In the end the effect is to give Saddam some room to wiggle and that helps him. The "anti-war" left should spend more time holding Saddam's feet to the fire. But they are not for "peace" they are against the US, at any cost.
Hey SJO do you have a "unseen torture of Saddam" page to post? No? Of course not! The Pro-Saddam left would never have a bad word for their beloved leader.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scott, you are ridiculous beyond words...too sad. The pro Saddam left?? hahaha!...thats as dumb and unrealistic as those hordes of "Florida Jews for Buchanan" during the 2000 'election' fraud/fiasco.
Scott, you live in such a black and white world that you feel anyone who is opposed to George W. Bush and his crazy empire building spree is automatically "pro-Saddam". Saddam, btw, if you hadn't noticed, is an authoritarian warmongering right-wing-nut, and the US was the *ally* of Saddam for 10 years during the Reagan years and the first half of Bush Sr's presidency. If you want evidence of buddybuddy with Hussein, go look outside the antiwar movement.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Scott, you are ridiculous beyond words...too sad. The pro Saddam left?? hahaha!...thats as dumb and unrealistic as those hordes of "Florida Jews for Buchanan" during the 2000 'election' fraud/fiasco.
Scott, you live in such a black and white world that you feel anyone who is opposed to George W. Bush and his crazy empire building spree is automatically "pro-Saddam". Saddam, btw, if you hadn't noticed, is an authoritarian warmongering right-wing-nut, and the US was the *ally* of Saddam for 10 years during the Reagan years and the first half of Bush Sr's presidency. If you want evidence of buddybuddy with Hussein, go look outside the antiwar movement.
<strong>The "anti-war" movement is shockingly uncritical of the Saddam regime. If they are so for peace why don't they protest against Saddam? Why doesn't someone like SJO spend as much time speaking about on the complete tyranny of Saddam? The torture, rape, murder.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So exactly how many anti-Saddam rallies have you attended, Scott? I don't mean merely pro-war rallies, but protests specifically against Saddam's rule or Saddam's policies? He's been just as bad as you say for many years, not just when the US is trying to rally the troops.
How come the fury of the McCarthy era was directed at suspected US communist sympathizers, but not turned into big rallies against the source of the problem, the USSR? Who generated more anger in your average Western cold warrior? Khrushchev, or some American politician viewed as "soft on communism"?
How many people is the US are more likely to spend hours or days picketing a local factory for poor working conditions than they are to spend as much effort to protesting conditions in some sweat shop overseas?
Maybe a few of the Arab protesters around the world truly are pro-Saddam, but to suggest that any significant portion of, say, American or Canadian or European or Australian protesters is pro-Saddam is disingenuous in the extreme. You're either using deliberately inflammatory rhetoric for effect, with no regard to accuracy, or you're blind to human nature and how protest, from the left or from the right, normally works.
People protest more about things in their own culture than outside of it. People protest more against those whom they expect to do right, but with whom they are disappointed, than they do against those who seem totally outside their realm of influence. Who takes more public heat? Individual murderers and rapists, or police commissioners viewed as not doing their jobs properly to prevent crime?
But I don't suspect that such subtleties to matter to you. You clearly prefer hit-and-run style smear tactics than you do making any effort to try to understand those who differ with your opinions. That kind of thinking is for wusses, right? "Real men" try to score points and push buttons apparently.
Maybe a few of the Arab protesters around the world truly are pro-Saddam, but to suggest that any significant portion of, say, American or Canadian or European or Australian protesters is pro-Saddam is disingenuous in the extreme. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>But I don't suspect that such subtleties to matter to you. You clearly prefer hit-and-run style smear tactics than you do making any effort to try to understand those who differ with your opinions. That kind of thinking is for wusses, right? "Real men" try to score points and push buttons apparently.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Hit-and-run"? You must be joking. I made the comment. Got called on it. Then back up my position with my view. Not "hit-and-run" by any measure.
I answered all of you points before you asked them. You're just choose not to read and consider them. I put the question to you. If the "peace" protesters are for peace why are the mute about Saddam?
<strong>I answered all of you points before you asked them. You're just choose not to read and consider them. I put the question to you. If the "peace" protesters are for peace why are the mute about Saddam?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When good answers fail, go for obtuseness? All of those "points" of yours were exactly what I was talking about. I plainly answered why these people might appear "mute", as you put it, about Saddam. Go back and re-read.
Here are the key paragraphs from the UK's proposed resolution: It's just saying that they have to have another Security Council meeting to decide what to do after Blix's report - no automatic war.
