Monty Python (Life of Brian) Redux: What have Americans ever done for us?

[Rob Lister]

“All right, all right. But apart from liberating 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, undermining dictatorships throughout the Arab world, spreading freedom and self-determination in the broader Middle East and moving the Palestinians and the Israelis towards a real chance of ending their centuries-long war, what have the Americans ever done for us?�

Funny read. Should I be surprised by the source?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1510003,00.html

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Funny read. Should I be surprised by the source?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1510003,00.html

Heh. Still, about the Americans in the Middle East, the article forgets to paraphrase the last of Reg's disciples: "Let's face it--the Americans are the only ones who could bring some democracy to a place like this!".

[geni]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Funny read. Should I be surprised by the source?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1510003,00.html

Nah right wing bristish newspaper quite like the Us for the most part.

[Batman Jr.]

From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1510003,00.html
“I just heard Egypt’s going to hold free presidential elections for the first time. And Saudi Arabia just held elections too.�
This remark is exceedingly overblown. The "elections" held in Saudi Arabia are just for municipal offices—and just for half of them at that!—and women will not be allowed to vote. In Egypt, the leading opposition candidate, Ayman Nour, was had arrested. Furthermore, even a decent election means little. It's the successful carrying out of the will of those who voted that is really crucial. After all, Vietnam had elections with very high voter turn out, and we all know what happened there.

The upheaval in Lebanon is likely the result of Rafik Hariri's assassination. I think what's going to end up happening is that any little good thing which happens in the region will be immediately attributed by conservatives to action in Iraq even when the events are completely unrelated.

Oh, and here's how our forgotten friend Afghanistan is doing: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050304.wafgh0304/BNStory/International/

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Oh, and here's how our forgotten friend Afghanistan is doing: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050304.wafgh0304/BNStory/International/ I'm having difficulty in discerning your point. Please forgive me. I acknowledge that Afghanistan has problems. That they do means what? Did someone promise utopia or even something slightly less? Is anyone promising that Iraq will succeed without difficulty?

Edited to add: I always thought the purpose of Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban and give the people power to choose for themselves how to govern their lives. Ditto for Iraq except it was to remove Saddam. Perhaps I'm missing something.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by geni
Nah right wing bristish newspaper quite like the Us for the most part.

Also, it's owned by Rupert Murdoch.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
Also, it's owned by Rupert Murdoch.

I'll gladly pitch him overboard if you let me throw in anything Mr. Ted Fonda has ever had his fingers into... at least this was obviously an editorial, which is more than one can say for a lot of CNN's journalism (such as playing PR agent for Saddam in return of exlusive access).

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm having difficulty in discerning your point. Please forgive me. I acknowledge that Afghanistan has problems. That they do means what? Did someone promise utopia or even something slightly less? Is anyone promising that Iraq will succeed without difficulty?

Edited to add: I always thought the purpose of Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban and give the people power to choose for themselves how to govern their lives. Ditto for Iraq except it was to remove Saddam. Perhaps I'm missing something.
My point is that people are calling Afghanistan a success prematurely. That same point also applies to Iraq.

As far as the reasons for invading Afghanistan, what you described is what Bush wants you to think. We actually went in there to decapitate Al-Qaeda's power structure. Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking members like Ayman al-Zawahiri have still not been captured. Furthermore, our efforts in Iraq diverted our attention from this more pressing matter. And Iraq was for WMDs and not for the "spreading of democracy."

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
My point is that people are calling Afghanistan a success prematurely. That same point also applies to Iraq. Define success? Is there hope where there was none before? Do the people have more say in their futures than before?

As far as the reasons for invading Afghanistan, what you described is what Bush wants you to think. What would we do without your deciding what Bush wants us to think and why we think what we do.

I have been involved with discussion about Iraq since day 1. I have conceded much. I am aware that Bush et al engage in propaganda. I wanted Saddam deposesed and I wanted Afghanastan freed from the oppression of the Taliban.

And BTW, you only think what you do because of anti-Bush propaganda. The sword cuts both ways. If you could bring yourself to show some respect then I could be prepared to return it.

We actually went in there to decapitate Al-Qaeda's power structure. Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking members like Ayman al-Zawahiri have still not been captured. No one said it would be easy. Bush said it would not be easy and cautioned the American people repeatedly.

Furthermore, our efforts in Iraq diverted our attention from this more pressing matter. I'm not sure that it has or how much. There are troop looking for Bin Laden and not in any small effort.

And Iraq was for WMDs and not for the "spreading of democracy." WMDs was a justification used to garner support for the war. I concede that. It doesn't change the fact that there is hope now in 2 countries where before there was none.

That is what I would want if I was an Iraqi under Saddam control or an Afghani under the Taliban.

[shanek]

When have we done any of those things?

If Iraq is "liberated," I'd hate to see oppression...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
When have we done any of those things? What things?

If Iraq is "liberated," I'd hate to see oppression... Well, let's see. Before Saddam, imprisonment of citizens with no redress, the cutting off of limbs, ears, phony elections where Saddam got 99% of the vote.

After, abuse of prisoners causes outcry, people are allowed to speak their minds. People are allowed to vote their conscience which they do inspite of threats to their lives.

Could you define oppression and liberation for me? FWIW and to avoid any straw men. I don't claim that the people are absolutely liberated. We occupy that land and we have to do what Bush wants the Syrians to do and get out ASAP. Any plan must include an orderly withdraw.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by RandFan
Define success? Is there hope where there was none before? Do the people have more say in their futures than before?

Success is when you succeed. It's as simple as that. Your questions have not been definitively answered, so it is therefore reasonable to say that things such as the election, etc. cannot yet count as boons to the world attributable to Bush's campaign. His strategy is still as of yet unproven, and hope isn't the same as results. Religion creates hope for people too.
Originally posted by RandFan
What would we do without your deciding what Bush wants us to think and why we think what we do.

I have been involved with discussion about Iraq since day 1. I have conceded much. I am aware that Bush et al engage in propaganda. I wanted Saddam deposesed and I wanted Afghanastan freed from the oppression of the Taliban.

And BTW, you only think what you do because of anti-Bush propaganda. The sword cuts both ways. If you could bring yourself to show some respect then I could be prepared to return it.
No, it is easily researchable through unbiased sources that my recounting of history is most probable and correct. It has nothing to do with anti-Bush propaganda.

[corplinx]

It was always the express goal of the Bush Administration to change the regime in Baghdad, precisely because of the opportunities for democracy it would open up in the rest of the Arab world. George Bush understands the simple but historically demonstrable thesis that freedom is not only the most basic of human rights, but also the best way to ensure that nations do not go to war with each other.

In a speech one month before the start of the Iraq war in 2003, Mr Bush laid out the strategy: “The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life.�

This person is seriously misinformed. The _only_ reason we went to Iraq was for weapons of mass desctruction. I've heard that so many times, it must be true.....

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
What things?

Oh, liberation, spreading democracy, you know, the stuff in the OP.

Could you define oppression and liberation for me?

Sure.

Oppression is when the citizens are forced to carry their papers and show them to the military on demand. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/international/middleeast/07TACT.html?ex=1071742542&ei=1&en=902587f5d4e2808a)

Oppression is when citizens can be subjected to random searches based on no probable cause at all.

Oppression is having to abide by curfews, even if you're a law-abiding adult. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/international/middleeast/07TACT.html?ex=1071742542&ei=1&en=902587f5d4e2808a)

Oppression is having razor wire circle your town. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/international/middleeast/07TACT.html?ex=1071742542&ei=1&en=902587f5d4e2808a)

Oppression is the subjugation of women. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/opinion/16SAND.html)

Oppression is restricting one's choices at election time.

Oppression is holding families hostage until they rat on family members or friend who are suspected resisters.

[url=http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=452375&host=3&dir=75]Oppression is destroying the livelihood of farmers who don't inform on their neighbors. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54345-2003Jul27.html)

Oppression is control of the radio, TV, and other media outlets.

All of these things are taking place in Iraq. And a disturbing number of them are taking place here, too. So now we see what George W. Bush's definition of "liberty" is...

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by corplinx
This person is seriously misinformed. The _only_ reason we went to Iraq was for weapons of mass desctruction. I've heard that so many times, it must be true.....
All of that stuff Bush said was really all just noble-sounding filler. If it weren't for the threat of WMDs, remarks such as the ones mentioned would have had close to absolutely no influence whatsoever on widespread opinion on the legitimacy of the war. Furthermore, as liberation via military insurrection is filled with many unwanted and unnecessary vicissitudes, it could be safely assumed that any efforts with the sincere goal of liberation wouldn't seek war with such immediacy.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by shanek
When have we done any of those things?

If Iraq is "liberated," I'd hate to see oppression...

That won't be hard. Just look at the country under Saddam.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Skeptic
That won't be hard. Just look at the country under Saddam.

Moral relativism, Skeptic?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
That won't be hard. Just look at the country under Saddam.

Okay.

Saddam killed thousands of Iraqis. We killed tens if not hundreds of thousands.

Saddam was telling the truth about his weapons. Dubya wasn't.

To my knowledge, Saddam didn't force people to carry papers (we are) or raid their homes without due process (we have).

Apparently, Saddam never supported anyone in Al-Qaeda. We did.

Okay, so Saddam was an evil dictator. What does it say about the Bush administration, then, to show that they are in many respects worse?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Success is when you succeed. It's as simple as that. Your questions have not been definitively answered, so it is therefore reasonable to say that things such as the election, etc. cannot yet count as boons to the world attributable to Bush's campaign. His strategy is still as of yet unproven, and hope isn't the same as results. Religion creates hope for people too. I would gladly take the hope the Iraqis have today than the lack of hope they had before Saddam.

No, it is easily researchable through unbiased sources that my recounting of history is most probable and correct. It has nothing to do with anti-Bush propaganda. No, you are as swayed by propaganda as I am. I'm just not an arrogant jerk to go around accusing everyone of falling for propaganda. I'd prefer to maker argument than spout ad hominem. But then that is just me.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Oh, liberation, spreading democracy, you know, the stuff in the OP. Since we are not doing what Saddam did, since we have already shown that we will bend to public outcry, since the Iraqis got to vote their conscience for the first time in recent history then yeah, we are doing those things.

Oppression is when citizens can be subjected to random searches based on no probable cause at all. The traffic lights oppress. Everyone is oppressed. For christs sake there was a war. The Germans were oppressed in West Germany after WWII they were not as oppressed as the East Germans.

No one has said there was no oppression. Liberations does not 100% end oppression and it never will. I have to restate the facts.

Randfan

Well, let's see. Before Saddam, imprisonment of citizens with no redress, the cutting off of limbs, ears, phony elections where Saddam got 99% of the vote.

After, abuse of prisoners causes outcry, people are allowed to speak their minds. People are allowed to vote their conscience which they do inspite of threats to their lives.

All of these things are taking place in Iraq. And a disturbing number of them are taking place here, too. So now we see what George W. Bush's definition of "liberty" is... There are examples all over the world. The point is that I can call Bush and ********* any day I like. My friends do it all of the time. No one is hauled off to jail. I work at UCLA often and I see marches and protests all of the time.

Is there oppression in America, damn straight! I condemn it. It is wrong. But we have courts, there is redress and we can vote. We could have thrown Bush out of office.

The people in Iraq had NONE of that. Sadly those in opposition cannot bring themselves to admit that fact. It threatens there world view. Bush only does wrong and only bad can come of Afghanistan and Iraq. Sad.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
I would gladly take the hope the Iraqis have today than the lack of hope they had before Saddam.

And you know, what? What our government has told you? What our news media has told you after parroting what our government has told them, without any actual critical journalism?

Here's a newsflash: Some of the people who actually live there don't agree.

If you read a lot of the stories from journalists who are actually there interviewing people, you find little things like this:

"I see no difference between us and the Palestinians," he said. "We didn't expect anything like this after Saddam fell."

"Under Saddam we could drive, we could walk down the street until two in the morning," a young designer told me as she bounced her 4-year-old daughter on her lap. "Who would have thought the Americans could have made it worse for women? This is liberation?"

This violence has made postwar Iraq a prison of fear for women. "This issue of security is the immediate issue for women now — this horrible time that was triggered the very first day of the invasion," said Yanar Mohammed, the founder of the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq.

Those are from my links above.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
There are examples all over the world.[/qoute]

That doesn't make it right, and that doesn't make Bush a hypocrite.

[quote]The point is that I can call Bush and ********* any day I like. My friends do it all of the time. No one is hauled off to jail.

Until he declares you an "enemy combatant" and you go missing...

Is there oppression in America, damn straight! I condemn it. It is wrong. But we have courts, there is redress and we can vote.

Tell that to José Padilla.

We could have thrown Bush out of office.

If our election system weren't rigged, that is.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
If our election system weren't rigged, that is. Yeah, a little conspiracy theory. :D

Who loves ya baby?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
And you know, what? What our government has told you? I know what I have read. What do you know? Let me guess what you have read?

What our news media has told you after parroting what our government has told them, without any actual critical journalism? But you manage to get the truth. Riiight.

Here's a newsflash: Some of the people who actually live there don't agree. Duh, that is the whole point. Everyone was in agreement before 9/11 now people can disagree.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yeah, a little conspiracy theory. :D

Actually, no. You need a cover-up to be a conspiracy theory. This rigging is out in the open, and apparently, nobody cares. :(

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Duh, that is the whole point. Everyone was in agreement before 9/11 now people can disagree.

No, that's not the point. You made a claim about how you would prefer the new Iraq to the old, even though you don't live there. I pointed out people who live there, whi disagree with you.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, you are as swayed by propaganda as I am. I'm just not an arrogant jerk to go around accusing everyone of falling for propaganda. I'd prefer to maker argument than spout ad hominem. But then that is just me.
I'm explaining to you where you are in factual error. I'm sorry if I'm coming off as an arrogant jerk, but would you rather me tell you that you are correct when you obviously are disseminating a very distorted picture of the history of the wars?
Originally posted by RandFan
I would gladly take the hope the Iraqis have today than the lack of hope they had before Saddam.
As I said, hope in and of itself doesn't mean anything. The conditions are the way they are no matter the kind of psychological relief the population there might be experiencing for the time being, and it will be awfully spendthrift of us had we spilled the blood of so many an American soldier for merely a few moments of Zen that could have been more easily obtained through the watching of a handful of episodes of The Daily Show. I stand by my position that the benefits of the war are still very much indeterminate, and will be convinced otherwise only when we begin to witness tangible and stable transformation.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay.

Saddam killed thousands of Iraqis. We killed tens if not hundreds of thousands.
Who is this we you speak of? The initial war was written into history as the cleanest and quickest war to date in terms of collateral damage. Do you deny the responsibility of the carnage that followed to the rightful owners of the carnage - the "insurgents"?

