 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 12/15/2003 3:00 AM (GMT -6) |   | I was in favor of the war, but was disappointed that the administration felt the need to exaggerate the WMD claims. In my opinion, our justification for being there was simple: you don't fully cooperate with weapons inspectors, we must come in by force and make sure you don't have any. In a post-9/11 world, we know now that we cannot afford to wait to be struck first.
I found it interesting, too, that Sadaam, like many tyrants I suppose, was not as willing to die as he expected others to be. Here's a man who offered $25,000 a head to every suicide bomber who killed Israelis in the "holy war" against the Zionists, who trained thousands of Fedayeen to commit suicide to kill the American invaders. And when he is confronted by his American captors, armed with a pistol and two AK-47s, his first words are "I want to negotiate." What a wretched man, with no convictions other than sating his own pleasure.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/15/2003 4:27 AM (GMT -6) | | | People in power are survivors...they are always behind the scenes and are the ultimate cowards because their motivation is always self-preservation. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 12/15/2003 6:07 AM (GMT -6) | | More bizarre SHussein details...
Bearing Questions, 4 New Iraqi Leaders Pay Hussein a Visit
December 15, 2003
By IAN FISHER
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 14 - The wild gray beard was gone, and
he sat on a metal army cot, just awake from a nap, in socks
and black slippers. He was not handcuffed. He did not
recognize all his visitors, but they recognized him. That
was the purpose of the visit: to help confirm that he was,
in fact, Saddam Hussein.
What came next in the Sunday afternoon meeting, according
to people in the room, was an extraordinary 30 minutes, in
which four new leaders of Iraq pointedly questioned the
nation's deposed and now captured leader about his
tyrannical rule. Mr. Hussein, they said, was defiant and
unrepentant but very much defeated.
"The world is crazy," said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a Governing
Council member in the room on Sunday after Mr. Hussein was
captured near his hometown, Tikrit. "I was in his torture
chamber in 1979, and now he was sitting there, powerless in
front of me without anybody stopping me from doing anything
to him. Just imagine. We were arguing, and he was using
very foul language."
The carefully managed event gave the four men who had spent
decades opposing the ruler they regard as an oppressor of
their country a rare chance to confront him. Though he
spoke forcefully, the haggard Mr. Hussein was now the
prisoner, and his opponents seemed to gain some legitimacy
as leaders through the meeting in which they said they had
called him to task on behalf of their nation.
Ahmad Chalabi, a council member and head of the Iraqi
National Congress who was also in the room, said: "He was
quite lucid. He had command of his faculties. He would not
apologize to the Iraqi people. He did not deny any of the
crimes he was confronted with having done. He tried to
justify them."
After Mr. Hussein's capture in an eight-foot-deep hole that
one council member said was filled with "rats and mice,"
the four leaders were taken by helicopter on Sunday
afternoon to a military base, at a location they would not
disclose. In addition to Mr. Rubaie and Mr. Chalabi, two
others were aboard: Adnan Pachachi, a council member who
was the foreign minister before Mr. Hussein came to power,
and Adel Abdel Mahdi, who represents the Shiite religious
body, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in
Iraq.
Two American leaders in Iraq were there too: L. Paul Bremer
III, the American civilian administrator of Iraq; and Lt.
Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top military commander in Iraq.
The room was small, Mr. Rubaie said, and General Sanchez
asked the men if they would like to see him through a
window or by camera.
"We said, `No, we want to talk to him,' " Mr. Rubaie said.
Aides to the men differed slightly about what happened
next. One said Mr. Hussein, who they said had just woken
up, did not recognize any of his visitors. Another said he
recognized Mr. Chalabi and asked him to introduce the
others.
"Saddam turned to Pachachi and said: `You were the foreign
minister of Iraq. What are you doing with these people?' "
one aide said.
Mr. Rubaie said he had asked the first question which, he
said, was met with a brutal and dismissive joke. He said he
had asked why Mr. Hussein had killed two leading Shiite
clerics, Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Sadr in 1980 and
Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr in 1999.
The word "sidr" means "chest" in Arabic, and Mr. Hussein
replied, "As sidr or ar rijl?" That translates as: "The
chest or the foot?"