--------------------------------
I'm all for it then.</strong><hr></blockquote>I just wanted to point out that when you quoted my post it was rearranged to mean something it did not. It was the original 1441 resolution from last fall that didn't have an automatic trigger for war. This new one does, in the sense that the only way to stop a war would be for the SC to come back and vote that Iraq has fully complied and disarmed.
<strong>I just wanted to point out that when you quoted my post it was rearranged to mean something it did not. It was the original 1441 resolution from last fall that didn't have an automatic trigger for war. This new one does, in the sense that the only way to stop a war would be for the SC to come back and vote that Iraq has fully complied and disarmed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks. . .I take it back then!
I certainly did read it to mean that there still wasn't an automatic trigger for war. I couldn't understand the possible vetos.
<strong>Um? THe US doesn't have a 22,0000lb bomb. As far as I know. Also one would never use that in a city. Unless you're a shrill anti-Bush banshee making stuff up to "prove" your position. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Um? THe US doesn't have a 22,0000lb bomb. As far as I know. Also one would never use that in a city. Unless you're a shrill anti-Bush banshee making stuff up to "prove" your position. </strong><hr></blockquote>
the new time magazine makes mention of the 21,000 bomb (and i quote) "packs the power of a small nuclear weapon, complete with mushroom cloud"
the whole article lays out in general terms the pentagon's invasion strategy. if it's mere saber rattling, it did the trick on me. what if something goes wrong? i'd rather have u.n. backing then not.
the worst thing about this whole fiasco, is the biggest victory (khalid shalkh mohammed's capture) in the war on terror, has had to share the spotlight with the bush administrations bungling of the u.n. resolution.
imagine if bin laden is captured at the same time as an unsanctioned invasion of iraq.
Comments
<strong>
The Pro-Saddam left would never have a bad word for their beloved leader.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you genuinely believe that those who oppose the war do so out of support for Sadddam Hussein? Is it impossible that the situation could exist in anything other then black and white terms?
Or are you just trying to annoy people?
<strong>
Or are you just trying to annoy people?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's just that when he's backing into a corner in an argument he has to lie his way out of it.
The "anti-war" movement is shockingly uncritical of the Saddam regime. If they are so for peace why don't they protest against Saddam? Why doesn't someone like SJO spend as much time speaking about on the complete tyranny of Saddam? The torture, rape, murder. SJO doesn't even think Saddam gassed his own people. Letting this tyrant off the hook for his actions can only be seen as pro-Saddam.
In the end the effect is to give Saddam some room to wiggle and that helps him. The "anti-war" left should spend more time holding Saddam's feet to the fire. But they are not for "peace" they are against the US, at any cost.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>
Hey SJO do you have a "unseen torture of Saddam" page to post? No? Of course not! The Pro-Saddam left would never have a bad word for their beloved leader.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scott, you are ridiculous beyond words...too sad. The pro Saddam left?? hahaha!...thats as dumb and unrealistic as those hordes of "Florida Jews for Buchanan" during the 2000 'election' fraud/fiasco.
Scott, you live in such a black and white world that you feel anyone who is opposed to George W. Bush and his crazy empire building spree is automatically "pro-Saddam". Saddam, btw, if you hadn't noticed, is an authoritarian warmongering right-wing-nut, and the US was the *ally* of Saddam for 10 years during the Reagan years and the first half of Bush Sr's presidency. If you want evidence of buddybuddy with Hussein, go look outside the antiwar movement.
Saddam a lefty!!!!!.... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" /> <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" />
<strong>
Scott, you are ridiculous beyond words...too sad. The pro Saddam left?? hahaha!...thats as dumb and unrealistic as those hordes of "Florida Jews for Buchanan" during the 2000 'election' fraud/fiasco.
Scott, you live in such a black and white world that you feel anyone who is opposed to George W. Bush and his crazy empire building spree is automatically "pro-Saddam". Saddam, btw, if you hadn't noticed, is an authoritarian warmongering right-wing-nut, and the US was the *ally* of Saddam for 10 years during the Reagan years and the first half of Bush Sr's presidency. If you want evidence of buddybuddy with Hussein, go look outside the antiwar movement.
Saddam a lefty!!!!!.... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" /> <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
QED
<strong>The "anti-war" movement is shockingly uncritical of the Saddam regime. If they are so for peace why don't they protest against Saddam? Why doesn't someone like SJO spend as much time speaking about on the complete tyranny of Saddam? The torture, rape, murder.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So exactly how many anti-Saddam rallies have you attended, Scott? I don't mean merely pro-war rallies, but protests specifically against Saddam's rule or Saddam's policies? He's been just as bad as you say for many years, not just when the US is trying to rally the troops.
