when you read about failed coup attempts, assasination attempts etc. on his part when he has to run away, that would indicate a fall from power.
see, he was on the way up, then oversteps his bounds, and got smacked back down. happened over and over again until he finally clawed his way to the top.
from the article.
Quote:
In 1959, he was chosen to participate in an assassination attempt against Iraq's then-dictator, Abdal Karim Qassim. Saddam fired a submachine gun during the incident. The assassins wounded Qassim, but not fatally. Saddam was shot in the leg and got away.
Quote:
Saddam fled the country and spent the next four years in Egypt and Syria, the only period he has lived outside Iraq. In 1963, with help from the CIA, the Baathists killed Qassim and held power briefly, which enabled Saddam to return. But the Baathists were soon ousted and Saddam went underground, then was arrested and jailed, escaped and went back underground to help the party plan its comeback.
And we also have someone on this board who thinks it would be a good idea to just control the oil fields and let the Iraqis battle it out for control of the country.
Here's a theory... and it may be completely invalid.
But can it really be just a coincidence that just as the Haliburton Profiteering scandal started to gain some legs...WHAM! we get Saddam. I'm just sayin'.
Actually I tend to think most conspircaies are BS.... including this one... but just thought I'd float it out there.
when you read about failed coup attempts, assasination attempts etc. on his part when he has to run away, that would indicate a fall from power.
see, he was on the way up, then oversteps his bounds, and got smacked back down. happened over and over again until he finally clawed his way to the top.
from the article.
Guy, you really are odd. Never did saddam lose and then regain power, and you should have known that before you linked to random articles that just demonstrate what I'm saying. Not that I should need to say it considering anyone commenting on it should already know the basic history.
So, hey, go on ahead and tell me when saddam lost power and regained it (hey, for extra points, point out an 'over and over again'), and feel free to completely make something up. You'll need to.
Those times that Saddam fled Iraq or was jailed were not him losing power -- he had never had it. Saddam was an underling in the Baathist movement in the 1960s and early 1970s. Yes, he participated in attempted coups, but only as a deputy to the various Baathist leaders of those days. He didn't become leader until around 1979, IIRC, and from that point ruled uninterrupted until 2003.
Wow, almost pertinent there with a few of those still being in power. Talking about current tyrants being supported by the US makes for a much stronger case against our government, much moreso than Rummy shaking hands with Hussein 20 years ago.
2. So Fox is interviewing someone about Saddam and they keep talking about how Saddam has 'returned to power over and over' and 'Iraqis don't need to worry about saddam regaining power as he has done so many times.' My question: When the hell did saddam lose power and then regain it? That's right: never. So how about we just deal with the facts, mkay?
How well did the interviewee speak English? Was it a diplomat, a person on the street, etc... It may have been a mis-translation if the person was speaking Arabic. Or perhaps the person lacked the proper words if his English was poor. Arabic is a very difficult language to begin with.
If you look at Hussein's bio you'll find many occassions where he took power. He even attempted an assasination and had to flee to Egypt. But he returned and faught for power until he deposed the leader of the Ba'ath party and then president of Iraq.
Also after '91 he quelled a lot of uprisings to depose him, which came after the Coalition bombed the hell out of his military.
Take that into context of an arab that speaks little or no english, then try to communicate that to an obnoxious ignorant journalist that is poking a camera in your face.
It was the interviewer. And he was using it to lead the interviewee. And I don't need you to tell me about arabic, that's my father in law's native language.
Quote:
If you look at Hussein's bio you'll find many occassions where he took power. He even attempted an assasination and had to flee to Egypt. But he returned and faught for power until he deposed the leader of the Ba'ath party and then president of Iraq.
He was low level at the time of that.
Quote:
Also after '91 he quelled a lot of uprisings to depose him, which came after the Coalition bombed the hell out of his military.
None of which remotely came close to being able to say he was no longer in power, because he wasn't by any stretch of the imagination. The most significant of the coup plans ended up with a few of his military men with bullets in their heads before anything could happen.
Quote:
Take that into context of an arab that speaks little or no english, then try to communicate that to an obnoxious ignorant journalist that is poking a camera in your face.
Nope. Because you formed incorrect opinions on assumptions of what my post said rather than asking me to clarify first.
The fact that people are arguing about this shows that you guys just come here to pick fights and will ignore any sort of factual basis of the topic you are arguing. It's really pitiful. I mean, at lest have your argument have some relationship to the facts.
It was the interviewer. And he was using it to lead the interviewee.
Now that exlplains something. You did not specify interviewer or interviewee earlier.
Quote:
And I don't need you to tell me about arabic, that's my father in law's native language.
Wonderful, arabic is my father's 3rd language. My statement on arabic being difficult was meant to be taken as a rhetorical statement.
Quote:
He was low level at the time of that.
None of which remotely came close to being able to say he was no longer in power, because he wasn't by any stretch of the imagination. The most significant of the coup plans ended up with a few of his military men with bullets in their heads before anything could happen.