Saddam was telling the truth about his weapons. Dubya wasn't.
Since there is about equal evidence for either one of these people to have either told the truth or deliberately lied, perhaps it is telling that you choose to believe Saddam? Side note - (it is sad that on this forum I must qualify a lie as a deliberate intent to decieve, you'd think that would be a given)

The most likely scenario is that Saddam was bluffing to keep Iran at bay. And though Bush engaged in some embellishment of the scope of Saddam's WMD, the evidence points to the fact that Bush (and indeed most of the world at the time) thought there would be more current WMD than what was uncovered. One can't deny that Saddam had every intention of keeping his chemical weapons manufacturing capability unless you think Iraq really had that bad of an insect problem in the ammo dumps to keep thousands of gallons of raw insecticide materials.

To my knowledge, Saddam didn't force people to carry papers (we are) or raid their homes without due process (we have).
This can and does happen right here in the good old USA. It breaks my heart to be required to have a driver's license to drive, *sniff*. "Due process" isn't necessary for a search and seizure, only "reasonable cause" in most states. Boo-hoo.

Apparently, Saddam never supported anyone in Al-Qaeda. We did.
Wrong on both counts; The US did at one time support the Taliban, but not Bin Laden or al Queda. Saddam did try to foster a relationship between al Queda and Iraq and we may never know the full scope of it. If you choose to believe that Saddam and Bin Laden would discuss everything except 9/11, so be it.


Okay, so Saddam was an evil dictator. What does it say about the Bush administration, then, to show that they are in many respects worse?
Well, that would be awful, if you had shown that the Bush administration is worse. You simply have not.

A couple of articles to peruse:

New mass graves are discovered almost on a daily basis. Some sites contain tens of thousands of bodies, while some are just too swarming with human remains littered on top of each other that no one bothers to keep a head count. The bare bones, broken skulls, cuffed hands and scraps of clothing tell a horrifying story. Many skeletons belong to women, some even to young children.
Ok, so maybe Hitler or Pol Pot outdid Saddam, but I think Saddam might come in a close third.

http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php

And then there's that horrific scene of Halapja (http://www.massgraves.info/halapja/).

Does Saddam's treatment of the Kurds qualify as an attempt of ethnic cleansing or genocide?

What is the full count of bodies in mass graves in Iraq? 300,000? 400,000? What is Saddam's total carnage? Maybe a million or so killed altogether? How many were raped or otherwise tortured (I mean really tortured) in state sponsored actions in Saddam’s Iraq?

[demon]

From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1510003,00.html

“I just heard Egypt’s going to hold free presidential elections for the first time. And Saudi Arabia just held elections too.�

Yes, Condi has shown American displeasure at a single Egyptian policy. What she and her predecessors have been working hard at, though, is keeping stupendous amounts of American cash flowing to Mubarak, so that he can perpetuate his "State of Emergency" and remain President for Life. There's no reason to think that a single diplomatic tiff has changed 25+ years of depraved American support for Egyptian anti-democrats.

And what is all this **** about the "centuries-long war" between the Israelis and the Palestinians?

[shanek]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Who is this we you speak of?

The US government.

The initial war was written into history as the cleanest and quickest war to date in terms of collateral damage. Do you deny the responsibility of the carnage that followed to the rightful owners of the carnage - the "insurgents"?

Yes, that's what the spinmeisters want us to think...

Since there is about equal evidence for either one of these people to have either told the truth or deliberately lied,

That is patently false. Two separate teams of weapons inspectors told the US President that Saddam had destroyed all of his WMDs. Both Presidents (Clinton and Bush II) responded by pulling out the inspectors and bombing Iraq.

Guess what? Our military hasn't found any WMDs in Iraq, and has given up looking for them.

Side note - (it is sad that on this forum I must qualify a lie as a deliberate intent to decieve, you'd think that would be a given)

Since they were told the truth, twice, what Bush said could only be a lie.

The most likely scenario is that Saddam was bluffing to keep Iran at bay.

Saddam submitted tens of thousands of paperwork to the UN showing where the WMDs had gone. Our government responded by omitting about one-fifth of the document and then claiming there were a lot of weapons unaccounted for. That's lying.

This can and does happen right here in the good old USA. It breaks my heart to be required to have a driver's license to drive, *sniff*. "Due process" isn't necessary for a search and seizure, only "reasonable cause" in most states. Boo-hoo.

And now, according to the Supreme Court, even if they pull you over for something as simple as a brake light being out they can pull out the drug dog and have him sniff your car. And people wonder why I reject the Supreme Court as being the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution.

Wrong on both counts; The US did at one time support the Taliban, but not Bin Laden or al Queda.

Wrong. During the Reagan years, we funded, armed, and trained bin Laden.

Saddam did try to foster a relationship between al Queda

That has been thoroughly discredited.

and Iraq and we may never know the full scope of it. If you choose to believe that Saddam and Bin Laden would discuss everything except 9/11, so be it.

The only evidence for bin Laden and Saddam discussing anything is bin Laden asking Saddam for support and Saddam ignoring him.

Well, that would be awful, if you had shown that the Bush administration is worse. You simply have not.

Not to someone who has chosen not to skeptically examine Bush's claims, apparently not...

A couple of articles to peruse:

So? How many wars have been fought in Iraq? You get wars, you get mass graves. That's one reason why we shouldn't be waging wars except as a last resort, and this was not a last resort. The point is not that there are mass graves, but where did they come from? How many of those mass graves are due to us in Gulf War I?

How many graves will those 100,000+ dead Iraqis from Gulf War II fill?

They point to "mass graves" hoping you'll immediately make the leap of logic to Nazi-esque concentration camps. And you're falling for it.

And then there's that horrific scene of Halapja (http://www.massgraves.info/halapja/).

Yes, that was horrible. Too bad we gave him the weapons to do it...

[shanek]

Originally posted by demon
And what is all this **** about the "centuries-long war" between the Israelis and the Palestinians?

It hasn't even gone on for a single century; only since the Palestinians were kicked off of their homeland to artificially create Israel in the name of fulfilling Biblical prophecy. And, what countries were involved in doing that???

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, that was horrible. Too bad we gave him the weapons to do it...

Two points.

Ultimately the use of weapons is the responsibility of the holder of the weapon.

Do you really think that if we did not provide weapons there would have been no violence? You sound a bit, if I understand you correctly, like the anti gun crowd that thinks that attempting to reduce weapons will reduce killings.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
Two points.

Ultimately the use of weapons is the responsibility of the holder of the weapon.

Not so. People have been prosecuted for giving weapons to a known criminal.

Do you really think that if we did not provide weapons there would have been no violence?

No, but at least we wouldn't have been a part of it.

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek
[]Not so. People have been prosecuted for giving weapons to a known criminal.

True but misleading. I said "use".



No, but at least we wouldn't have been a part of it.

That is so. Then again, it would have been the French if not us. Point is someone would have been there. [/QUOTE]

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
True but misleading. I said "use".

Your implication was that the US was not in any way responsible. Both legally and morally, that is false.

That is so. Then again, it would have been the French if not us. Point is someone would have been there.

And the point is, it wouldn't have been us. Don't you think it's just a teensy bit hypocritical to give a guy gas and then say, "Hey! You went and used that!"?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by shanek
Saddam killed thousands of Iraqis. We killed tens if not hundreds of thousands.

Saddam was telling the truth about his weapons. Dubya wasn't.

To my knowledge, Saddam didn't force people to carry papers (we are) or raid their homes without due process (we have).

Apparently, Saddam never supported anyone in Al-Qaeda. We did.

Okay, so Saddam was an evil dictator. What does it say about the Bush administration, then, to show that they are in many respects worse? Okay, I'll bite:

It shows that living in the U.S. today is worse than living in Iraq four years ago...

Discuss.

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
...snip...

And the point is, it wouldn't have been us. Don't you think it's just a teensy bit hypocritical to give a guy gas and then say, "Hey! You went and used that!"?

Not at all, after all it was his choice not ours whether to use the gas or not. It's like saying that the manufacturer of an explosive should be held responsible if a terrorist uses that explosive in a terrorist attack.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by RandFan
phony elections where Saddam got 99% of the vote. You need to do better research. Saddam got 100% of the vote in his last election.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BPSCG
It shows that living in the U.S. today is worse than living in Iraq four years ago...

When did I say anything of the kind? I'm referring to Iraq under US rule to Iraq under Saddam's rule.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
Not at all, after all it was his choice not ours whether to use the gas or not. It's like saying that the manufacturer of an explosive should be held responsible if a terrorist uses that explosive in a terrorist attack.

No, it's not. It's like you giving a gun to a criminal drug dealer; you are held responsible for doing so. That's very different from a free market exchange.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Actually, no. You need a cover-up to be a conspiracy theory. This rigging is out in the open, and apparently, nobody cares. :( The only evidence I have seen is woo-woo conspiracy theory crap. Kevin Lowe documented it for months. I don't think declaring it as rigged makes it rigged.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
No, that's not the point. You made a claim about how you would prefer the new Iraq to the old, even though you don't live there. I pointed out people who live there, whi disagree with you. And that IS the point. Of course there are people who would disagree with me. Plese find any goup that is monolithic other than ones ruled by dictators.

I would be bothered if they all agreed with me.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I'm explaining to you where you are in factual error. I'm sorry if I'm coming off as an arrogant jerk, but would you rather me tell you that you are correct when you obviously are disseminating a very distorted picture of the history of the wars? I am expressing my honest opinion based on listening to as much information as I can. I have listened to both sides. I have considered the points made. I have kept an open mind. I have come to a conclusion.

It is after all of that and you accuse me of disseminating a distorted picture that makes you a jerk. I don't care if you disagree with me. I do care when you are arrogant and assume that reasonable people can't disagree. That you are Mr. Know it all and no one else could possibly be right.

As I said, hope in and of itself doesn't mean anything. The conditions are the way they are no matter the kind of psychological relief the population there might be experiencing for the time being, and it will be awfully spendthrift of us had we spilled the blood of so many an American soldier for merely a few moments of Zen that could have been more easily obtained through the watching of a handful of episodes of The Daily Show. I stand by my position that the benefits of the war are still very much indeterminate, and will be convinced otherwise only when we begin to witness tangible and stable transformation. You are entitled to an opinion. Apparently I am not without being a brain washed sycophant. I can respect your opinion. What I so hate about those who disagree with the war is that they cannot respect anyone else's.

I disagree with you. I think you are wrong. I think this effort IS worth it. There is much that bothers me about the war and the Administrations efforts to secure victory in Iraq. Looking back there was much about WWII that was wrong but in the end America's involvement was worth it then and it is worth it now.

I'm sorry that you have so little respect for those who disagree with you. I stand by my position that though the final chapter has not been written the efforts are bearing fruit and that we have given these people something they have not had in a long time. REAL hope. It was that hope that sent them to the polls on election day.

One last point, accusations do not make an argument. Instead of accusing me of falling for propaganda why don't you argue why I am wrong instead?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by shanek
When did I say anything of the kind? I'm referring to Iraq under US rule to Iraq under Saddam's rule. Oh, okay. So you're saying living in Iraq today is worse than living in Iraq four years ago?

If so, I wonder why the Ba'athist insurrectionists - sorry, I meant insurgents - didn't put down their weapons prior to January 30 and run against the U.S. - supported puppets.

They could have had some catchy campaign slogans: "US Puppets - Bad for You, Bad for Iraq!"
"Vote for Saddam's Ba'ath Party - We Probably Won't Kill You Unless We Have a Good Reason!"
"Support the Ba'ath Right to Bear Arms Against You!"
"Vote Ba'ath or We'll Kill You!"
"Saddam - First in War, First in Peace, First in the Most-Wanted Playing Card Deck!"

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
The only evidence I have seen is woo-woo conspiracy theory crap. Kevin Lowe documented it for months. I don't think declaring it as rigged makes it rigged.

What? You're denying the laws in almost every state that keep competing parties off the ballot? You're denying that some states even refuse to count write-in votes? You're denying the existance of so-called "campaign finance reform" laws that stop challengers from advertising against incumbents? You're denying that the incumbent parties get tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to run their campaigns? You're denying that the debates are rigged to only allow candidates from the two major parties? You're denying all of the miscounted and lost votes due to the voting machines that didn't leave a paper trail?

I can keep going...If any other country did these kinds of things, we'd be up in arms about that "banana republic" and how it shamefully kept challengers from unseating the incumbents. No matter how much people are against what's going on in the government, incumbents see at least a 97% reelection rate. Tell me that makes sense.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Oh, okay. So you're saying living in Iraq today is worse than living in Iraq four years ago?

No; I am saying that there are people in Iraq who think so. I don't know; I don't live there. And neither does RandFan.

If so, I wonder why the Ba'athist insurrectionists - sorry, I meant insurgents - didn't put down their weapons prior to January 30 and run against the U.S. - supported puppets.

A lot of them were restricted from doing so. They didn't even let a lot of them vote.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Darat
Not at all, after all it was his choice not ours whether to use the gas or not. It's like saying that the manufacturer of an explosive should be held responsible if a terrorist uses that explosive in a terrorist attack.

I agree that it was his choice to use the gas, but was he so different when we sold it to him than when we went to war to get it back? We knew what he was like, and cannot absolve ourselves of responsibility in this way.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
What? You're denying the laws in almost every state that keep competing parties off the ballot? You're denying that some states even refuse to count write-in votes? You're denying the existance of so-called "campaign finance reform" laws that stop challengers from advertising against incumbents? You're denying that the incumbent parties get tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to run their campaigns? You're denying that the debates are rigged to only allow candidates from the two major parties? I'm with you on all of these things. I don’t' think they prove the elections are rigged. Rigged suggests that a group of people decide ahead of time who is going to win and then act to ensure that person wins. You could perhaps argue the elections are rigged to ensure either a Republican or a Democrat wins in which case I say that is unfortunate but I'm not loosing sleep over it.

You're denying all of the miscounted and lost votes due to the voting machines that didn't leave a paper trail? And this proves what? This is the woo-woo crap I was telling you about. Go to any conspiracy site and "deny" their lists of facts that prove the government is covering up UFO's, the Tri Lateral Commission or the Jews are running the government.

I can keep going... So can the conspiracy nuts.

If any other country did these kinds of things, we'd be up in arms about that "banana republic" and how it shamefully kept challengers from unseating the incumbents. These things do happen in other countries and we don't give a damn. It is when there is wide spread fraud, intimidation and crime to rig the election then we care.

No matter how much people are against what's going on in the government, incumbents see at least a 97% reelection rate. Tell me that makes sense. Actually it does. People like to bitch and complain but when they live in a country where the unemployment rate is single digit and they have two cars, computers, TVs and the freedom to speak their mind and they get to vote for their candidate (most people identify with Republicans and Democrats) then they are happy just to complain but they keep voting the incumbents.

[BPSCG]

If so, I wonder why the Ba'athist insurrectionists - sorry, I meant insurgents - didn't put down their weapons prior to January 30 and run against the U.S. - supported puppets.
Originally posted by shanek
A lot of them were restricted from doing so. They didn't even let a lot of them vote. Really? I hadn't heard that. You have a citation, of course.

[Skeptic]

To my knowledge, Saddam didn't... raid their homes without due process.

Wanna bet?