The men then asked Mr. Hussein about events in his nearly
35 years in power that officials in the United States and
elsewhere cite in accusing the former ruler. They cited
these examples:
¶Asked about the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds
in the northern Iraqi town of Halabja in 1988, in which an
estimated 5,000 people were killed, Mr. Hussein said,
according to his visitors, that this was the work of Iran,
at war with Iraq at the time.
¶Asked about the mass graves of tens of thousands of Iraqis
uncovered since Mr. Hussein was toppled from power in the
American-led offensive this spring, Mr. Rubaie said Mr.
Hussein answered: "Ask their relatives. They were thieves,
and they ran away from the battlefields with Iran and from
the battlefields of Kuwait."
¶Asked why he invaded Kuwait in 1990, provoking the
American-led assault on Iraq the next year, he said Kuwait
was rightfully a part of Iraq.
"He was not remorseful at all," Mr. Chalabi said. "It was
clear he was a complete narcissist who was incapable of
showing remorse or sympathy to other human beings."
Mr. Chalabi said Mr. Hussein had also suggested that he was
behind the recent wave of attacks against American soldiers
in Iraq since his defeat.
"He said, `I gave a speech, and I said the Americans can
come to Iraq but they can't occupy it and rule it,' " Mr.
Chalabi said. "He said, `I said I would fight them with
pistols, and I have.' "
"He didn't say it directly, but he was trying to take
credit for it," Mr. Chalabi said.
At a news conference on Sunday evening, Mr. Pachachi said
Mr. Hussein had tried to justify himself by saying Iraqis
needed a tough ruler.
"He tried to justify his crimes by saying that he was a
just but firm ruler," he said. "Of course our answer was he
was an unjust ruler responsible for the deaths of thousands
of people."
Throughout the meeting, Mr. Hussein was calm but often used
foul language. Mr. Pachachi said he looked "tired and
haggard." Mr. Bremer and General Sanchez, they said, did
not speak, though Mr. Chalabi said Mr. Hussein was
"deferential and respectful to the Americans."
"You can conclude from that some aspect that he was
reconciled to his situation," he said.
"The most important fact: Had the roles been reversed, he
would have torn us apart and cut us into small pieces after
torture," Mr. Chalabi said. "This contrast was paramount in
my mind, how we treated him and how he would have treated
us."
Mr. Rubaie said: "One thing which is very important is that
this man had with him underground when they arrested him
two AK-47's and did not shoot one bullet. I told him, `You
keep on saying that you are a brave man and a proud Arab.'
I said, `When they arrested you why didn't you shoot one
bullet? You are a coward.' "
"And he started to use very colorful language," he said.
"Basically he used all his French."
"I was so angry because this guy has caused so much
damage," Mr. Rubaie added. "He has ruined the whole
country. He has ruined 25 million people."
"And I have to confess that the last word was for me," he
continued. "I was the last to leave the room and I said,
`May God curse you. Tell me, when are you going to be
accountable to God and the day of judgment? What are you
going to tell him about Halabja and the mass graves, the
Iran-Iraq war, thousands and thousands executed? What are
you going to tell God?' He was exercising his French
language."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/15/international/middleeast/15XCOU.html?ex=1072494639&ei=1&en=4c3db4461d5fd897
Niebuhr thought that sustained moral energy in politics depended on religion's power to mobilize reason along with self-transcending love. The prophetic tradition, meanwhile, gave Jews and Christians some protection against the temptation to identify their social causes with God's will. Lincoln's second inaugural address expressed the prophetic insight, "The almighty has His own purposes." | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/15/2003 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | | We are to have compassion on everyone as individuals, but we must also be sure justice is brought about by society for the victims. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 12/15/2003 11:04 AM (GMT -6) | | A friend of mine e-mailed this to me, and I thought it was interesting.
IRAQ
One might think of Iraq as "only" an oil rich nation, ruled by an evil dictator for 30 years, possibly supporting terrorists. But here are a few important facts regarding the important history and roles that this nation has played down through history:
Did you know:
1. The garden of Eden was in Iraq. (It sure doesn't look much like Paradise on earth today thanks to Saddam Hussein.)
2. Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, was the cradle of civilization!