Of course. I did not specify the extent to which he did take power. But he clawed, kicked and murdered his way to the top. Taking power at various levels none the less.
Additionally, I did not have enough to place the statement as leading someone else. Hence, I made the point of argument on how due to language barriers a miscommution could occur.
Quote:
Nope. Because you formed incorrect opinions on assumptions of what my post said rather than asking me to clarify first.
Nope. You made a common grammatical error in that you refer to 2 subjects and then switch to a pronoun without specifying to whom the pronoun is referring to. Hence, the standard practice of linking the pronoun to the last subject, 'someone'.
Now that exlplains something. You did not specify interviewer or interviewee earlier.
Well, then ask next time it's unclear.
Quote:
Of course. I did not specify the extent to which he did take power. But he clawed, kicked and murdered his way to the top. Taking power at various levels none the less.
keep on fooling yourself. You are clearly good at it.
BTW: Saddam never lost and regained power. Deal with it.
Uh, how did we get from what I quoted to this? I assumed we were chasing another goal post about other dictators the US supports, not whether Hussein ever officially gained power one or more times.
Actually, that US-dictator supporting thingy is in another thread isn't it? Not sure why this thread got into that issue again except to say that it's in certain people's minds 24-7. Unfortunately, giant, the chip on your shoulder is too big for you to realize that I was actually commending you on a good point at least in this context. My bad.
I try to be reasonable, my whole comment originally being that it's arguable whether Hussein could have been considered "in power" during those failed coups and assassinations. I mena, to be reasonable, I hear all sorts of dumb things coming out of TV new personalities all the time on lots of different networks, especially when shooting from the hip. But reason and levity have no business here in Fireside Ch--- Outsider. I can't help but think that such close-minded dogma spewed here and the apparent selective hearing people practice is ultimately why the world is so $$$$ed up. So really, we're all just part of the problem. You're either extreme and dogmatic, or else you're reasonable and imagined to be extreme and dogmatic.
PS: rageous: some of do our fair share of baiting too.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Did you even read it? You're weird.
Maybe you should check it out, since you apparently still don't know his history.
Here's another one.
when you read about failed coup attempts, assasination attempts etc. on his part when he has to run away, that would indicate a fall from power.
see, he was on the way up, then oversteps his bounds, and got smacked back down. happened over and over again until he finally clawed his way to the top.
from the article.
In 1959, he was chosen to participate in an assassination attempt against Iraq's then-dictator, Abdal Karim Qassim. Saddam fired a submachine gun during the incident. The assassins wounded Qassim, but not fatally. Saddam was shot in the leg and got away.
Saddam fled the country and spent the next four years in Egypt and Syria, the only period he has lived outside Iraq. In 1963, with help from the CIA, the Baathists killed Qassim and held power briefly, which enabled Saddam to return. But the Baathists were soon ousted and Saddam went underground, then was arrested and jailed, escaped and went back underground to help the party plan its comeback.
Here's a theory... and it may be completely invalid.
But can it really be just a coincidence that just as the Haliburton Profiteering scandal started to gain some legs...WHAM! we get Saddam. I'm just sayin'.
Actually I tend to think most conspircaies are BS.... including this one... but just thought I'd float it out there.
Originally posted by alcimedes
when you read about failed coup attempts, assasination attempts etc. on his part when he has to run away, that would indicate a fall from power.
see, he was on the way up, then oversteps his bounds, and got smacked back down. happened over and over again until he finally clawed his way to the top.
from the article.
Guy, you really are odd. Never did saddam lose and then regain power, and you should have known that before you linked to random articles that just demonstrate what I'm saying. Not that I should need to say it considering anyone commenting on it should already know the basic history.
So, hey, go on ahead and tell me when saddam lost power and regained it (hey, for extra points, point out an 'over and over again'), and feel free to completely make something up. You'll need to.
Kirk
Originally posted by Splinemodel
unless your party likes dictators who kill people.
Assuming you're a Republican, why don't you try to name just one or two dictators that your party supported when in government.
I'll get you started: Saddam Hussain
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I'll get you started: Saddam Hussain
Ooo! Can I play?
Pervez Musharraf
Crown Prince Abdulla ibn Abdul Aziz Al Saud
Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani
Islam Karimov
Charles Taylor
Marcos of the Phillipines.
He was a Republican, wasn't he?
And the Shah of Iran was a BASTARD!
Dwight was a Republican, wasn't he?
When, oh, when will bush zealots learn? Or at least be slightly honest?
Originally posted by giant
Ooo! Can I play?
Pervez Musharraf
Crown Prince Abdulla ibn Abdul Aziz Al Saud
Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani
Islam Karimov
Charles Taylor
Wow, almost pertinent there with a few of those still being in power. Talking about current tyrants being supported by the US makes for a much stronger case against our government, much moreso than Rummy shaking hands with Hussein 20 years ago.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
almost pertinent
keep on fooling yourself. You are clearly good at it.