Honestly, this sort of thing puts you totally out in left field. You seem to forget that not only did Saddam, generally speaking, did as he wished (including torturing and murdering) to anybody in Iraq, where his word was law, but the whole "due process" thing would have been meaningless even if Saddam bothered with it, for the same reason Saddam's "elections" were meaningless: any judge who dared to disagree with Saddam's wishes (and there were, amazingly enough, a few incredibly brave individuals who did) was instantly removed from power and thrown into prison, usually to be killed, usually, with his family as well.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Jocko
I'll gladly pitch him overboard if you let me throw in anything Mr. Ted Fonda has ever had his fingers into... at least this was obviously an editorial, which is more than one can say for a lot of CNN's journalism (such as playing PR agent for Saddam in return of exlusive access).

I really wish you would change your Av, Jock boy. It really does the man's memory no good, considering the drech that usually accompanies his pictures in your posts. You obviously don't understand much of the man's work or anything about what his life was about, considering what you you post here day after day. In this, like most things, you and your right wing cohorts are delusional.

That you have somehow convinced yourself that someone like Twain would support any of the right's, and your own, hypocrisies, from religious fundamentalism to American imperiialism (and the self rightious rationals for the same, which haven't changed much since Twain's day) only serves to expose how detached from reality you and your ilk are. In that sense, and no other, the Av might be fitting, I suppose.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Renfield
I really wish you would change your Av, Jock boy. It really does the man's memory no good, considering the drech that usually accompanies his pictures in your posts. You obviously don't understand much of the man's work or anything about what his life was about, considering what you you post here day after day. In this, like most things, you and your right wing cohorts are delusional.

Glad to see I'm getting to you. I can scratch one off the list then.

That you have somehow convinced yourself that someone like Twain would support any of the right's, and your own, hypocrisies, from religious fundamentalism to American imperiialism (and the self rightious rationals for the same, which haven't changed much since Twain's day) only serves to expose how detached from reality you and your ilk are. In that sense, and no other, the Av might be fitting, I suppose.

Wait, let me guess what comes next: Twain was an athiest, and I'm debasing his memory?

He wasn't, you know. There's a difference between being an athiest and just hating God. You can't hate something you don't believe in, y'know.

But please do share some quotes that support your assertions that Im a fundie/neocon/nazi/whatever. What, precisely, is my ilk? Apart from the majority of the voters, that is? Care to be a little more specific?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Jocko
Glad to see I'm getting to you. I can scratch one off the list then.Don't declare victory too soon. You haven't won until he either puts you on his "ignore" list or you get him so inflamed that he succeeds in pulling his head off his shoulders with his bare hands.

Try for the latter.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Don't declare victory too soon. You haven't won until he either puts you on his "ignore" list or you get him so inflamed that he succeeds in pulling his head off his shoulders with his bare hands.

Try for the latter.

Silence, heretic! Lose that avatar right quick unless you can prove to me you've composed a sonata.

Twain's greatest insight was to see the insanity of so many things that made perfect sense to most people of his day, and one of his favorite targets was tyranny of all kinds. The top offenders in his book were the church, royalty and elitism... but he always saved at least one bullet for the whiners as well.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm with you on all of these things. I don’t' think they prove the elections are rigged.[/qoute]

How are those examples not election-rigging?

[quote]Rigged suggests that a group of people decide ahead of time who is going to win and then act to ensure that person wins.

Well, the only difference here is, no further action is required. They've made the incumbents so difficult to unseat they don't need to.

And this proves what? This is the woo-woo crap I was telling you about.

No, this is real. Just in NC, several precincts with the voting machines registered more votes than voters. Others lost hundreds or even thousands of votes. It's not conspiracy woo-woo crap; it really happened.

For proof, none of these things happened in NC counties (like mine) that still use cardstock ballots marked with pens.

So can the conspiracy nuts.

I can refute conspiracy nuts. Can you refute me?

These things do happen in other countries and we don't give a damn. It is when there is wide spread fraud, intimidation and crime to rig the election then we care.

How is what the "banana republics" did any worse than what we're doing? Pick an example, and explain.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Really? I hadn't heard that. You have a citation, of course.

Donald Rumsfeld good enough for you?

Q: Mr. Secretary, in your opening statement you talked about the political future of Iraq and letting the Iraqis decide. Are there, however, any specific conditions that we're attaching, such as bans on a particular party or an individual, or a particular size of an army or the type of weapons that they might have?

SEC. RUMSFELD: What we have said is fairly simple, and we've repeated it and repeated it from the outset, that Iraq ought to be a single country, and if people want to participate who think they ought to divide up that country into pieces, then we don't care -- we'd prefer they not participate. It ought to be a country that doesn't have weapons of mass destruction and doesn't threaten its neighbors, and if there are people who think it ought to, then our preference is that they not participate. It ought to be a country that sets itself on a path towards a government that is responsive to the people and respectful of minorities and different -- the diversity in the country, of religious diversity and ethnic diversity. And if people want to have a different kind of government, then we'd prefer they not participate.

Beyond that, we would -- we'd also prefer that people not participate who basically don't represent Iraq, but who think they represent some of the neighboring countries. And that would -- that's an unhelpful thing, it seems to me.

So those are basically the standards. And they're not complicated, and they're not restrictive. They allow for a great deal of variety and diversity within those basics.

Q: Who, if I may follow, would do the vetting of those conditions?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, we just keep repeating the conditions, and the people will do the vetting. People on the ground know these folks. They know the bad ones. And yeah, the -- I mean, we'll -- you did ask about parties. There's no question but that this country's got to go through a de-Ba'athification process. The Ba'ath Party is not -- does not fit the conditions that I've described. We know what they think. And therefore we know that they ought not to be participants.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030415-secdef0107.html

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Wanna bet?

I said, "To my knowledge." If you have evidence that he did, post it and I'll gladly retract the statement. "Saddam did as he wished" is not sufficient.

[Skeptic]

I said, "To my knowledge."

My point exactly; "To my knowledge, Saddam needed a court order to search his enemies' home" is like saying, "To my knowledge, Antarctica is really, really hot." It shows such a degree of ignorance (perhaps wilfull) it more or less invaliadates you as a commentator on the subject.

I have to say, you have a tendency to post such howlers on many subjects.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
My point exactly; "To my knowledge, Saddam needed a court order to search his enemies' home"

Didn't say that.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by shanek
Donald Rumsfeld good enough for you?
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030415-secdef0107.html Well, actually, no...

Your citation is from April 15, 2003 - almost two years before the election, while the coalition invasion was still going on. Just as a reminder, Saddam was in hiding at this point, there was still some organized fighting going on, Uday and Qusay were still out there, and there was as yet no civil administration.

You citation amounts to nothing more than a Rumsfeld wish list - not a statement of postbellum election policy.

Finally you don't really answer the original question I asked: Why didn't the Ba'athists put down their weapons, renounce warfare as a means to keep power, and spend the next year-plus helping rebuild their war-ravaged country while campaigning for a restoration of the status quo ante? Didn't they think they could win a free election? Those campaign slogans would have been mighty catchy: "US Puppets - Bad for You, Bad for Iraq!"
"Vote for Saddam's Ba'ath Party - We Probably Won't Kill You Unless We Have a Good Reason!"
Support the Ba'ath Right to Bear Arms Against You!"
"Vote Ba'ath or We'll Kill You!"
"Saddam - First in War, First in Peace, First in the Most-Wanted Playing Card Deck!"And don't forget the ever-catchy "Vote For Saddam - In Your Guts, You Know He's Nuts..."

[shanek]

BP, how many Ba'ath party candidates were on the Iraqi ballot?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by shanek
BP, how many Ba'ath party candidates were on the Iraqi ballot? Uh-uh. I asked you my question first. Twice.

Why didn't the Ba'athists put down their weapons, renounce warfare as a means to keep power, and spend the next year-plus helping rebuild their war-ravaged country while campaigning for a restoration of the status quo ante?

That's thrice, now.

[shanek]

Okay, if you won't accept Rumsfeld, what about whitehouse.gov?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/elections/facts.html

Under Iraqi Transitional Administrative Law, nominees to the National Assembly must meet certain criteria. Candidates must be Iraqi citizens and at least 30 years of age. They must have good reputations and at least secondary school diplomas. Former members of the abolished Ba'ath Party with the rank of Division Member or higher are not eligible. Anyone who held a lower rank must sign a document renouncing the Ba'ath Party and disavowing all past links with it. This is another example of ways that Iraqis are creating conditions for a free and democratic government.

Isn't that beautiful? We're banning a certain party from the ballot because we don't like it, and that constitutes "conditions for a free and democratic government."

[shanek]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Why didn't the Ba'athists put down their weapons, renounce warfare as a means to keep power, and spend the next year-plus helping rebuild their war-ravaged country while campaigning for a restoration of the status quo ante?

Because they can't keep power any other way? Because Bush and his cronies wouldn't even let them on the ballot?

[BPSCG]

Why didn't the Ba'athists put down their weapons, renounce warfare as a means to keep power, and spend the next year-plus helping rebuild their war-ravaged country while campaigning for a restoration of the status quo ante?
Originally posted by shanek
Because they can't keep power any other way? Wait a minute. You're saying that mass murderers who refuse to stop murdering should be allowed to continue murdering their political opponents because they can't get elected because they're mass murderers?

Okay, I can see it's been a long day and you're tired.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by shanek
Isn't that beautiful? We're banning a certain party from the ballot because we don't like it, and that constitutes "conditions for a free and democratic government." Yeah. If I'm not mistaken, high-ranking former Nazis* weren't allowed to run for office in 1946, either. You would have allowed Albert Speer to run for chancellor, I suppose...

* ...the ones who weren't hanged...

[shanek]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Wait a minute. You're saying that mass murderers who refuse to stop murdering should be allowed to continue murdering their political opponents because they can't get elected because they're mass murderers?

:rolleyes:

We're talking about a political party being excluded from an election.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Yeah. If I'm not mistaken, high-ranking former Nazis* weren't allowed to run for office in 1946, either. You would have allowed Albert Speer to run for chancellor, I suppose...

No, because he was rotting in jail at the time. But there's no justification for excluding the Nazi party from any ballot. For the very same reason the KKK gets to exercise their rights to freedom of speech.

(Interesting thing that just struck me: The Nazis and the Ba'athists are both Socialist parties. Hmmm....)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, the only difference here is, no further action is required. They've made the incumbents so difficult to unseat they don't need to. Then why does the opposition spend so much money. I admit that it is difficult but not impossible.

No, this is real. Just in NC, several precincts with the voting machines registered more votes than voters. Others lost hundreds or even thousands of votes. It's not conspiracy woo-woo crap; it really happened. So what if it happened? Out of how many votes cast in the United States and how many lost?

For proof, none of these things happened in NC counties (like mine) that still use cardstock ballots marked with pens. You havent proven fraud. You've made a case of potential fraud. BFD, its a few precincts out of how man thousands?

I can refute conspiracy nuts. Can you refute me? Nothing to refute.

How is what the "banana republics" did any worse than what we're doing? Pick an example, and explain. The people had a chance to vote. There was a choice the people made their choice. Damn that was easy. I find your comparison to a Banana republic silly.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
This person is seriously misinformed. The _only_ reason we went to Iraq was for weapons of mass desctruction. I've heard that so many times, it must be true.....

The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, was telling his people that if only Saddam would come clean about WMD, the war was off.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Then why does the opposition spend so much money. I admit that it is difficult but not impossible.

Again, look at the reelection rate of incumbents.

So what if it happened? Out of how many votes cast in the United States and how many lost?

It doesn't matter! If even a single one was lost, that's bad. We're talking about thousands, and that's just in a single state.

Nothing to refute.

Amazing...that's just what the conspiracy nuts say! :p

The people had a chance to vote.

Except for the ones that didn't.

There was a choice the people made their choice.

Except for the ones that couldn't.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, was telling his people that if only Saddam would come clean about WMD, the war was off.

And, apparently, that's exactly what Saddam did. But the Bushites just didn't want to hear it.

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
And, apparently, that's exactly what Saddam did. But the Bushites just didn't want to hear it.

Since I'll assume you aren't saying the USA should have believed what Saddam told them do you agree he should have let the weapons inspectors do their work unhindered and even helped them? Not because he had to simply because it would have been sensible?

Personally I think Saddam played a very clever game for many years, always keeping the idea that he might still have WMD alive. I would suggest it was because he thought this bluff helped to protect him, unfortunately for him (and hopefully fortunately for the Iraqi people in the long term) he over played his hand and the bluff was called.

I’ve often wondered if Saddam did think he had weapons. After all who would have liked to be the one who told him he couldn’t and didn’t have any?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Again, look at the reelection rate of incumbents. I'm not certain what you think this proves. Incumbents use their office to get re-elected. It is human nature to go with the status quo.

It doesn't matter! If even a single one was lost, that's bad. We're talking about thousands, and that's just in a single state. In most elections, statistically, a single vote is meaningless. The error rate is much greater than a single vote. We can be philosophical and say every vote counts but that is just being Pollyanna. They don't. Once you are talking about tens of thousands of votes then every recount results in a different count. This is expected in large numbers. And IF you proved fraud (you haven't) then you have proven it for a single state. I'm sorry but that is very unimpressive.

Amazing...that's just what the conspiracy nuts say! No THAT is what the conspiracy nuts say.

Except for the ones that didn't.

Except for the ones that couldn't. In a perfect world I would agree with you. We don't live in the land of perfect. We live in a land of 300,000,000 people, 50 states many more counties and many more than that cities. There are bureaucracies made up of error prone and corruptible people in ever single one. Simple statistics dictates that there are going to be problems somewhere.

I don't know at what point problems become unacceptable. However, I'm willing to bet that you can't even tell us with any degree of precision the percentage of problems that exist and you certainly have not given us the expected error rate in which we would expect problems.

THAT would scientifically indicate a problem. Like most conspiracy nuts however you hand out anecdote and expect us all to jump and scream.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
And, apparently, that's exactly what Saddam did. But the Bushites just didn't want to hear it. I guess you missed the news when Saddam was found to be in material breech. Interesting definition of "coming clean".

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
Since I'll assume you aren't saying the USA should have believed what Saddam told them do you agree he should have let the weapons inspectors do their work unhindered and even helped them?

According to both UN weapons inspection teams, he did exactly that. He maybe didn't help them all that much, but they both said they were able to get 100% access.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm not certain what you think this proves. Incumbents use their office to get re-elected. It is human nature to go with the status quo.

Okay, then, show that happening through history before these election laws.

And IF you proved fraud (you haven't) then you have proven it for a single state. I'm sorry but that is very unimpressive.

Considering that we have no Federal elections, and that the state in question represents 15 electoral votes (more than the margin of victory for the President), this statement smacks of complete political ignorance. And that's not something I'd ordinarily say about you.

In a perfect world I would agree with you. We don't live in the land of perfect. We live in a land of 300,000,000 people, 50 states many more counties and many more than that cities. There are bureaucracies made up of error prone and corruptible people in ever single one. Simple statistics dictates that there are going to be problems somewhere.

But these problems were predicted by people who examined these voting machines.

I don't know at what point problems become unacceptable.

When they're that predictable? I would think anyone would say that this crosses the line.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
I guess you missed the news when Saddam was found to be in material breech. Interesting definition of "coming clean".