3. Noah built the ark in Iraq.
4. The Tower of Babel was in Iraq.
5. Abraham was from Ur, which is in Southern Iraq!
6. Isaac's wife Rebekah is from Nahor which is in Iraq.
7. Jacob met Rachel in Iraq.
8. Jonah preached in Nineveh - which is in Iraq.
9. Assyria, which is in Iraq, conquered the ten tribes of Israel.
10. Amos cried out in Iraq!
11. Babylon, which is in Iraq, destroyed Jerusalem.
12. Daniel was in the lion's den in Iraq!
13. The 3 Hebrew children were in the fire in Iraq. (That's good news to know because JESUS has been in Iraq too as the 4th person in the fiery furnace!)
14. Belshazzar, the King of Babylon saw the "writing on the wall" in Iraq. (Which hopefully Saddam will too!)
15. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried the Jews captive into Iraq.
16. Ezekiel preached in Iraq.
17. The wise men were from Iraq. (Where are the "wise" men today?)
18. Peter preached in Iraq.
19. The "Empire of Man," described in Revelation, is called Babylon, which was a city in Iraq!
So, is the Iraq important in centuries past, still important today?
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
whasssuuuppp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210
| Posted 12/15/2003 8:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Consider:
Hussein became president/dictator of Iraq in 1979. In late 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was dispatched by then-President Ronald Reagan to Iraq to meet with Saddam Hussein as part of an envoy sent to restore official relations between Iraq and the United States, for the first time since 1967 (full diplomatic relations were restored between the two countries in late 1984). Rumsfeld made another visit to Baghdad in 1984, this time meeting with Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. Around the time of this visit (late March, 1984), the U.N. reported that Iraq had dropped bombs laced with chemical weapons (mustard gas) in Iran as part of the ongoing Iran-Iraq war. In fact, an official state department report from early March 1984 also reported that evidence indicated that Iraq had used lethal chemical weapons against Iran. After full diplomatic relations were re-instated, Hussein took full advantage of his freedom to purchase U.S.-made goods (helicopters, weapons, ammunition, and so on) that ended up in the hands of his military. It has been reported that these U.S.-purchased helicoptors were used in the poison gas attack on Kurdish citizens in 1988. The U.S. Senate passed sanctions that would have prevented Iraq from further purchasing U.S. technology. The White House did not pass it.
And NOW...well now Hussein's actions are seen as immoral, terroristic, murderous...and this is not to say that they AREN'T. BUT...why are his actions considered this way NOW, but they supposedly WEREN'T back in the 80s?? We KNEW Hussein both possessed and used chemical weapons. THIS IS NOT A SURPRISE! Rumsfeld friggin' helped restore FULL DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS with Iraq with FULL KNOWLEDGE of what Hussein had already done, and was capable of doing. We've known about Iraq's chemical weapons abilities for decades, we took Iraq's side in a war in which they used chemical weapons (the Iraq/Iran war). But the Iranians were bad people, right? Of course we had to side with Iraq, make friends with Saddam, and turn a blind eye to his terror, because at least it meant we had an ally fighing the evil Iranians.
Everyone can think whatever they want to about Saddam Hussein, and I'm sure not about to argue that he was a saint or anything. But it's ironic that we judge Hussein for the things he has done, while conveniently forgetting the role our nation played in supporting his crimes. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/16/2003 6:05 AM (GMT -6) | | The politics between countries is far more complicated than any of us realizes. Therefore I would prefer to give our country the benefit of the doubt. Regardless of the weapons given, SH had the choice of how to use them. Our country must make hard decisions as to who to support and who to oppose. Sometimes we make friends with countries who are evil to (hopefully) influence them to good, other times simply because they are the lesser of two evils (not unlike political canditates!). Just as I do not expect my country to be perfect (unlike some) I do not expect that every decision is going to be righteous.