BTW: Saddam never lost and regained power. Deal with it.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
O'Reilly was on the today show this morning...
when is that guy ever NOT an asshole?
He starts off with (paraphrase) "It's great that Saddam was caught... and those out there who are unhappy that he was... should check their feelings"
Obviously meaning democrats.
WHO IS UNHAPPY? I'm not. Dean isn't. Clark isn't.
Oh and... Leiberman and Kerry can officially kiss my ass.
Actually, I think he was meaning many people in the arab world..
originally posted by giant
2. So Fox is interviewing someone about Saddam and they keep talking about how Saddam has 'returned to power over and over' and 'Iraqis don't need to worry about saddam regaining power as he has done so many times.' My question: When the hell did saddam lose power and then regain it? That's right: never. So how about we just deal with the facts, mkay?
How well did the interviewee speak English? Was it a diplomat, a person on the street, etc... It may have been a mis-translation if the person was speaking Arabic. Or perhaps the person lacked the proper words if his English was poor. Arabic is a very difficult language to begin with.
If you look at Hussein's bio you'll find many occassions where he took power. He even attempted an assasination and had to flee to Egypt. But he returned and faught for power until he deposed the leader of the Ba'ath party and then president of Iraq.
Also after '91 he quelled a lot of uprisings to depose him, which came after the Coalition bombed the hell out of his military.
Take that into context of an arab that speaks little or no english, then try to communicate that to an obnoxious ignorant journalist that is poking a camera in your face.
Originally posted by LiquidR
How well did the interviewee speak English?
It was the interviewer. And he was using it to lead the interviewee. And I don't need you to tell me about arabic, that's my father in law's native language.
If you look at Hussein's bio you'll find many occassions where he took power. He even attempted an assasination and had to flee to Egypt. But he returned and faught for power until he deposed the leader of the Ba'ath party and then president of Iraq.
He was low level at the time of that.
Also after '91 he quelled a lot of uprisings to depose him, which came after the Coalition bombed the hell out of his military.
None of which remotely came close to being able to say he was no longer in power, because he wasn't by any stretch of the imagination. The most significant of the coup plans ended up with a few of his military men with bullets in their heads before anything could happen.
Take that into context of an arab that speaks little or no english, then try to communicate that to an obnoxious ignorant journalist that is poking a camera in your face.
Nope. Because you formed incorrect opinions on assumptions of what my post said rather than asking me to clarify first.
The fact that people are arguing about this shows that you guys just come here to pick fights and will ignore any sort of factual basis of the topic you are arguing. It's really pitiful. I mean, at lest have your argument have some relationship to the facts.
originally posted by giant
It was the interviewer. And he was using it to lead the interviewee.
Now that exlplains something. You did not specify interviewer or interviewee earlier.
And I don't need you to tell me about arabic, that's my father in law's native language.
Wonderful, arabic is my father's 3rd language. My statement on arabic being difficult was meant to be taken as a rhetorical statement.
He was low level at the time of that.
None of which remotely came close to being able to say he was no longer in power, because he wasn't by any stretch of the imagination. The most significant of the coup plans ended up with a few of his military men with bullets in their heads before anything could happen.
Of course. I did not specify the extent to which he did take power. But he clawed, kicked and murdered his way to the top. Taking power at various levels none the less.
Additionally, I did not have enough to place the statement as leading someone else. Hence, I made the point of argument on how due to language barriers a miscommution could occur.
Nope. Because you formed incorrect opinions on assumptions of what my post said rather than asking me to clarify first.
Nope. You made a common grammatical error in that you refer to 2 subjects and then switch to a pronoun without specifying to whom the pronoun is referring to. Hence, the standard practice of linking the pronoun to the last subject, 'someone'.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Now that exlplains something. You did not specify interviewer or interviewee earlier.
Well, then ask next time it's unclear.
Of course. I did not specify the extent to which he did take power. But he clawed, kicked and murdered his way to the top. Taking power at various levels none the less.
hit man != national leader
Originally posted by giant
keep on fooling yourself. You are clearly good at it.
BTW: Saddam never lost and regained power. Deal with it.
Uh, how did we get from what I quoted to this? I assumed we were chasing another goal post about other dictators the US supports, not whether Hussein ever officially gained power one or more times.
Actually, that US-dictator supporting thingy is in another thread isn't it? Not sure why this thread got into that issue again except to say that it's in certain people's minds 24-7. Unfortunately, giant, the chip on your shoulder is too big for you to realize that I was actually commending you on a good point at least in this context. My bad.
I try to be reasonable, my whole comment originally being that it's arguable whether Hussein could have been considered "in power" during those failed coups and assassinations. I mena, to be reasonable, I hear all sorts of dumb things coming out of TV new personalities all the time on lots of different networks, especially when shooting from the hip. But reason and levity have no business here in Fireside Ch--- Outsider.
PS: rageous: some of do our fair share of baiting too.