Bureaucratic spin, nothing more. He had no weapons of mass destruction. The only thing they could get him on was a term that isn't even defined in the document in question (Resolution 1441), and really doesn't have anything to do with WMDs but that he didn't live up to all of the aspects of an agreement he made under duress to begin with. That's important, since the term "material breach" comes from contract law (and is quite different from "breach of contract;" a material breach doesn't automatically terminate the agreement), and contract law says that any agreements made under duress are invalid. And on top of all that, we only have the word of the Bush Administration (which is worthless) that they were in breach anyway.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by shanek
It hasn't even gone on for a single century; only since the Palestinians were kicked off of their homeland to artificially create Israel in the name of fulfilling Biblical prophecy. And, what countries were involved in doing that???

Yes, stupid as I am, at least I have some inkling about the formation of Israel. There are some people who actually believe that modern day Israel is the Israel referenced in the bible. But be very careful what you say or all sorts of people will start calling you antisemitic just like they did me when I suggested that Israel is not truly a democracy. I remember someone telling me we should have supported South Africa back in the apartheid days because it was a democracy. To my mind that is just being willfully knuckleheaded.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by shanek
Bureaucratic spin, nothing more. He had no weapons of mass destruction. The only thing they could get him on was a term that isn't even defined in the document in question (Resolution 1441), and really doesn't have anything to do with WMDs but that he didn't live up to all of the aspects of an agreement he made under duress to begin with. That's important, since the term "material breach" comes from contract law (and is quite different from "breach of contract;" a material breach doesn't automatically terminate the agreement), and contract law says that any agreements made under duress are invalid. And on top of all that, we only have the word of the Bush Administration (which is worthless) that they were in breach anyway.

It strikes me as utterly amazing that so many people are so complacent about being lied to by their own leaders. What's worse, lied to for the purposes of going to war. I just pray this whole thing is over before my son comes of age. Personally, I would be more than outraged to have my child die for a lie.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, then, show that happening through history before these election laws. Show it didn't happen. I don't claim that it did. I claim that it can be explained by human nature and the power of incumbency.

Considering that we have no Federal elections, and that the state in question represents 15 electoral votes (more than the margin of victory for the President), this statement smacks of complete political ignorance. And that's not something I'd ordinarily say about you. Cite the evidence. I have seen it all with Kevin and I haven't seen any proof positive of fraud. I'll look at it again. BTW, did any national news agency or individual like Kerry claim fraud? Not that this proves there was no fraud but it does cause one to go hmmmm....

But these problems were predicted by people who examined these voting machines.

When they're that predictable? I would think anyone would say that this crosses the line. I don't get your point. Who predicted what?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Bureaucratic spin, nothing more. He had no weapons of mass destruction. The only thing they could get him on was a term that isn't even defined in the document in question (Resolution 1441), and really doesn't have anything to do with WMDs but that he didn't live up to all of the aspects of an agreement he made under duress to begin with. That's important, since the term "material breach" comes from contract law (and is quite different from "breach of contract;" a material breach doesn't automatically terminate the agreement), and contract law says that any agreements made under duress are invalid. And on top of all that, we only have the word of the Bush Administration (which is worthless) that they were in breach anyway. After 12 years and being told over and over to comply he didn't comply. I'm not really sure what is so hard to understand about that.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Wait a minute. You're saying that mass murderers who refuse to stop murdering should be allowed to continue murdering their political opponents because they can't get elected because they're mass murderers?

Originally posted by shanek
:rolleyes:

We're talking about a political party being excluded from an election. Yeah, well you know what? I don't have any problem excluding a political party whose platform amounts to Vote for us or we'll kill you.
We'll kill our opposition during the campaign.
We'll kill all the remaining opposition after we're elected.
Allowing a political party to partake of the democratic process for the express and avowed purpose of attaining power so that it can then destroy the democratic process, is a suicide pact. A party that would destroy democracy on attaining power - and that in the past has destroyed democracy on attaining power - should not complain when it is excluded from the democratic process.

Next issue - Defrocked pedophile priests working at Chuck E. Cheese's - an idea whose time has come?

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Show it didn't happen.

Uh-uh, you just made a claim. Specifically, "Incumbents use their office to get re-elected. It is human nature to go with the status quo." Back up this claim. If it is human nature, then we should see this effect throughout history.

I, on the other hand, haven't made any claims about the history of incumbency. I've just been explaining why the current incumbency reelection rate is what it is.

I don't get your point. Who predicted what?

Lots of people predicted these very problems with the voting machines. Look over the history of this last election if you weren't paying attention.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
After 12 years and being told over and over to comply he didn't comply.

No, actually, he did. That's been pretty much proven.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Uh-uh, you just made a claim. Specifically, "Incumbents use their office to get re-elected. It is human nature to go with the status quo." Back up this claim. If it is human nature, then we should see this effect throughout history. It is only my opinion. I think it is common sense. Incumbents have the resources of their office and usually better name recognition.

I, on the other hand, haven't made any claims about the history of incumbency. I've just been explaining why the current incumbency reelection rate is what it is. Yeah, you are stating an opinion. Thanks. We now know what you believe. Big deal. I have now "explained" my position. We have both offered an explanation.

Lots of people predicted these very problems with the voting machines. Look over the history of this last election if you weren't paying attention. Oh, so now it is my place to prove your claim. Got it.

So what if folks were predicting problems? I predicted problems. I said on this very forum that the machines were subject to error and fraud. I'm a programmer. I know better. What exactly do you think this proves?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
No, actually, he did. That's been pretty much proven. Uh... NO!

www.armscontrol.org/pdf/iraqchron.pdf+%22un+resolution%22+saddam+material+ breach+1441+pdf&hl=en]ARMS (http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:HF3J-cNHJkkJ:[url) CONTROL ASSOCIATION[/URL]

PMarch 7, 2003: UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix tells the Security Council that Iraq’s cooperation with the inspectors in providing information about past weapons activities has improved, although Baghdad has not yet complied with its disarmament obligations. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors had stated during briefings to the Security Council on January 27 and February 14 that Iraq was gradually increasing its cooperation with the United Nations. Yet, both deemed the cooperation insufficient. Your definitions of proven and compliance are markedly different than mine.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Yeah, well you know what? I don't have any problem excluding a political party whose platform amounts to Vote for us or we'll kill you.
We'll kill our opposition during the campaign.
We'll kill all the remaining opposition after we're elected.
Allowing a political party to partake of the democratic process for the express and avowed purpose of attaining power so that it can then destroy the democratic process, is a suicide pact. A party that would destroy democracy on attaining power - and that in the past has destroyed democracy on attaining power - should not complain when it is excluded from the democratic process.

Next issue - Defrocked pedophile priests working at Chuck E. Cheese's - an idea whose time has come?
This remark indicates that you are in fact anti-democratic though you have waxed poetical about democracy's merits in the past. A real disciple of democracy understands that the system counts on the principle that a bad politician will be discovered and weeded out by the populace and that this fear of discovery instilled in the minds of those that hold or are currently seeking elected office will cause them to acquiesce to the best interests of the constituents. You seek to preclude a person's choice and therefore are indirectly stating that self-governance is not to be trusted and people as a result by some degree must be controlled by power elites.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
This remark indicates that you are in fact anti-democratic though you have waxed poetical about democracy's merits in the past. A real disciple of democracy understands that the system counts on the principle that a bad politician will be discovered and weeded out by the populace and that this fear of discovery instilled in the minds of those that hold or are currently seeking elected office will cause them to acquiesce to the best interests of the constituents.

Ludicrous and naive. He is specifically talking about butchers, murderers, thugs and organized extermination of political discourse. For democracy to survive to see a second election, base levels of discourse and redress must be observed. I suppose you'd be fine if your new governor shows up at the state house and personally gutted every member of the opposition party, stringing their entrails from flagpole to flagpole? After all, he IS duly elected.

You seek to preclude a person's choice and therefore are indirectly stating that self-governance is not to be trusted and people as a result by some degree must be controlled by power elites.

He seeks to preclude the impossibility of a following election. Hell, even the IRA had to agree to some ground rules before going legit in government. There comes a point where principle without pragmatism makes you sound very silly, and dude... you just crossed it.

[BPSCG]

Thanks, Jocko. I was just working up a reply, and you put it far better than anything I was developing.

Now I can go to the gym so Mrs. BPSCG won't be pissed at me when she asks me later if I went. :)

[shanek]

Say...

FDR deliberately left our Navy concentrated and defenseless before the Pearl Harbor attack and rounded up American citizens into internment camps. Does that mean that the Democrats should not be allowed on the ballot?

Should Republicans not be allowed on the ballot because of Richard Nixon?

Maybe, just maybe, the actions of previous party members in power should have nothing to do with whether or not their candidates should be allowed on the ballot.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jocko
Ludicrous and naive. He is specifically talking about butchers, murderers, thugs and organized extermination of political discourse. For democracy to survive to see a second election, base levels of discourse and redress must be observed. I suppose you'd be fine if your new governor shows up at the state house and personally gutted every member of the opposition party, stringing their entrails from flagpole to flagpole? After all, he IS duly elected.

I think that would just about be time for an armed rebellion.

Besides, do you really think a person like that is going to let mere party affiliation stop him? He'll just run as a candidate for a major party.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Jocko
Ludicrous and naive. He is specifically talking about butchers, murderers, thugs and organized extermination of political discourse. For democracy to survive to see a second election, base levels of discourse and redress must be observed. I suppose you'd be fine if your new governor shows up at the state house and personally gutted every member of the opposition party, stringing their entrails from flagpole to flagpole? After all, he IS duly elected.

You miss the point. It is expected from the mechanics of democracy that no such a person that would gut members of the opposition party could possibly be elected in the first place. As stated before in reference to BPSCG's post, preventing a person from getting on the ballot in the first place means that you sincerely believe in the contingency that the masses would be foolish enough to choose such a person. Given this belief that I can deduce you possess, it would logically follow that such insipid masses as you conceive them of being couldn't possibly possess even one iota of sense to govern themselves and so their fates would seem in better hands when left to the designs of absolutism. Therefore, you and BPSCG are anti-democratic, and I may go so far as saying completely dictatorial as well.

On another note, keeping a party off the ballot gives them justification to continue violent attacks.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.


On another note, keeping a party off the ballot gives them justification to continue violent attacks.

Then explain why IRA disarmament was prerequisite to the successful inclusion of Sinn Fein into Irish politics. Surely there was enough support to get a rifle-toting boy from Belfast elected WITHOUT reforms, right?

[Batman Jr.]

deleted

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Jocko
Then explain why IRA disarmament was prerequisite to the successful inclusion of Sinn Fein into Irish politics. Surely there was enough support to get a rifle-toting boy from Belfast elected WITHOUT reforms, right?
Sinn Fein wasn't banned from the ballot. This is a bad comparison.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Therefore, you and BPSCG are anti-democratic, and I may go so far as saying completely dictatorial as well.I suppose you want to lump Germany in there, too, as being anti-democratic, since they outlaw the Nazi party.
On another note, keeping a party off the ballot gives them justification to continue violent attacks. No, keeping a violent party off the ballot makes them think they have additional justification to continue violent attacks. To the wicked, everything is pretext.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by BPSCG
I suppose you want to lump Germany in there, too, as being anti-democratic, since they outlaw the Nazi party.

Yes.
Originally posted by BPSCG
No, keeping a violent party off the ballot makes them think they have additional justification to continue violent attacks. To the wicked, everything is pretext.
Yes, you're right. They definitely still do have other options such as nonviolent protest and—pardon the hackneyed expression—two wrongs don't make a right, but there are those that are witness to the situation that may be ambivalent about things that may come to summon feelings of sympathy for the insurgents looking at the election as an extenuating circumstance. A few would-be suicide bombers discouraged from allowing themselves to be recruited by the resistance because of the political integrity we display goes a long way.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
A few would-be suicide bombers discouraged from allowing themselves to be recruited by the resistance because of the political integrity we display goes a long way. Twenty-five years of murdering all your political opponents while in power, plus another couple of years murdering them when you're out of power, goes a long way, too.

Look BJ, these people have demonstrated beyond any serious dispute, they don't believe in democracy and wish to destroy it so they can come to power. Why, then, should they be allowed to take part in the democractic process? They are trying to overthrow a nascent democracy solely so they can return to power and crush - figuratively and literally - their opponents. What possible justification can there be to allow that, other than some grotesque idealistic fantasy that if you show your throat to a rabid dog, everyone will applaud your idealism as you lie dying in the street with your throat ripped out?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by shanek
Say...

FDR deliberately left our Navy concentrated and defenseless before the Pearl Harbor attack and rounded up American citizens into internment camps. Does that mean that the Democrats should not be allowed on the ballot?

Should Republicans not be allowed on the ballot because of Richard Nixon?

Maybe, just maybe, the actions of previous party members in power should have nothing to do with whether or not their candidates should be allowed on the ballot. You're right.

Let me know the minute Germany lets the Nazis run for office again.

Then we'll talk.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Twenty-five years of murdering all your political opponents while in power, plus another couple of years murdering them when you're out of power, goes a long way, too.

Look BJ, these people have demonstrated beyond any serious dispute, they don't believe in democracy and wish to destroy it so they can come to power. Why, then, should they be allowed to take part in the democractic process? They are trying to overthrow a nascent democracy solely so they can return to power and crush - figuratively and literally - their opponents. What possible justification can there be to allow that, other than some grotesque idealistic fantasy that if you show your throat to a rabid dog, everyone will applaud your idealism as you lie dying in the street with your throat ripped out?
If these people are so obviously bad, then they should be very easily outed by the public for the self-serving frauds they are. That you think otherwise means you have a very low opinion of the common wisdom and thus that you believe the public is much too inept to know what is good for itself. You don't really believe in democracy either. You just don't realize it yet.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
If these people are so obviously bad, then they should be very easily outed by the public for the self-serving frauds they are. That you think otherwise means you have a very low opinion of the common wisdom and thus that you believe the public is much too inept to know what is good for itself. You don't really believe in democracy either. You just don't realize it yet.

What you're missing is that "public outcry" doesn't get you a recall in those circumstances, it gets you a holiday suite at the gulag. If you're lucky, that is.

You really don't see this, do you? How curious.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BPSCG
You're right.

Let me know the minute Germany lets the Nazis run for office again.

Then we'll talk.

There aren't Socialists in the German government now?

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Jocko
What you're missing is that "public outcry" doesn't get you a recall in those circumstances, it gets you a holiday suite at the gulag. If you're lucky, that is.

You really don't see this, do you? How curious.
You seem to be under the impression that the electorate can only comprehend how bad a person running for office is after they've been elected. That is not how democracy works.
Originally posted by shanek
There aren't Socialists in the German government now?
Socialism teaches that everyone should be judged by their needs. Nazism promotes the idea that everyone only deserves what is fitting of their "performance."

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
There aren't Socialists in the German government now?

What have "Nazis" got to do with current German Socialists?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
You seem to be under the impression that the electorate can only comprehend how bad a person running for office is after they've been elected. I believe the Iraqis comprehend exactly how bad the Ba'athists are, which is why you heard no outcry about the poor, persecuted Ba'athists' not being allowed to run for office.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by shanek
There aren't Socialists in the German government now? Are you suggesting that Germany's present-day socialists are the spiritual heirs of Hitler and Goebbels?