And, yes, DLW, sometimes we make decisions to replace or destablise certain countries. I have no problem with that (God seems to do that regularly...oh no, hes making America god's country!). But then, given your anomosity towards all things Bush, such comments from your corner are too be expected (and, hopefully, easily disregarded). As with most things political, people who disagree feel the cry is much more important than actually thinking things through. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 12/16/2003 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | MrIndifference wrote:
quote:
I personally thought he needed to be de-throned. It should have happened long ago and I both question the tactics and intentions behind it, but I think it is a good thing.
Amen.
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 12/16/2003 8:31 AM (GMT -6) | | 'U.S. dreamed up weapons of mass destruction'
Published December 15, 2003
Washington - Saddam Hussein denied during the initial interrogation after his capture that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, TIME magazine reported on Sunday.
Citing a United States intelligence official in Iraq, the report said that when asked if his government had such weapons Saddam replied: "No, of course not. The US dreamed them up to have a reason to go to war with us."
The news magazine reported that the official, who read a transcript of the interrogation of the former Iraqi president, said the interrogator asked: "If you had no weapons of mass destruction, then why not let the United Nations inspectors into your facilities?" Saddam's reply: "We didn't want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy."
The transcript was full of "Saddam rhetoric type stuff," said the official, who paraphrased some of Saddam's responses.
'I am sad because my people are in bondage'
According to the report, when asked, "How are you?" Saddam responded: "I am sad because my people are in bondage."
Both TIME and NEWSWEEK reported that after he was taken into custody, Saddam had been taken to a holding cell at Baghdad airport, where other top Iraqi detainees are held for interrogation.
In its report on Saddam's capture, NEWSWEEK said the former Iraqi leader identified himself as he surrendered with no resistance.
"Don't shoot," Saddam said, according to a military source quoted by Newsweek. "I am Saddam Hussein, the president of the Republic of Iraq."
[end]
------------------------------------
SOURCE:
This article was originally published on page 1 of The Daily News on
December 15, 2003
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 12/16/2003 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | SADDAM'S POWER MAY HAVE BEEN MORE WESTERN HYPERBOLE THAN TRU GRIT
Knight Ridder - Tuesday, December 16, 2003
LONDON - Now that Saddam Hussein is just another prisoner of war, a nagging prewar question has gained new force -- was he a potent threat to the national security of the United States and Britain, or was his power hyped by himself and by the West?
For more than a decade, Americans have been buffeted with stories about Saddam and his fearsome military might. The first President George Bush compared him to Adolf Hitler and said his army, the fourth-largest in the world, had to be stopped.
Bush gave the impression that Saddam, like Hitler, was a madman bent on world domination who might have the means to accomplish his goals if left unchecked.
More recently, Saddam was said to command an impressive array of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION -- where are they now? -- and was characterized by some as a cunning political and military tactician who had managed to go underground and still direct an effective insurgency against the occupying United States and British forces.
But those images of a bold and powerful man do not square with the reality that Saddam, desperate and disheveled, was pulled from a hole in the ground by U.S. soldiers with only a pistol and a suitcase full of cash to protect himself.
Some military experts say that Saddam was never really a threat to the United States or Europe, although they do believe he had the means and motive to attack Israel, a move that could have set off a regional conflict in the Middle East that might have escalated into a lethal nuclear war.
"It was always a regional threat, but Iraq was not a threat beyond the region," said Charles Heyman, a retired British major who is military editor of Jane's World Armies. "We were never even slightly worried about the Iraqi army. In 1990 we were laughing at those stories about the Republican Guard because we had seen them in action against the Iranians and they were incompetent."
He said talk of the size of Saddam's army was misleading because the troops were poorly trained and equipped with rusting, obsolete Soviet gear from the 1960s and 1970s.
"Everyone forgets that big armies don't win wars; good, well-trained armies win wars," Heyman said. "Both sides were hyping his power _ Saddam because he knew he didn't have it and was trying to pretend he did, and the West was always hyping Saddam's power, partly because they needed an enemy. The West was always making Saddam seem more powerful than he really was."
The Bush administration has maintained that Saddam posed a threat because he was developing weapons of mass destruction, which he could have used himself or passed on to outside terrorists. On Monday, President Bush again defended his decision to invade Iraq.