How come the fury of the McCarthy era was directed at suspected US communist sympathizers, but not turned into big rallies against the source of the problem, the USSR? Who generated more anger in your average Western cold warrior? Khrushchev, or some American politician viewed as "soft on communism"?
How many people is the US are more likely to spend hours or days picketing a local factory for poor working conditions than they are to spend as much effort to protesting conditions in some sweat shop overseas?
Maybe a few of the Arab protesters around the world truly are pro-Saddam, but to suggest that any significant portion of, say, American or Canadian or European or Australian protesters is pro-Saddam is disingenuous in the extreme. You're either using deliberately inflammatory rhetoric for effect, with no regard to accuracy, or you're blind to human nature and how protest, from the left or from the right, normally works.
People protest more about things in their own culture than outside of it. People protest more against those whom they expect to do right, but with whom they are disappointed, than they do against those who seem totally outside their realm of influence. Who takes more public heat? Individual murderers and rapists, or police commissioners viewed as not doing their jobs properly to prevent crime?
But I don't suspect that such subtleties to matter to you. You clearly prefer hit-and-run style smear tactics than you do making any effort to try to understand those who differ with your opinions. That kind of thinking is for wusses, right? "Real men" try to score points and push buttons apparently.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: shetline ]</p>
<strong>
Maybe a few of the Arab protesters around the world truly are pro-Saddam, but to suggest that any significant portion of, say, American or Canadian or European or Australian protesters is pro-Saddam is disingenuous in the extreme. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't give him so much credit. It's a simple lie.
<strong>
Don't give him so much credit. It's a simple lie.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I think shetline's assessment is the only fair one.
<strong>But I don't suspect that such subtleties to matter to you. You clearly prefer hit-and-run style smear tactics than you do making any effort to try to understand those who differ with your opinions. That kind of thinking is for wusses, right? "Real men" try to score points and push buttons apparently.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Hit-and-run"? You must be joking. I made the comment. Got called on it. Then back up my position with my view. Not "hit-and-run" by any measure.
I answered all of you points before you asked them. You're just choose not to read and consider them. I put the question to you. If the "peace" protesters are for peace why are the mute about Saddam?
<strong>I answered all of you points before you asked them. You're just choose not to read and consider them. I put the question to you. If the "peace" protesters are for peace why are the mute about Saddam?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When good answers fail, go for obtuseness? All of those "points" of yours were exactly what I was talking about. I plainly answered why these people might appear "mute", as you put it, about Saddam. Go back and re-read.
<strong>
Go back and re-read.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't give him so much credit. That implies he read it in the first place.
<strong>quote:
--------------------------------
Originally posted by BRussell:
Here are the key paragraphs from the UK's proposed resolution: It's just saying that they have to have another Security Council meeting to decide what to do after Blix's report - no automatic war.
--------------------------------
I'm all for it then.</strong><hr></blockquote>I just wanted to point out that when you quoted my post it was rearranged to mean something it did not. It was the original 1441 resolution from last fall that didn't have an automatic trigger for war. This new one does, in the sense that the only way to stop a war would be for the SC to come back and vote that Iraq has fully complied and disarmed.
<strong>I just wanted to point out that when you quoted my post it was rearranged to mean something it did not. It was the original 1441 resolution from last fall that didn't have an automatic trigger for war. This new one does, in the sense that the only way to stop a war would be for the SC to come back and vote that Iraq has fully complied and disarmed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks. . .I take it back then!
I certainly did read it to mean that there still wasn't an automatic trigger for war. I couldn't understand the possible vetos.
and now to properly blend in with most of the rest of this thread, i'll have to add some childish kneejerk reactions.
did not!
did too!
did not!
<strong>Um? THe US doesn't have a 22,0000lb bomb. As far as I know. Also one would never use that in a city. Unless you're a shrill anti-Bush banshee making stuff up to "prove" your position. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/3759323?source=Evening Standard" target="_blank">Try</a> that link.
<strong>Um? THe US doesn't have a 22,0000lb bomb. As far as I know. Also one would never use that in a city. Unless you're a shrill anti-Bush banshee making stuff up to "prove" your position. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Or <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/dshtw.htm"; target="_blank">this</a>.
the whole article lays out in general terms the pentagon's invasion strategy. if it's mere saber rattling, it did the trick on me. what if something goes wrong? i'd rather have u.n. backing then not.
the worst thing about this whole fiasco, is the biggest victory (khalid shalkh mohammed's capture) in the war on terror, has had to share the spotlight with the bush administrations bungling of the u.n. resolution.
imagine if bin laden is captured at the same time as an unsanctioned invasion of iraq.
<strong>They still wouldn't use it in a city. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's also not a 22,000 pound bomb either....