Explain.

(This should be interesting...)

(Kinda like a three-headed zebra would be interesting...)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Socialism teaches that everyone should be judged by their needs. Nazism promotes the idea that everyone only deserves what is fitting of their "performance."

The Nazis were Socialists.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
What have "Nazis" got to do with current German Socialists?

National Socialist Party? Hel-lo???

People here are trying to deny that the Nazis were Socialists? Huh????

[shanek]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Are you suggesting that Germany's present-day socialists are the spiritual heirs of Hitler and Goebbels?

It's very simple: if all Ba'athists should be kept off the ballot because of Saddam and his regime, then all Socialists should be kept off of German ballots because of Hitler and his Socialist regime.

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
National Socialist Party? Hel-lo???

People here are trying to deny that the Nazis were Socialists? Huh????

Would you answer my question?

The question was:

What have "Nazis" got to do with current German Socialists?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by shanek
It's very simple: if all Ba'athists should be kept off the ballot because of Saddam and his regime, then all Socialists should be kept off of German ballots because of Hitler and his Socialist regime. Hard to tell if you're arguing this point because you're off your medication or just bored and looking for an argument.

Iraq's current-day Ba'ath party espouses the ideals and principles of government of Saddam Hussein, which essentially amount to, "We will kill everyone we don't like in order to make the our country better."

The Nazis' ideals and principles of government essentially amounted to, "We will kill everyone we don't like in order to make our country better."

Are you seriously suggesting that Germany's present-day socialists subscribe to ideals and principles of government that amount to, "We will kill everyone we don't like in order to make our country world better"?

[shanek]

Uh-huh. I see. So, when it's Socialists, there's room for saying that not all Socialists believe the same as the Socialists in Hitler's regime. But when it's the Ba'ath Party, which you personally don't like, there's no room at all for any Ba'athists believing differently than Saddam's regime. Gotcha.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by shanek
Uh-huh. I see. So, when it's Socialists, there's room for saying that not all Socialists believe the same as the Socialists in Hitler's regime. But when it's the Ba'ath Party, which you personally don't like, there's no room at all for any Ba'athists believing differently than Saddam's regime. Gotcha.Please. You've created a false analogy. The proper analogy is as follows: There's no room for the Nazi party believing differently from Hitler's regime. And there's no room for the Ba'ath party believing differently from Saddam's regime.

You provided the groundwork for a good analogy in one of your earlier posts:Under Iraqi Transitional Administrative Law, nominees to the National Assembly must meet certain criteria. Candidates must be Iraqi citizens and at least 30 years of age. They must have good reputations and at least secondary school diplomas. Former members of the abolished Ba'ath Party with the rank of Division Member or higher are not eligible. Anyone who held a lower rank must sign a document renouncing the Ba'ath Party and disavowing all past links with it. This is another example of ways that Iraqis are creating conditions for a free and democratic government.Emphasis mine. Here's your good analogy:

After WW II, Germans who had not been in Nazi positions of power and who had been "de-Nazified" could vote and hold office. The above quote provides for very much the same thing in Iraq.

You could run for office in Germany in 1946 if you renounced Naziism and could show you had not held a significant position of power in the regime.

And you could run for office in Iraq in 2005 if you renounced Ba'athism and could show you had not held a significant position of power in the regime.

Stop comparing today's socialists with the Nazis. It's a stupid comparison. You often argue intelligently, sometimes even persuasively - generally when you're talking about property rights and such. This argument is unworthy of you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
National Socialist Party? Hel-lo???

People here are trying to deny that the Nazis were Socialists? Huh????

I will. Because I have read history, and you, obviously, have not.

The 25-points party program that Hitler laid forward on February 24, 1920, in the Festsaal of the Hofbräuhaus, was a hodgepodge, hastily collated by Drexler, Feder and Hitler.

Shirer describes the program as a:
"catchall for the workers, the lower middle class and the peasants, and most of them were forgotten by the time the party came to power. A good many writers on Germany have ridiculed them, and the Nazi leader himself was later to be embarrassed when reminded of some of them."
William Shirer, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". p.41

You are, once again, wrong. Because somebody calls themselves "socialist" does not mean that they are.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by shanek
Uh-huh. I see. So, when it's Socialists, there's room for saying that not all Socialists believe the same as the Socialists in Hitler's regime. But when it's the Ba'ath Party, which you personally don't like, there's no room at all for any Ba'athists believing differently than Saddam's regime. Gotcha.
Okay, now I know what you were going for and am in agreement with what you say. It's really the issue of shared labels that you were concentrating on.
Originally posted by BPSCG
I believe the Iraqis comprehend exactly how bad the Ba'athists are, which is why you heard no outcry about the poor, persecuted Ba'athists' not being allowed to run for office.
If you admit to them understanding this, then what fear do you have of allowing Baathists to go on the ballot?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Okay, now I know what you were going for and am in agreement with what you say. You shouldn't be; he was making a stupid analogy. The analogy he was trying to make was that Ba'athists (2005) are to Ba'athists (2003) as German Socialists (2005) are to National Socialists (Nazis) (1943). The correct analogy is Ba'athists (2005) are to Ba'athists (2003) as National Socialists (Nazis) (1945) are to National Socialists (Nazis) (1943).
If you admit to them understanding this, then what fear do you have of allowing Baathists to go on the ballot? I don't see the point in trying to reword what I thought I'd made perfectly clear the first time, so I'll just say it again:Look BJ, these people have demonstrated beyond any serious dispute, they don't believe in democracy and wish to destroy it so they can come to power. Why, then, should they be allowed to take part in the democractic process? They are trying to overthrow a nascent democracy solely so they can return to power and crush - figuratively and literally - their opponents. What possible justification can there be to allow that, other than some grotesque idealistic fantasy that if you show your throat to a rabid dog, everyone will applaud your idealism as you lie dying in the street with your throat ripped out?If you let a strange dog bite you once, I'd sympathize with your plight. If you let him bite you again the next day, I'd think maybe you were a bit on the simple side.

The Ba'athists are currently taking that second bite, and you're wondering what the objection is to offering them the opportunity for a third.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by BPSCG
You shouldn't be; he was making a stupid analogy. The analogy he was trying to make was that Ba'athists (2005) are to Ba'athists (2003) as German Socialists (2005) are to National Socialists (Nazis) (1943). The correct analogy is Ba'athists (2005) are to Ba'athists (2003) as National Socialists (Nazis) (1945) are to National Socialists (Nazis) (1943).

Yes, perhaps you are right.
Originally posted by BPSCG
If you let a strange dog bite you once, I'd sympathize with your plight. If you let him bite you again the next day, I'd think maybe you were a bit on the simple side.

The Ba'athists are currently taking that second bite, and you're wondering what the objection is to offering them the opportunity for a third.
This whole dogs biting people spiel doesn't appear to be getting us anywhere. I don't really think it has any parallel in the current situation because you yourself say that the Baathists have no chance of getting elected. How do you expect them to take the proverbial next bite if they can't come to power even when they are permitted to be participants in the election?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
as the Socialists in Hitler's regime.

Name one Socialist in Hitler's regime.

After the war Hitler was stationed in Munich, the capital of Bavaria. While Hitler was in Munich, the capital of Bavaria, Kurt Eisner, leader of the Independent Socialist Party, declared Bavaria a Socialist Republic. Hitler was appalled by the revolution. As a German Nationalist he disagreed with the socialist belief in equality.

Hitler saw socialism as part of a Jewish conspiracy. Many of the socialist leaders in Germany, including Kurt Eisner, Rosa Luxemburg, Ernst Toller and Eugen Levine were Jews. So also were many of the leaders of the October Revolution in Russia. This included Leon Trotsky, Gregory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Dimitri Bogrov, Karl Radek, Yakov Sverdlov, Maxim Litvinov, Adolf Joffe, and Moisei Uritsky. It had not escaped Hitler's notice that Karl Marx, the prophet of socialism, had also been a Jew.

It was no coincidence that Jews had joined socialist and communist parties in Europe. Jews had been persecuted for centuries and therefore were attracted to a movement that proclaimed that all men and women deserved to be treated as equals. This message was reinforced when on 10th July, 1918, the Bolshevik government in Russia passed a law that abolished all discrimination between Jews and non-Jews.
Source (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm)

Hitler's reputation as an orator grew and it soon became clear that he was the main reason why people were joining the party. This gave Hitler tremendous power within the organization as they knew they could not afford to lose him. One change suggested by Hitler concerned adding "Socialist" to the name of the party. Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.
Source (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm)

Do you understand that you are wrong?

[CFLarsen]

In the months after Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler's enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered. By the summer of 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany.
Source (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005686)

To claim that Nazis were Socialists is the pinnacle of ignorance and idiocy.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by RandFanMarch 7, 2003: UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix tells the Security Council that Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors in providing information about past weapons activities has improved, although Baghdad has not yet complied with its disarmament obligations. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors had stated during briefings to the Security Council on January 27 and February 14 that Iraq was gradually increasing its cooperation with the United Nations. Yet, both deemed the cooperation insufficient.Your definitions of proven and compliance are markedly different than mine.Why would you pull some random page from the Google cache that might be a politically motivated interpretation, when you can find what Hans Blix actually said on 7 March 2003 (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm) on the internet as well?

Where exactly did he say that Iraq had not complied or the cooperation was insufficient? I have read it from beginning to end and I can't find it.

[RandFan]

Hi Earthborn,

Lots of posts in this thread. You responded to mine. I'm begining to think you have a deep seated attraction to me.

Originally posted by Earthborn
Why would you pull some random page from the Google cache that might be a politically motivated interpretation, when you can find what Hans Blix actually said on 7 March 2003 (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm) on the internet as well?

Where exactly did he say that Iraq had not complied or the cooperation was insufficient? I have read it from beginning to end and I can't find it. Well, this was just one in what was 4 reports. I will try and track the others down. I didn't perform due diligance because I thought it unnecassary. I remember the events and I remember that Iraq was not in compliance. I grabbed the first quote I could find.

I appologize.

For the moment, here is a statement by Jack Straw UK Foreign Secretary. I know, I know, it is not directly Blix's statement. I think it unlikely that Straw would like to the house of Commons about something so easily checked.

HOUSE OF COMMONS STATEMENT BY JACK STRAW (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/FCO/uk-fco-straw-021303.htm)Tomorrow's briefing will be the fourth update delivered by Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei. The comprehensive reports they delivered on 27 January painted a disturbing picture. Most damning of all was Dr Blix's observation that Iraq 'appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world.'

Dr Blix concluded that the Iraqi declaration submitted on 7 December was 'mostly a reprint of earlier documents,' and did not 'contain any new evidence that would eliminate' unresolved 'questions or reduce their number.'

...

Mr Speaker, Dr Blix and Dr El-Baradei said:

Iraq had failed to account for 6,500 bombs which could carry up to 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent, or for 8,500 litres of biological warfare agent and a large amount of growth media which could be used to produce about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax;

12 chemical rocket warheads unearthed by UNMOVIC inspectors were potentially, in Dr Blix's words, 'the tip of a submerged iceberg';

Iraq had failed to disclose 3,000 pages of documents relating to a nuclear weapons programme recently discovered in the grounds of the home of an Iraqi scientist;

despite repeated requests from UNMOVIC and the IAEA, all interviews with key Iraqi personnel were being conducted in the intimidating presence of official 'minders.'

and in contravention of UN resolutions, Iraq had developed missiles tested at ranges in excess of the 150 km limit specified in UN resolutions. I would remind the House that the Government drew attention to Iraqi work on such missiles in the dossier we published last September. We need to hear what Dr Blix has to say on this subject tomorrow. But if media reports are correct, the Al Samoud missile programme is clearly a serious breach of Iraq's obligations. We would expect rapid action to eliminate any such illegal programme.

[Earthborn]

I'm begining to think you have a deep seated attraction to me.Riiiight... :rolleyes:

According to that logic, I must really love Shanek, then. :)I think it unlikely that Straw would like to the house of Commons about something so easily checked.You are right. Only the Bush administration would do something like that. :)

Apperently what Straw said is more or less correct, but if you read what Hans Blix actually said on 27 January 2003 (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm), you'll notice that Blix said it in a much more nuanced way. He does not make it sound like something that cannot be solved with some more inspections. He does not seem to me to be 'painting a disturbing picture'.

Also, you cannot use a speech delivered in January 2003 as evidence that Iraq was not cooperating in March 2003. Surely you should be able to understand that.I remember the events and I remember that Iraq was not in compliance.Perhaps you remember incorrectly. Or perhaps you believed the news or the Bush administration, when you should have believed Hans Blix.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Apperently what Straw said is more or less correct, but if you read what Hans Blix actually said on 27 January 2003 (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm), you'll notice that Blix said it in a much more nuanced way. He does not make it sound like something that cannot be solved with some more inspections. He does not seem to me to be 'painting a disturbing picture'.

Also, you cannot use a speech delivered in January 2003 as evidence that Iraq was not cooperating in March 2003. If Straw can paint a disturbing picture of Saddam's failure to comply perhaps Blix can paint a rosy picture of Saddam's failure to comply.

Saddam was ordered to comply and he didn't. What amazes me is that after 12 years of obfuscation and non-cooperation folks actually believed that Saddam was actively cooperating.

What amazes me even more is that the guy was not cooperating when he could have. I guess it was an ego thing. He just didn't want to be controlled by Washington.

...when you should have believed Hans Blix. Oh yes, the great and powerful Blix. Maybe we should just trust that the record says what the record says.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
If Straw can paint a disturbing picture of Saddam's failure to comply perhaps Blix can paint a rosy picture of Saddam's failure to comply.

Saddam was ordered to comply and he didn't. What amazes me is that after 12 years of obfuscation and non-cooperation folks actually believed that Saddam was actively cooperating.

What amazes me even more is that the guy was not cooperating when he could have. I guess it was an ego thing. He just didn't want to be controlled by Washington.

Oh yes, the great and powerful Blix. Maybe we should just trust that the record says what the record says.

The obsfuscation was just sheer incompetence, to a large degree. He had no WMD, but no way to prove it, either.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The obsfuscation was just sheer incompetence, to a large degree. He had no WMD, but no way to prove it, either. That's not quite so. He did have WMDs at one time (ask the Iranians, ask the Kurds), and never showed Blix - or anyone else - what he'd done with them. No records of their destruction, nothing.

Now if he handed them over to Syria for safekeeping - "Just until the Americans leave, like they did in 1991..." - he'd have a tough time proving he destroyed them.

He had them. We just don't know what he did with them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BPSCG
That's not quite so. He did have WMDs at one time (ask the Iranians, ask the Kurds), and never showed Blix - or anyone else - what he'd done with them. No records of their destruction, nothing.

Now if he handed them over to Syria for safekeeping - "Just until the Americans leave, like they did in 1991..." - he'd have a tough time proving he destroyed them.

He had them. We just don't know what he did with them.

He had no idea, either, from what I have read. The 'Syria' story is just sheer guesswork, with no evidence to support it.