"I will never forget the lessons of September the 11th, 2001," he said in Washington. "Terrorists attacked us. They killed thousands of our fellow citizens. And it could happen again. And, therefore, I will deal with threats -- threats that are emerging and real.
"We gave Saddam Hussein plenty of time to heed the demands of the world, and he chose defiance. I have a duty to protect this country."
Saddam ruled by fear, and part of his strategy was to convey the image of an all-powerful leader with a fearsome array of weapons at his side. It served his purpose to have western leaders emphasize his might, even though he knew much of the information was false.
There is no question that Saddam spent much of his time in power burnishing the myth of his own invincibility. He portrayed himself as the avenger of past wrongs who would bring fresh pride to the Arab world and claimed to be a descendant of the Prophet Mohammed, the founder of Islam.
In his early years as president, before he was neutralized by Western military assaults and United Nations sanctions, Saddam told Iraqis he would match the accomplishments of King Nebuchadnezzar II, who ruled over lands that now comprise Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, Israel and Saudi Arabia in the sixth century B.C.
But his deeds rarely if ever matched his pronouncements. He promised "the mother of all battles" at the outset of the first Gulf War, but did little to repel coalition forces when they attacked. He barely managed to remain in power and lost control of large swaths of his territory.
Before the first Gulf War, when Saddam's forces were holding the oil-rich sheikdom of Kuwait, Western analysts were split over the accuracy of the first Bush administration's depiction of the Iraqi dictator as a modern-day Hitler.
Some eminent historians such as William Manchester believed Saddam's repeated attacks on his neighbors justified the comparison to Hitler. Others, like Pulitzer Prize winner Arthur Schlesinger Jr., felt that Saddam was a relatively minor tyrant who did not merit such demonization.
The Hitler analogy was also used by the current Bush administration when leading figures, including President George W. Bush, argued that failing to act against Saddam would be similar to endorsing the disastrous appeasement policy that allowed Hitler to seize most of Europe early in World War II.
Today many analysts say that Saddam's military capabilities were exaggerated by both the Bush administration and by British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the weeks and months before the war.
Blair's government reported that Saddam would be able to retaliate against an attack within 45 minutes by launching a missile against his foes. The government later backed off from that claim.
And U.S. military planners predicted that the Republican Guard -- elite or not -- would put up a fierce fight to defend Baghdad from foreign invaders. It never happened. Instead the Republican Guard melted away, just as regular units had done before them. It was a repeat of their dismal performance in the first Gulf War.
Paul Beaver, a leading British defense analyst, said it was not unusual for the Pentagon to overstate the dangers posed by Saddam's iron control of the Iraqi military. He said this technique has been used time and time again to shape public opinion.
"It's traditional for the Pentagon to hype the threat," Beaver said. "We've seen that in a number of areas. We used to see that in their assessments of Soviet military power."
A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it's "simply not true" that Pentagon officials exaggerate threats, including that posed by Saddam.
"Military officials, intelligence officials, carefully assess a threat and build plans accordingly. There was a tremendous amount of evidence that his military was a serious threat. How many Iranians died in the Iran-Iraq War? How many Kuwaitis died in Kuwait?
"It was a dictatorship, so it's kind of opaque," the official said. "But there was never any intention of hyping his military."
Other military experts say that the Bush administration intentionally made Saddam appear to be more dangerous than he really was as part of an effort to whip up public support for an invasion of Iraq.
"The perception in England is that Americans like to personify the bad guys -- Stalin, Hitler, Fidel Castro -- so they have some sort of villain they can identify and everyone can relate to," said Andrew Brooks, a military analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. "They make it easier to go to war against them."
He said that it was difficult for Bush to wage war against "international terrorism" -- a hard-to-define, amorphous concept -- but relatively easy to gain public backing for a war against a man seen as the personification of evil.
In this case, however, Brooks said the reality was far different. He said Saddam's weapons of mass destruction -- even if they existed -- posed no threat to Europe or the United States.
"Even if his weapons existed, there is no way they could have reached Paris or Berlin, much less London, and no one saw any intention to use them," he said. "Saddam was friends with the French and the Russians, why would he attack them?"