The fact that Blix hand't found actually found anything was an indication that nothing was to be found. The fact that links from various sources, I have supplied before, that actual agents found the case that was presented to the UN to be preposterous indicates to me that many knew that there wasn't going to be much found. Most of them thought he had something somewhere, still. But the evidence presented to the world was not at all valid, and this was well known in the intelligence community.

Tenet gambled that even though it was known that the evidence was given was no good, that something would still be found in some dark corner somewhere. He lost.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The 'Syria' story is just sheer guesswork, with no evidence to support it.Agreed - nothing more than a plausible hypothesis. If you accept that he did have them at one time, and you accept that he didn't have them when we invaded in 2003, you have to ask where they went. Look at the map, and you see the only neighbor he has who's at all friendly is Syria.

But, yes, I agree, it's simply a hypothesis. I'd be interested to hear better ones, though, ones that do not begin, "He had no WMDs..." He had them all right. What did he do with them?

[Earthborn]

If Straw can paint a disturbing picture of Saddam's failure to comply perhaps Blix can paint a rosy picture of Saddam's failure to comply.I certainly don't see read Blix' words as a 'rosy picture'.Saddam was ordered to comply and he didn't.Saddam did not comply fully on 27 January 2003. You do understand what that means, don't you? It means that he might have complied fairly well but not totally on 27 January 2003. It also means he could have started to comply fully sometime after 27 January 2003. Hans Blix does not seem to report anything that might be interpreted as 'cooperation was insufficient' on 7 March 2003.Oh yes, the great and powerful Blix.Yes, that's the one. The great-and-powerful, nuanced-and-carefully-weighing-his-words, not-jumping-to-conclusions, not-making-a-mountain-out-of-every-mole-hill-but-honestly-reporting-every-reason-for-concern, not-taking-any-sides-but-doing-his-work-neutrally, still-convinced-that-the-Bush-administration-honestly-believed-Saddam-had-WMD-and-was-not-deliberately-lying Hans Blix.

He said that Iraq may or may not have Weapons of Mass Destruction but that there was not enough evidence at the time he said it to definitively decide one way or the other, and by golly: he later turned out to be 100% correct!

And btw: you were the one who brought up Blix' May 7 report to prove your point. And that's a very reasonable thing to do too. After all Hans Blix was the one Saddam Hussein was supposed to comply with, and Hans Blix was the one who had the job of reporting whether Saddam Hussein was complying, so who better to ask whether Saddam Hussein was complying to Hans Blix than the directly involved Hans Blix? Directly involved Saddam Hussein, maybe?

It was a reasonable thing to do to prove your point. I'm sorry that it does not actually prove your point.Maybe we should just trust that the record says what the record says.Yes, let's.

Who was it who wrote the record? Oh, yeah, some bloke named... Hans Blix.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Riiiight... :rolleyes:

According to that logic, I must really love Shanek, then. :)

I wasn't going to be the one to say it... :o

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I certainly don't see read Blix' words as a 'rosy picture'. As rosy as straw's was bleak. But then the operative word in your sentence is "I".

Saddam did not comply fully on 27 January 2003. You do understand what that means, don't you? Yeah, he was warned to cooperate fully and he was found to not cooperate fully. This fact somehow vaporizes when it is brought up.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003 (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm)

While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. I hope this attitude will change.

Another air operation problem – which was solved during our recent talks in Baghdad – concerned the use of helicopters flying into the no-fly zones. Iraq had insisted on sending helicopters of their own to accompany ours. This would have raised a safety problem. The matter was solved by an offer on our part to take the accompanying Iraq minders in our helicopters to the sites, an arrangement that had been practiced by UNSCOM in the past.

I am obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.

On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites.

The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.

Shortly thereafter, we receive protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not. Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional and, at the same time, correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner. [/b]

It means that he might have complied fairly well but not totally on 27 January 2003. And that is the salient point.

Yes, that's the one. The great-and-powerful, nuanced-and-carefully-weighing-his-words, not-jumping-to-conclusions, not-making-a-mountain-out-of-every-mole-hill-but-honestly-reporting-every-reason-for-concern, not-taking-any-sides-but-doing-his-work-neutrally, still-convinced-that-the-Bush-administration-honestly-believed-Saddam-had-WMD-and-was-not-deliberately-lying Hans Blix. Yea, 12 years to get to a point where after being told that he must comply by a given date Saddam did not comply. I can't blame Blix fully for this but 12 years, come on.

And btw: you were the one who brought up Blix' May 7 report to prove your point. And that's a very reasonable thing to do too. After all Hans Blix was the one Saddam Hussein was supposed to comply with, and Hans Blix was the one who had the job of reporting whether Saddam Hussein was complying, so who better to ask whether Saddam Hussein was complying to Hans Blix than the directly involved Hans Blix? But Blix told us that come deadline time he wasn't complying. So Bush says enough is enough and viola, hey Saddam is complying.

Sorry, 12 years of playing games and almost succeeding in breaking the will of the coalition. Saddam did not meet his deadline. Blix can sugar coat it all he want but those are the facts.

Who was it who wrote the record? Oh, yeah, some bloke named... Hans Blix. Hold on, that is not my point. I'm saying that we should not necessarily be overwhelmed with the report. Nor am I saying we should necessarily trust or not trust Blix. I'm saying that it is pointless to question what the document says. It speaks for itself. How accurate was the document? Saddam did not have WMD. We know that now. But then we also know that Saddam was playing games. And to be sure I'm not convinced that Saddam knew that he didn't have WMD.

[Earthborn]

But then the operative word in your sentence is "I".That's right. Like my hero Hans Blix, I try to be careful with my words and try not say anything that might be untrue, however unlikely.

If you have any evidence that anything he said is in any way sugarcoated, in any way unfairly rosy... if there was any problem that he should have said but didn't or downplayed or spinned into something positive... Let's hear it.Yeah, he was warned to cooperate fully and he was found to not cooperate fully.So? Is there anything in the ways the Iraqi regime did not cooperate did made it more likely that they had WMD? Was there any non-cooperation that was worth clusterbombing cities over? Or do you just demand total unquestioning obedience?But Blix told us that come deadline time he wasn't complying.Which deadline are you talking about?So Bush says enough is enough and viola, hey Saddam is complying.So he was complying? Make up your mind.But then we also know that Saddam was playing games.He never did anything you wouldn't demand of your own president if the UN demanded unconditional weapons inspections all over your country.And to be sure I'm not convinced that Saddam knew that he didn't have WMD.Which is irrelevant. If UNMOVIC got a little bit more time it would have found out one way or the other.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Which deadline are you talking about? Saddam was required to "immediately" comply. Is there something about "immediate" that you think is vague or ambiguous? His time frame was "immediate". However 1441 required inspections to begin in 45 days and an update in 60 days. After 60 days it was decided that Saddam didn't "immediately" comply.

Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm)

4
Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5
Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter[/b]Do me a favor. Read that again. Do you contend that Saddam met his obligations under 1441?

So he was complying? Oh come on. He was required to comply and he didn't. After 60 days and he was found to not have cooperated he suddenly started acting as if he was complying. Perhaps he was. The bottom line Earthborn is that for 12 years this guy has been playing games. He started acting like he was complying when he wasn't. And you want me to conclude that he was absolutely complying?

He never did anything you wouldn't demand of your own president if the UN demanded unconditional weapons inspections all over your country. BS, if my president was committing mass murder, cutting the hands and ears off of my fellow citizens, imprisoning people without any due process and causing many people to simply disappear then I would damn well wonder what the hell was taking 12 years to do something about it. NO I would not do as you suggest.

Which is irrelevant. If UNMOVIC got a little bit more time it would have found out one way or the other. 12 years. The guy had 12 years. Now the murdering, torturing, bastard is gone.

[Earthborn]

Saddam was required to "immediately" comply.'Immediately' is not a deadline, because it cannot be met. A deadline is usually set sometime in the future to give someone a limited time to do something.Do you contend that Saddam met his obligations under 1441?Technically, no.After 60 days and he was found to not have cooperated he suddenly started acting as if he was complying.Cooperation was pretty good, it was just a little short of unquestioning obedience.And you want me to conclude that he was absolutely complying?No, that's what you said yourself: "So Bush says enough is enough and viola, hey Saddam is complying."BS, if my president was committing mass murder, cutting the hands and ears off of my fellow citizens, imprisoning people without any due process and causing many people to simply disappear then I would damn well wonder what the hell was taking 12 years to do something about it.I was talking about how he reacted to the weapons inspections. If the UN demanded similar weapons inspections in the US you would probably claim the UN had no business in doing them and demand that Bush would do everything to frustrate them.

What Saddam's regime did concerning human rights is irrelevant, because it was hardly if at all an issue in justifying this war. I like to see your evidence of the hand and ear cutting, and the evidence that this was official policy and not just some bad apples misbehaving themselves. Imprisoning people without due process is something your own government also engages in.12 years. The guy had 12 years.Irrelevant. Whether he had 1.2 or 120 years, if UNMOVIC got a little bit more time, the WMD issue could have been resolved without firing a shot.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I like to see your evidence of the hand and ear cutting, and the evidence that this was official policy and not just some bad apples misbehaving themselves.

Why blame tyrants cracking down on dissent when you can blame bad apples? Heck, I bet Saddams secret police were nice as pie - except for those bad apples!

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
Yes, perhaps you are right.Perhaps.
This whole dogs biting people spiel doesn't appear to be getting us anywhere. I don't really think it has any parallel in the current situation because you yourself say that the Baathists have no chance of getting elected. How do you expect them to take the proverbial next bite if they can't come to power even when they are permitted to be participants in the election? Note I said the Iraqis don't want to give the Ba'athists the opportunity for a third bite, whereas you do.

Okay, since you've accepted that my analogy is "perhaps" right, let me ask you this: Do you believe that the Nazis should have been allowed to run for office in 1946?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Giz
Why blame tyrants cracking down on dissent when you can blame bad apples? Heck, I bet Saddams secret police were nice as pie - except for those bad apples! ...mmm... apple pie...drool...

[Ed]

Originally posted by Earthborn
What Saddam's regime did concerning human rights is irrelevant, because it was hardly if at all an issue in justifying this war. I like to see your evidence of the hand and ear cutting, and the evidence that this was official policy and not just some bad apples misbehaving themselves. Imprisoning people without due process is something your own government also engages in.Irrelevant. Whether he had 1.2 or 120 years, if UNMOVIC got a little bit more time, the WMD issue could have been resolved without firing a shot.

Boy, what an excellent example of bias.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
He never did anything you wouldn't demand of your own president if the UN demanded unconditional weapons inspections all over your country.

This is the thing that irks me about these jingosts. It's just like Afghanistan: they weren't saying they wouldn't hand over bin Laden, they said they wanted to see the evidence first. Wouldn't we do exactly the same thing if it were Afghanistan wanting one of our citizens?

I keep looking back over it and wondering exactly what Saddam was supposed to do to "prove" he had no WMDs. It's clear that Bush wasn't going to accept the fact that they were all gone. Nothing Saddam could have done would have convinced him otherwise. I think Saddam realized that, and got understandably exasperated with the whole situation.

[Giz]

Originally posted by shanek

I keep looking back over it and wondering exactly what Saddam was supposed to do to "prove" he had no WMDs. It's clear that Bush wasn't going to accept the fact that they were all gone. Nothing Saddam could have done would have convinced him otherwise. I think Saddam realized that, and got understandably exasperated with the whole situation.


Yeah, I think it's really harsh how everyone expected the worst of him just because he had a record, but how can the World rehabilitate dictators unless they're prepared to give them a second chance?

It's not as if he'd done anything really bad, I mean who hasn't invaded a couple of neighbouring states, used WMDs, backed terrorists, and threatened world peace? I know I have.

The US focused on regime change which is sad because I think they forgot that people can change too

Yours

Kim Jong Il

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Earthborn
'Immediately' is not a deadline, because it cannot be met. That is not true at all. No time is needed. Saddam was to immediately cooperate. If the inspectors showed up and he said come on in then that was immediate cooperation. If at any moment he stopped cooperating then he would be in violation.

A deadline is usually set sometime in the future to give someone a limited time to do something. And he was given 60 days to immediately cooperate. He could have started cooperating, immediately on day one. He NEVER immediately began fully cooperating.

I was talking about how he reacted to the weapons inspections. If the UN demanded similar weapons inspections in the US you would probably claim the UN had no business in doing them and demand that Bush would do everything to frustrate them. Not if Bush was doing the things I said. No.

What Saddam's regime did concerning human rights is irrelevant, because it was hardly if at all an issue in justifying this war. Sad isn't it. Humans have to live through such atrocities and the world turns a blind eye. And yes, I know that we were in bed with Saddam while much of this was going on and this is not the first time America has befriended and aided murdering bastards.

I like to see your evidence of the hand and ear cutting, and the evidence that this was official policy and not just some bad apples misbehaving themselves. Otherwise known as the "there was no holocaust defense".

Mass graves testify to Saddam's atrocities (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040312-074010-1766r)

One man in particular broke down in tears as he described the emotional and physical torture he survived. Samuels says many of the reports of torture she heard involved beatings, electrocutions and such mutilation as cutting off hands or surgically removing the ears of army deserters.

There was no end to the gruesome creativity of Saddam's secret police. Saddam's methods included using hammers to break bones, ripping out fingernails, amputating limbs with a chain saw, crucifixion, throwing live victims in acid baths and ovens, cutting loose wild dogs to attack victims, raping women in the presence of their children and husbands, cutting off a penis or a breast, and stripping children naked and forcing their parents to watch as they were stung by hornets and scorpions. The graves contain evidence of these and other sadistic crimesImprisoning people without due process is something your own government also engages in. [list=1] Not as a mater of course.

Not in an arbitrary fashion.

Not without reason (POWs not following the rules)

Not without redress.[/list=1]

Irrelevant. Whether he had 1.2 or 120 years, if UNMOVIC got a little bit more time, the WMD issue could have been resolved without firing a shot. Hindsight is wonderful isn't it. Stating that it is irrelevant doesn't make it so. After 12 years and failing to comply, again, we didn't know that it would.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
I keep looking back over it and wondering exactly what Saddam was supposed to do to "prove" he had no WMDs. Straw man. The point is that he was to cooperate. I find it galling that after all of this time people still don't get that. There is not one word in a single resolution that demands that Saddam prove that which he couldn't.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
This is the thing that irks me about these jingosts. It's just like Afghanistan: they weren't saying they wouldn't hand over bin Laden, they said they wanted to see the evidence first. Wouldn't we do exactly the same thing if it were Afghanistan wanting one of our citizens?

Again, you show your ignorance.

Osama bin Laden is not a citizen of Afghanistan. He lost his Saudi citizenship in 1994. He has no citizenship anywhere.

[Earthborn]

He NEVER immediately began fully cooperating.I don't care about total obedience. His non-cooperation was not such that it would require dropping bombs on people.Not if Bush was doing the things I said. No.Since I am not talking about that, it is irrelevant.Otherwise known as the "there was no holocaust defense".Asking for evidence that something occured is not the same as claiming that it did not occur. You should know better than that. Not as a mater of course.

Not in an arbitrary fashion.

Not without reason (POWs not following the rules)

Not without redress.I'm sure Saddam apologists will say the same about Saddam Hussein. And they might be right too, so until Saddam Hussein is proven guilty in a fair trial, I have no choice but to pressume innocence.After 12 years and failing to comply, again, we didn't know that it would.Yes, we do. Blix was making great progress and managed to answer more questions than anyone before in those 12 years.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Yes, we do. Blix was making great progress and managed to answer more questions than anyone before in those 12 years.

Actually, a lot of the answers he delivered were the same answers as his predecessor, Scott Ritter, had years before. I kept bringing Ritter's comments up on this board when all this was going on, and was pretty much flamed right and left. But what Ritter said, and what Blix was determining, and what actually ended up being the case are all the same thing.

Ritter and Blix just weren't telling the politicians what they wanted to hear. So they pulled them out (no, Saddam did not kick out the inspectors; Clinton pulled them out. That's another "fact" that "everyone knows" because the press kept repeating it uncritically, but just isn't true).

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I don't care about total obedience. I'm not sure that what you care or don't care about has any relevance. Saddam was told to immediately cooperate and he didn't.

His non-cooperation was not such that it would require dropping bombs on people. That is your opinion.

Since I am not talking about that, it is irrelevant. I got it. Only your opinion matters.

Randfan
But then we also know that Saddam was playing games.

Earthborn
He never did anything you wouldn't demand of your own president if the UN demanded unconditional weapons inspections all over your country.

RandFan
BS, if my president was committing mass murder, cutting the hands and ears off of my fellow citizens, imprisoning people without any due process and causing many people to simply disappear then I would damn well wonder what the hell was taking 12 years to do something about it. Saddam was a murdering dictator who invaded his neighbor gassed his own people and attacked Israel without provocation.

I would hope that I could take ALL of his actions when deciding whether it was appropriate for the UN to send inspectors. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you are god and get to decide what is and is not relevant.

I'm sure Saddam apologists will say the same about Saddam Hussein. They can say what ever they want. It is true for America. It is demonstrable. The fact that the courts are ruling against the Bush administration is proof.

Tell me Earthborn, how many Iraqi judges ruled against Saddam and lived to tell about it?

And they might be right too, so until Saddam Hussein is proven guilty in a fair trial, I have no choice but to presume innocence. You don't have to have such an open mind that your brains fall out.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by RandFan
I would hope that I could take ALL of his actions when deciding whether it was appropriate for the UN to send inspectors. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you are god and get to decide what is and is not relevant.


Don't forget bi-weekly potshots at US patrol flights, a serious violation in itself, commited dozens and dozens of times.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I'm sure Saddam apologists will say the same about Saddam Hussein. And they might be right too, so until Saddam Hussein is proven guilty in a fair trial, I have no choice but to pressume innocence.Yes, we do. Blix was making great progress and managed to answer more questions than anyone before in those 12 years. I wanted to say something more on this.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept. We don't have to pretend that OJ is innocent. On the other hand it is difficult for a defendant to get a fair trial if we form an opinion but not impossible. I think I could acquit a defendant that I believed guilty if the Prosecution did not make their case.

But I wouldn’t have to pretend that someone like Saddam didn’t commit atrocities.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm not sure that what you care or don't care about has any relevance. Saddam was told to immediately cooperate and he didn't.
This conversation isn't about historical retellings. It's about what we believe to have been the most ethical actions we could have possibly taken at the time of the beginning of the war. Earthborn chooses to criticize the ethics of the policies established on cooperation. Merely iterating what the policies actually were is not a sufficient rebuttal to an admonition of them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm not sure that what you care or don't care about has any relevance. Saddam was told to immediately cooperate and he didn't.

Would we have cooperated any more readily? We actually have quite a history of resisting the UN. And that's especially the case with Iraq.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
This conversation isn't about historical retellings. What the hell does this mean?

It's about what we believe to have been the most ethical actions we could have possibly taken at the time of the beginning of the war. Uh...no. Please scroll to the top of this page. You will note that Earthborn is disputing whether or not Saddam's cooperating was sufficient. That was the essence of the entire line of logic that lead to the post you quoted.

Earthborn chooses to criticize the ethics of the policies established on cooperation. That would be fine if that was what she was doing.

Merely iterating what the policies actually were is not a sufficient rebuttal to an admonition of them. Perhaps not important to your thesis but important to the conversation between Earthborn and I.

Thanks for the input anyway.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
Would we have cooperated any more readily? We actually have quite a history of resisting the UN. And that's especially the case with Iraq. I'm not certain of the relevance. It had been 12 years and we had scolded Saddam over and over like he was a petulant child, "Don't you do that, stop, not one more step Mr., you do that one more time and I'm gonna....

So we said enough is enough. Cooperate now or else. So what did he do?

Hans Blix

I am obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so. I really don't understand the need to apologize for Saddam. By all means criticize Bush. You have a good argument. Claiming that Saddam was willing to cooperate just isn't so.

[Earthborn]

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept.I disagree strongly. The way I see it, it is concept of knowledge: a fair trial is a process to determine whether someone is guilty or not. Therefore it is not possible to know whether someone is guilty before a fair trial, because this simply has not yet been determined. It is a bit like a scientific experiment designed to prove a yet unproven hypothesis: before the experiment is performed it is impossible to know whether the hypothesis is correct or not.

You can have your opinions, but you cannot claim knowledge. Your opinion is nothing more than an unproven hypothesis and might be disproven by the trial/experiment.We don't have to pretend that OJ is innocent.Yes, you do. He has been tried and found not guilty. Therefore in the eyes of the law, he's not only innocent he's also not a suspect anymore and the eyes of the law is the only thing that counts. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.But I wouldn't have to pretend that someone like Saddam didn't commit atrocities.The fact that atrocities happened under his regime does not necessarily make him guilty of them. And even if he ordered them himself does not necessarily make him guilty.

George W. Bush is ultimately responsible for the death of 15 thousand or more Iraqis, but I wouldn't dare to say that this necessarily makes him guilty of murder. It could be that he had a good reason, or thought he had a good reason. Such things can only be known after a thorough investigation and/or a fair trial.

The trial of Milosevic has been going on for close to forever now, without definitively concluding his guilt. Have you also divined how guilty he is?

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm not certain of the relevance.

I think what we would have done in Saddam's place is highly relevant.

It had been 12 years and we had scolded Saddam over and over like he was a petulant child, "Don't you do that, stop, not one more step Mr., you do that one more time and I'm gonna....

And we got the legitimate authority to do that from, where?

I really don't understand the need to apologize for Saddam.

No one's apologizing for Saddam. We're just sick of the lies. According to two separate teams of weapons inspections, Saddam got rid of his WMDs, which was the whole reason for sending them in there in the first place. Both times, after not hearing what they wanted to hear, the President (Clinton the first time and Bush the next) pulled out the inspectors and started bombing the place.

And, as a result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died. You can't say they were all like Saddam.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Giz
Why blame tyrants cracking down on dissent when you can blame bad apples? Heck, I bet Saddams secret police were nice as pie - except for those bad apples!

Earthborn's idea that Saddam's secret police numerous murders were due to "bad apples" and not due to Saddam's wishes is the exact same thing as David Irving's claim that the SS's numerous murders of jews were the work of a few overenthusiastic "bad apples" and against the Fuhrer's wishes.

It is, at least, known why Irving makes such claims--he worships Hitler and, experience shows, would say absolutely anything to make him look better. But unless Earthborn worships Saddam to the point of deification, which is highly unlikely to say the least, I cannot for the life of me imagine what would make her say something like that with a straight face.

Is there even a word for her kind of condition? "moral insanity", perhaps? "ethical blindness"?

Go figure. :con2:

[Earthborn]

Earthborn's idea that Saddam's secret police numerous murders were due to "bad apples" and not due to Saddam's wishes is the exact same thing as David Irving's claim that the SS's numerous murders of jews were the work of a few overenthusiastic "bad apples" and against the Fuhrer's wishes.Well, not exactly the same. The difference is many, many, many trials and 60 years of historical research. Until recently Iraq was a closed society that did not allow such investigations.

[Earthborn]

We actually have quite a history of resisting the UN.Yes, some of you even want to blow it up! :rolleyes:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I disagree strongly. The way I see it, it is concept of knowledge: a fair trial is a process to determine whether someone is guilty or not. Therefore it is not possible to know whether someone is guilty before a fair trial, because this simply has not yet been determined. What is truth? What are facts? What is knowledge?

If we had to conduct a trial before we could determine what truth is for everything in our lives then we could not even conduct our lives in any reasonable fashion.

Guilt or innocence is a legal concept. Truth in a court of law is not the same as scientific truth. In fact there are different levels of truth.

1.) By a preponderance of the evidence.

2.) Beyond a reasonable doubt.

We can find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that person can still be innocent. The resolution of a trial is not absolute, it is not even scientific. So if we want to get philosophical then the vast majority of convicted felons could be considered legally guilty but technically innocent.

Now consider a point that the supreme court had to take up. What happens when scientific evidence proves a person innocent or guilty but the legal system finds that individual not is just the opposite?

What if in the course of a trial jurors see two independent videos of a criminal committing a crime. What if there is DNA and forensic evidence that corroborates that a defendant committed a crime?

Now, having seen the evidence the judge rules it inadmissible on technical grounds?

Do we really pretend that the defendant didn't commit the crime? No. Do we vote to acquit absent any other evidence? Yes.

It is a bit like a scientific experiment designed to prove a yet unproven hypothesis: before the experiment is performed it is impossible to know whether the hypothesis is correct or not. If I saw a person commit a crime I don't have to pretend that I didn't.

If the evidence is so overwhelming that I would have to suspend my disbelief to suppose a defendant is not guilty I don't have to pretend that he is.

Again, innocence and guilt is a legal concept. I will and have conceded that there is a benefit to our society for us to avoid forming opinions.

You can have your opinions, but you cannot claim knowledge. Agreed, at least and unless one has direct evidence.

If you walk out your front door and there is snow on the ground do you really need a trial and or scientific experiments to determine whether it snowed? You have no direct evidence. The snow is circumstantial evidence that it snowed. (yes it is (http://www.sband.org/Pattern_Jury_Instructions/viewarticle.asp?parent_category=criminal&ID=61)) You only have an opinion. Just as we can form opinions about the snow we can form opinions about whether or not a defendant committed a crime.

Your opinion is nothing more than an unproven hypothesis and might be disproven by the trial/experiment. As is my hypothesis about the snow.

Yes, you do. He has been tried and found not guilty. Therefore in the eyes of the law, he's not only innocent he's also not a suspect anymore and the eyes of the law is the only thing that counts. No I don't! And I don't. He is guilty. Is someone going to now arrest me?

Look, if we have a trial and 12 people determine that Intelligent Design is a valid theory do I really have to accept that? I am capable of analyzing the evidence and forming an opinion. I don't have to pretend that they are correct. There is so much evidence against OJ, it has been analyzed by some of the best legal and scientific minds and there is simply very little room to suppose that he didn't do it. BTW, he was found to have committed the crime in a civil case.

The fact that atrocities happened under his regime does not necessarily make him guilty of them. Yes, you are correct. I couldn't agree more.

If this were the only evidence then I would have to form an opinion of wait and see. I'm also willing to concede that there is counter evidence or mitigating evidence that I am not familiar with. I admit that I could be wrong. If asked to serve on a jury I am convinced I could render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial.

And even if he ordered them himself does not necessarily make him guilty. I would have to disagree. That is precisely the definition of guilt for a leader.

The only out is if a leader suggests that actions be taken without actually ordering the action. See Henry II and Thomas a Becket.

George W. Bush is ultimately responsible for the death of 15 thousand or more Iraqis, but I wouldn't dare to say that this necessarily makes him guilty of murder. It could be that he had a good reason, or thought he had a good reason. Such things can only be known after a thorough investigation and/or a fair trial. WOW!!! Where have you been? Have you told anyone else this on these forums?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
No one's apologizing for Saddam. You could have surprised me. Thanks for letting us know.

And, as a result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died. You can't say they were all like Saddam. I haven't seen the evidence for this. Could you cite it?

People die in wars. Saddam was a bad guy who killed, maimed and tortured. Earthborn suggests we can't determine that yet. Ok, if that is true then we will have to wait before we can place any blame on Bush.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Earthborn's idea that Saddam's secret police numerous murders were due to "bad apples" and not due to Saddam's wishes is the exact same thing as .... ".... disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values ...."

Quoted from a speech by the president of the US of A.

Just joking, of course.

[demon]

shanek:
"And we got the legitimate authority to do that from, where?"

RandFan seems incapable of accepting the fact that it is up to the UNSC to pronounce upon UNSC resolutuions and not the likes of Jack Straw, Jack Frost, Jack **** or RandFan himself.

It is clear that Iraq was in breach of previous UNSC Resolutions up to but not including 1441.
Iraq was still in breach of previous resolutions after 1441 was adopted by the UNSC.
However, if one starts claiming that Iraq was in actual breach of UNSC 1441 then you have some explaining to do.

Iraq was not in breach of 1441 itself...just remember, the essence of 1441 was fairly simple: it stated that Iraq still had not complied with previous Resolutions and that it had a "final opportunity" to comply with its obligations.

The only way that Iraq could have been in breach of 1441 itself, would have been if the UN decided that Iraq had failed to meet the requirements of 1441 itself -this NEVER happened. Even on the issue of the Declaration, the Security Council never declared that Iraq had breached 1441, but the US did. This is meaningless as far as proving that Iraq was in breach of 1441.

It is only the UNSC that can decide if a country (any country), is in breach of a resolution or not. Hence, where people say Iraq was in breach of Resolution 1441 they are not correct.
Resolution 1441 states that Iraq was in breach of +previous+ Resolutions.

A Resolution cannot find that it has not been complied with.
It`s illogical if 1441 had found Iraq in breach of 1441 as this would have been immediately, literally the second it was passed. What would be the point? What 1441 did was to "recall" that Iraq had still not fully complied with previous Resolutions and say to Iraq "you have one last chance". If the UN Security Council had met and decided that Iraq had failed to take this final opportunity then (and this is an important point), they would have "resolved" this and a new Resolution 1442 would have declared Iraq in breach of 1441. This never happened.

It`s pretty obvious that what gets peoples goat about this is that the UN wasn`t doing exactly what the US wanted it to do in this case and that was to sanction an illegal war against a defenseless country.

[Darat]

Originally posted by demon

...snip...

It`s pretty obvious that what gets peoples goat about this is that the UN wasn`t doing exactly what the US wanted it to do in this case and that was to sanction an illegal war against a defenseless country.

" defenseless country "? What do you mean? A country with a lesser military force then the USA? If that is so then all countries in the world (bar the USA) are "defenceless".

Iraq had a standing army, an army that had just a few years early invaded another country, how can Iraq be described as a “defenseless country�.

[CFLarsen]

Although not a superpower, Iraq was hardly "defenseless". (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/iraq/index.html)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Darat
" defenseless country "? What do you mean? A country with a lesser military force then the USA? If that is so then all countries in the world (bar the USA) are "defenceless".