[end]
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 12/16/2003 8:39 AM (GMT -6) | |
Published Tuesday, December 16, 2003
AT TRIAL, FOCUS WILL SHIFT FROM WEAPONS
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Boston Globe
WASHINGTON - The coming trial of Saddam Hussein will blanket world media with the daily evocation of decades of atrocities.
It could recast the Iraq war from a campaign rationalized by the still-unproven threat of weapons of mass destruction to a moral undertaking justified by ending his regime's massive human-rights abuses.
Had Hussein been killed by U.S. soldiers, his final chapter would have made headlines for only a few days. But allowing himself to be taken alive offers President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair the opportunity to watch their critics squirm under a sustained flow of headlines that will emphasize the humanitarian argument for the war, even if it was not the one they most often articulated before the fighting.
While Bush yesterday offered only a pledge that the trial will be public and "stand international scrutiny," war supporters envision a televised tribunal, replete with the surviving victims and relatives of the dead offering riveting testimony of torture, massacre, and other personal encounters with horror. Opponents might be left to reconsider their assertions that it was a mistake to invade Iraq.
"Without ever appearing to be partisan, but merely by cataloging Saddam's numerous heinous crimes...it will become implicit in a lot of people's minds that this was a terrible person and that toppling and catching him was undoubtedly a moral and practical good," said John Hulsman, of the conservative Heritage Foundation. "That undermines the moralism at the base of left-wing opposition to the president's Iraq policy. It hits them where they live."
There is the chance, however, that the trial will not play smoothly for supporters of U.S. policy.
Yesterday, Iran said that it was preparing a criminal complaint over Saddam's war crimes from the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, in which about 300,000 Iranians were killed - including many who died in chemical-weapons attacks by the Iraqi Army. Iraq was supported by the United States - and many other nations - when Saddam invaded Iran the year after its radical Islamic revolution. According to the Arab-language television network Al-Jazeera, an Iranian spokesman said yesterday that after the Iraqis try their former dictator, an international court "should determine who equipped this dictator to disrupt our region."
[end]
--------------
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
|
whasssuuuppp
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 210
| Posted 12/16/2003 8:51 AM (GMT -6) | | "If the U.S. really believes that supporting terrorists makes you as guilty as the terrorists themselves, then it would have to put on trial most of its military and political leadership over the last handful of administrations, and more."
Peter McClaren
I understand realpolitik and I agree it often plays a role in decisions made by nations. Fine. But we need to cut out the good vs. evil****that is so often propogated by our nation. The people in the world see right through it. They know that the United States has been caught in bed, so to speak, with too many brutal leaders to have any right to speak about who is really "evil" in the world. Call it what it is--when Saddam was our ally in the 1980s, he was in possesion of chemical weapons, had expressed interest in nuclear weapons (and interestingly enough, had was in negotiations with Jacques Chirac about this), and had committed known human rights abuses against his own people...but we still chose him as an ally. Now we call the exact same behaviors by Saddam evil. If they are evil now, they were evil then.
I am happy that Saddam is gone from Iraq, but sad that we once were allies with this man and turned a blind eye to the terrible things he did. Again, realpolitik comes into play, because at the time we considered the evil of the Iranian regieme "more" evil than Hussein, and therefore chose to put up with Hussein's craziness. But again, this only reinforces my point that in this world the distinctions between "good" and "evil" are complicated, and it serves as a reminder of why much of the world greatly resents the U.S.'s continual insistence that we are "good" and we are unilaterally fighting the "axis of evil." It's more gray than that... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 12/16/2003 9:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika wrote:
quote:
I agree. Good versus bad is for selling purposes; just tell us the truth.
Amen, Brother.
------------
SEE:
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION thread:
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2260&whichpage=2&SearchTerms=%2Cwmd
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 12/16/2003 9:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg Boyd wrote:
quote:
I wasn't sold on the war, but I sure didn't like this guy.
BJS wrote:
quote:
I was in favor of the war, but was disappointed that the administration felt the need to exaggerate the WMD claims...
Regardless of how we, as individuals -- may feel about the war in Iraq,
WE ALL celebrate the end of Saddam's reign of terror . . .
<>< | | Back to Top | | |
| 43 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:19 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|