Iraq had a standing army, an army that had just a few years early invaded another country, how can Iraq be described as a “defenseless country�.

It was well known in intelligence circles that the Iraqi army was only a shadow of it's former self. Don't forget the Turkey Shoot at the end of the Gulf War. The armed forces never recovered, the tanks were outdated, the air force in bad shape. Saddam had no capacity to embark on any more adventures, and the blockade ensured he wouldn't be able to.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It was well known in intelligence circles that the Iraqi army was only a shadow of it's former self. Don't forget the Turkey Shoot at the end of the Gulf War. The armed forces never recovered, the tanks were outdated, the air force in bad shape. Saddam had no capacity to embark on any more adventures, and the blockade ensured he wouldn't be able to.

It still took the Coalition forces from March 19th to May 1st - 44 days - to finish off the Iraqi forces. If that is "defenseless", then I hate to think what will happen, if we have to go up against someone who is not.

[Darat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It was well known in intelligence circles that the Iraqi army was only a shadow of it's former self. Don't forget the Turkey Shoot at the end of the Gulf War. The armed forces never recovered, the tanks were outdated, the air force in bad shape. Saddam had no capacity to embark on any more adventures, and the blockade ensured he wouldn't be able to.

But that does not mean the country was defenceless.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It still took the Coalition forces from March 19th to May 1st - 44 days - to finish off the Iraqi forces. If that is "defenseless", then I hate to think what will happen, if we have to go up against someone who is not.

I didn't say defenseless, just pointing out that the Iraqi Army was not in any position to put up a serious defence, let alone attack anyone. There was never any question as to who would win.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I didn't say defenseless, just pointing out that the Iraqi Army was not in any position to put up a serious defence, let alone attack anyone. Yes, you're right. That's why the Saudis wanted U.S. troops in their country. They wanted us to help them repel another invasion by them bloodthirsty Bahrainians...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Yes, some of you even want to blow it up! :rolleyes:

Come on—he was kidding! As he said, "I'm a Libertarian; you know I'd rather sell it!" :p

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
But that does not mean the country was defenceless.

I wouldn't say "defenseless," but they certainly posed no threat to the US and weren't really that much of a threat to their neighbors anymore.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
However, if one starts claiming that Iraq was in actual breach of UNSC 1441 then you have some explaining to do. P1 1441 ordered Saddam to "immediately" cooperate (fact).

P2 Saddam was given 60 days to demonstrate his cooperation and lack of obstruction or face "serious consequences" (fact).

P3 Any obstruction would be evidence of NOT "immediately" cooperating.

P4 Saddam did not immediately cooperate (fact).

C Saddam was in breach of 1441.

Damn some things are easy.

[Skeptic]

Apparently, for AUP, the war was both a "Turkey Shoot" (as in this thread) AND a "Quagmire" (as in a zillion other threads)--depending on whether AUP feels like blaming the USA for being "imperialistic against defenseless countries" or "foolishly falling into a Vietnam-like quagmire" at the moment.

That the two accusations are mutually contradictory are, as usual, of no account in his view. After all, how can two accusations, bothof which blame the USA, POSSIBLY contradict each other? Preposterous! We all know that "the USA is wrong in everything it does" is the one BIG TRUTH, so everything that agrees with that is also a truth, and truth cannot contradict truth, you know.

[demon]

RandFan:
"Saddam was in breach of 1441.

Damn some things are easy."

Only if you are still fantasizing you are the UNSC.
You aren`t Napoleon too by any chance?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
RandFan:
"Saddam was in breach of 1441.

Damn some things are easy."

Only if you are still fantasizing you are the UNSC.
You aren`t Napoleon too by any chance? I numbered my premises to make it easy for you and you still got it wrong. You no more have to be the UNSC to realize that Saddam was in breach than you have to be Japanese to know that wasabi is hot.

[demon]

UNSC Resolution 1441 was a UNSC Resolution right?
As the UNSC is the only body with the authority to decide if a UNSC Resolution has been breeched, did the UNSC declare that Saddam was in breach of UNSC Resolution 1441 or did a bunch or warmongers like yourself decide it?

There, I made it easy for you Napoleon. You just seem unable to accept or comprehend the fact that it`s not up to you or the good ol`US of A to pronouce upon UNSC Resolutions.
Are you just thick or so bloody minded you won`t admit this?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
UNSC Resolution 1441 was a UNSC Resolution right?
As the UNSC is the only body with the authority to decide if a UNSC Resolution has been breeched, did the UNSC declare that Saddam was in breach of UNSC Resolution 1441 or did a bunch or warmongers like yourself decide it?

There, I made it easy for you Napoleon. You just seem unable to accept or comprehend the fact that it`s not up to you or the good ol`US of A to pronouce upon UNSC Resolutions.
Are you just thick or so bloody minded you won`t admit this? Formaly, no. It is not up to me. As a practical matter, THEY ABSOLUTELY WERE IN BREACH.

I posted the facts jerk off. Is there something in the facts you disagree with? Absent that go screw yourself.

[demon]

Ranfan:
"Formaly, no. It is not up to me."

I`ll finish that for you "..or anyone else apart from the UNSC"
At last LOL.
Now go see someone about that Napoleon complex...makes you look an idiot every time.
Ta ta.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Note I said the Iraqis don't want to give the Ba'athists the opportunity for a third bite, whereas you do.

Originally posted by BPSCG
I believe the Iraqis comprehend exactly how bad the Ba'athists are, which is why you heard no outcry about the poor, persecuted Ba'athists' not being allowed to run for office.
There exists no opportunity through democratic means even according to your own posts.
Originally poste by BPSCG
Okay, since you've accepted that my analogy is "perhaps" right, let me ask you this: Do you believe that the Nazis should have been allowed to run for office in 1946?
Yes.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
Ranfan:
"Formally, no. It is not up to me." Yeah, I will tell the truth. I'm one of the few. I'm certain we will never see that from you.

I`ll finish that for you "..or anyone else apart from the UNSC" I don't agree.

At last LOL. What are you crowing about d!ck head? This is a straw man. I never said that it was formally up to me. I was stating fact as if you would no what fact is if it bit you in the ass.

Now go see someone about that Napoleon complex...makes you look an idiot every time. Now I will prove that you lack the balls, spine or decency to admit that I was right.

*I admitted that you were right because I am not a dishonest jerk like you. Now can you admit that I WAS right and Saddam did not immediately cooperate as ordered by 1441?

Ta ta. Yeah, run and hide you slimy weasel.

*Though this was just a straw man which is the only logic you are capable of arguing.

[demon]

Randfan:
"Yeah, I will tell the truth. I'm one of the few. I'm certain we will never see that from you"

Hmmm, do you remember your little bout of deceptive plagiarism last year on this very subject??

"Much of the book details the two wars that UNSCOM waged. Sadly, it lost both. The first and the better known is the daily war of attrition it fought with Iraq...?"
(http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=39597&perpage=40&highlight=unscom%20waged&pagenumber=4)

Was that a quote from the book? No. Was it your opinion after having read the book? No. Had you ever read the book? No. It was an Amazon.com CUSTOMER REVIEW written by someone who had bought Richard Butler`s book "The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Crisis of Global Security".
You didn`t even mention that or source it when you used it in your reply. You are the dishonest debater here, some might even say "slimy weasel".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
Hmmm, do you remember your little bout of deceptive plagiarism last year on this very subject?? You are a lying little turd.

RandFan
I sincerely apologize. I did not try to do as you characterize. I admit that the appearance looks bad from your stand point. [/b]I did something that you haven't the balls to do. When I made a mistake I owned up to it and apologized.

And d!ckhead, I quoted the material. How on earth can you accuse me of plagiarism when I quoted the material. I simply did not quote it.

But I have you against the ropes. You know you can't deny that you are wrong. You will do anything to slime ball your way out of this one.

You didn`t even mention that or source it when you used it in your reply. Nice try at obfuscation. Now, do you have the balls to admit that you were wrong?

You are the dishonest debater here, some might even say "slimy weasel". I am human. I make mistakes. Unlike most including you I will admit to the mistake and apologize. You lack even the human decency to acknowledge an apology. You represent the very worst here at this forum.

So how about it? Are you going to continue to try and change the debate or are you going to grow a spine?

Yes, I made a mistake nearly a year ago. 1 of a few mistakes out of 4415 and whenever called on a mistake I had the honesty and decency to own up to it and apologize.

Let's see if you can do the same. I'm guessing that you will continue to harp on something I apologized for over a year ago. You can't even accept an honest and sincere apology.

One last time since you have NEVER, EVER answered the question, why would I quote something if I meant to plagiarize it?

Please Demon, we want to know? ........ no answer huh?

Weasel.

[RandFan]

Oh, and BTW, what F***ing difference does it make that it was a review? That is just ad hominem. You are attacking the person giving the information and not the information.

WAS THE INOFRMATION WRONG?

[shanek]

I would just like to point out whatsoever that I have absolutely nothing to do with this p!ssing match. Thank you for your time. We now return you to your regularly scheduled badinage...

[RandFan]

Everyone makes mistakes, it takes character to admit your mistakes and apologize. Everyone is wronged from time to time. It takes character to accept an apology and forgive. --RandFan Sr.

[demon]

You apologized because you got caught out...seems that counts as some sort of honour in your world. Not mine.
Very big of you.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by RandFan
Everyone makes mistakes, it takes character to admit your mistakes and apologize. Everyone is wronged from time to time. It takes character to accept an apology and forgive. --RandFan Sr.

Let it go. We all know it's Demon.

Deep breath. Exhale slowly. Repeat.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
You apologized because you got caught out...seems that counts as some sort of honour in your world. Not mine.
Very big of you. Most folks I know would have just ignored it. Pretending like they didn't see your post. You know, just like you are doing right now. I proved my argument and you just pretend that it didn't happen. You refuse to address it. I don't do that demon.

I note you refuse to answer my questions.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Let it go. We all know it's Demon.

Deep breath. Exhale slowly. Repeat. Thanks Mycroft. You are right. I don't suffer fools gladly. I'll have to work on that.

[demon]

RF
"You are attacking the person giving the information and not the information."

No I was attacking you for pretending it was your own work.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
RF
"You are attacking the person giving the information and not the information."

No I was attacking you for pretending it was your own work. Still obfuscating?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by RandFan
Thanks Mycroft. You are right. I don't suffer fools gladly. I'll have to work on that.

Just remember he's baiting you with crap like that because he's lost the argument...and he knows it. If he had something intelligent to say, he’d say it. Because he doesn’t, he will settle for irking you and just hope nobody notices he didn’t respond to your point.

[demon]

Still obfuscating?
About what?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Just remember he's baiting you with crap like that because he's lost the argument...and he knows it. If he had something intelligent to say, he’d say it. Because he doesn’t, he will settle for irking you and just hope nobody notices he didn’t respond to your point. Yeah, his last post proves you right.

[demon]

RF:
"Yes, I made a mistake nearly a year ago."

A "mistake"....riiiight;)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, since you've accepted that my analogy is "perhaps" right, let me ask you this: Do you believe that the Nazis should have been allowed to run for office in 1946?Originally posted by Batman Jr. Yes. Okay, I'll give you points for consistency, at least.

Now, you have to admit, Germany's post-1945 experiment in democracy has worked out rather well. Do you think it would have worked out better with the Nazi party being allowed to participate?

BTW, I found out last night that the Allies decided that West Germany was such a basket case after the war, that elections in 1946 would hinder Germany's re-entry into the community of civilized nations. Don't know exactly what the line of reasoning was, but in any case, West Germany didn't have elections until something like 1948 or '50. It would seem that we're pushing Iraq towards true democracy faster than we did Germany. Interesting...

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Randfan:
Let's see if you can do the same. I'm guessing that you will continue to harp on something I apologized for over a year ago. You can't even accept an honest and sincere apology.

One last time since you have NEVER, EVER answered the question, why would I quote something if I meant to plagiarize it?

Please Demon, we want to know? ........ no answer huh?

Don't hold your breath.

I was born in a hospital run by Franciscan nuns. I was educated in a school called Holy Rosary College. I went to university in an institution that started out as a seminary.

Demon has formed the impression that I'm a Protestant bigot. Go figure.

Originally posted by Demon:
Still obfuscating?
About what?

The IRA, if our past shared experiences are anything to go by.
;)

[Furious]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, I'll give you points for consistency, at least.

Now, you have to admit, Germany's post-1945 experiment in democracy has worked out rather well. Do you think it would have worked out better with the Nazi party being allowed to participate?

BTW, I found out last night that the Allies decided that West Germany was such a basket case after the war, that elections in 1946 would hinder Germany's re-entry into the community of civilized nations. Don't know exactly what the line of reasoning was, but in any case, West Germany didn't have elections until something like 1948 or '50. It would seem that we're pushing Iraq towards true democracy faster than we did Germany. Interesting...

I wouldn't say pushing Iraqis towards so much as they were simply more ready for it. They were sufficiently de-Ba'athed(?) prior to the election, and I think that largely was without coalition influence.

Despite his claims to the contrary, I don't really think Saddam Hussein enjoyed the wide popularity of his countrymen. While much of Germany was disturbingly indifferent to Nazi atrocities, I think for the most part they enjoyed Germany's rise to power enough such that while they may have disagreed with implementation and some of the ideology, they were willing to sacrifice some principles for pride in relation to the prevailing sentiment after the Treaty of Versailles. Not that Iraqis are not nationalistic, but I don't think many Iraqis were all that proud of what Saddam had done for them like the Germans were of Hitler and the Nazis.

Also, while there are many examples of innocent casualties, the defeat of the Ba'athist regime was not nearly as destructive to the Iraqi people as it was in the case of Nazi Germany, so overall I imagine there is less resentment of the coalition in Iraq than there was of the Allies in Germany.

I don't think the Ba'athists were as successful (despite being in power longer) about tying national identity to their party as the Nazis were about tying Germany to theirs.

So while I better understand the reasoning for not allowing the Nazi party to be included in the elections in 1946 and understand the same reasoning for not allowing the Ba'athists in Iraq in 2005, I think not allowing them on the ballot was a bit heavy handed since the comparisons are not very similar. To put it more succiently, Iraqis were not a basket case. :)

At any rate, it is silly that Germany doesn't allow the Nazi party on the ballot in this age. They'd make more of a fool of themselves than they'd have any real chance of getting elected.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, I'll give you points for consistency, at least.

Now, you have to admit, Germany's post-1945 experiment in democracy has worked out rather well. Do you think it would have worked out better with the Nazi party being allowed to participate?

BTW, I found out last night that the Allies decided that West Germany was such a basket case after the war, that elections in 1946 would hinder Germany's re-entry into the community of civilized nations. Don't know exactly what the line of reasoning was, but in any case, West Germany didn't have elections until something like 1948 or '50. It would seem that we're pushing Iraq towards true democracy faster than we did Germany. Interesting...
I'd just use your same argument against you in the case of Germany as well: Was there a massive, debilitating outcry at the banning of the Nazi party? If the answer to that question is an indication of anything, how could they win support in the election?

And how can you call it "true democracy"?