[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy, do you give your own threads 4 stars?[/quote]
So odd - scroll through the last three or so pages of threads here and you will find that every thread started by Lixy has over four stars.
Hmm.
What’s the matter guys? Nobody voting for your fantabulous threads?
Sniff.
BUMP
[quote]lixy wrote:
Can you honestly tell me that getting rid of Saddam was worth the hundreds of thousands dead, countless mutilated, and millions of refugees? Saddam didn’t wake up one morning and decided to become a monster. He’s been a tyrant during all his reign and his horrors date back to 68 when the Ba’athists came to power.
[/quote]
His horrors still far outweigh anything that’s happened in Iraq the past five years. Also, consider that if he was still in power, those same deaths, mutilations, terror tactics on his own populace and millions of refugees would be increasing.
You really need to look at the statistics of his regime, lixy. There’s only two other leaders with this amount of blood on their hands. Stalin and Hitler.
Is that worth it?
[quote]kroby wrote:
You really need to look at the statistics of his regime, lixy. There’s only two other leaders with this amount of blood on their hands. Stalin and Hitler. [/quote]
How about the blood on the hands of American presidents? Clearly outweighs that of Saddam.
[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
You really need to look at the statistics of his regime, lixy. There’s only two other leaders with this amount of blood on their hands. Stalin and Hitler.
How about the blood on the hands of American presidents? Clearly outweighs that of Saddam.
[/quote]
Lixy, besides answering “Bush”, which US presidents have blood on their hands that “Clearly outweighs that Saddam”? Are you capable of being specific? You ever hear of folks such as Kim Jong Il, Mao, Pol Pot,. That’s puzzling… On second thought it’s not. These folks are probably your heros.
Second - in a differnt thread, you claimed to be going to Sudan this summer. Probably a spot where Amnesty International should focus their myopic efforts… There is plenty of blood on the hands of the Sudanese government and Janjaweed… Anyway, I never believed you when you wrote you were going. That claim of yours really spiked the old horseshit meter. It’s summer in your hemispere isn’t it…?
Why don’t you back that statement up with some photos of your trip “to see for myself what is really going on there”… ?
Details please.
[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
You really need to look at the statistics of his regime, lixy. There’s only two other leaders with this amount of blood on their hands. Stalin and Hitler.
How about the blood on the hands of American presidents? Clearly outweighs that of Saddam.
[/quote]
So true, but the American myth persists. The level of propaganda and how well it works is remarkable.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Don’t these amnesty folks just deal with actions by governments?
Pointing at the actions of terrorists in comparison is a real poor approach. There is always somebody worse, but that should not be a justification or an excuse.
Our standards are ours. They are not set by the depravity that others exhibit, or so one would hope. Pointing elsewhere is simply a distraction from the important issues.
The real question is… are we living up to our own standards, or not?[/quote]
OUR standards? Aren’t you Canadian?
[quote]Tokoya wrote:
lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
You really need to look at the statistics of his regime, lixy. There’s only two other leaders with this amount of blood on their hands. Stalin and Hitler.
How about the blood on the hands of American presidents? Clearly outweighs that of Saddam.
Lixy, besides answering “Bush”, which US presidents have blood on their hands that “Clearly outweighs that Saddam”? Are you capable of being specific? You ever hear of folks such as Kim Jong Il, Mao, Pol Pot,. That’s puzzling… On second thought it’s not. These folks are probably your heros.
Second - in a differnt thread, you claimed to be going to Sudan this summer. Probably a spot where Amnesty International should focus their myopic efforts… There is plenty of blood on the hands of the Sudanese government and Janjaweed… Anyway, I never believed you when you wrote you were going. That claim of yours really spiked the old horseshit meter. It’s summer in your hemispere isn’t it…?
Why don’t you back that statement up with some photos of your trip “to see for myself what is really going on there”… ?
Details please.[/quote]
He’s no more going to Sudan than he is a North African living in Sweden.
[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
You really need to look at the statistics of his regime, lixy. There’s only two other leaders with this amount of blood on their hands. Stalin and Hitler.
How about the blood on the hands of American presidents? Clearly outweighs that of Saddam.
[/quote]
This statement is proof of your delusions.
Let me give you a brief rundown on Saddam’s most interesting pleasantries:
- Right after seizing control, he called a general assembly, at which he called dozens of names to stand and leave the room. Next, he called other names to come to the front and admit their conspiracy.
Those same people were told to go and shoot the first group, making them complicit in this witchhunt; making the whole governmental body complicit. By eyewitness accounts, such a conspiracy never took place.
-
Eight uninterrupted years of war with Iran
-
Invasion of Kuwait
-
Gassing of Kurds - in excess of 150,000 people. Women, children. Lying dead in the streets.
-
Taping grenades onto people’s chests and setting them off. Oh, yes, there are videos of this, too.
-
Trenches dug by the soon to be killed, who were shot and left to die as they were covered with dirt by heavy bulldozers - an eyewitness account of a survivor told this story.
Did I mention that all of these were videotaped? Why, yes they were. By Saddam to show to everyone what happens if he is crossed. That, dear lixy, is coercion - terror tactics.
Videos of people being beaten by troops for saying anything negative. Check.
Olympic athletes defecting out of fear for returning to Iraq, as Saddam’s sons would torture them for not winning Gold. Yes, eyewitness accounts of this, as well.
You see, there is no comparison between any american president and Saddam. I hope I have impressed on you what kind of human this guy was. Or do you need me to tutor you a bit more?
I would like to know that you completely understand, without a shadow of a doubt. There is no defending, to any degree, anything this man stood for - especially as a sovereign of his own country.
[quote]kroby wrote:
You see, there is no comparison between any american president and Saddam. I hope I have impressed on you what kind of human this guy was. Or do you need me to tutor you a bit more?
[/quote]
How any American can lecture another individual of another country on moral superiority is comical.
How far back would you like to go in history to highlight some of the horrible atrocities committed by the U.S. government.
Slavery?
The genocide of North American Indians?
The ruthless and forcible takeover of the Philippines, Hawaii, and Hispaniola (Haiti)
The military and economic support of some of the most worthless individuals to ever live like Stalin, General Suharto, and Saddam Hussein, just to name a few.
These are just a few examples. I could go into more detail if you’d like?
Dustin
[quote]kroby wrote:
You really need to look at the statistics of his regime, lixy. There’s only two other leaders with this amount of blood on their hands. Stalin and Hitler.
Is that worth it? [/quote]
This is also an incorrect statement. The government leader/dictator taking home the gold as being the worst ever and has the blood of between 40 million and 70 million (Many put the actual figure around 50 million) people on his hands is Mao Zedong.
Dustin
[quote]Dustin wrote:
How any American can lecture another individual of another country on moral superiority is comical.[/quote]
Yet here you are, lecturing me? Hypocrite.
How far back, indeed. Let’s see… US government has been in place just over 200 years.
Pre-dates 1776, as well as most of the world having this act in place. Your chirp falls flat.
Except for the current First Nations still alive. In their Gambling Towers. Ironic, no? As I recall, Indians were told to live in certain places - and if they didn’t move, they were killed. I’m not excusing the behavior, but this is not genocide. Learn to use nouns correctly.
Portugal originally drew the Philippines per Papal edict… We replaced them. Last I checked Haiti was originally a French colony until it’s independence. As for Hawaii, despite the death of the native - er, I mean - colonizing polynesian indigents due to disease, they sued to enter this Union.
Don’t forget Hitler.
No, I think I expanded on your ideas more than your understanding exhibited. I hope you’ve become more enlightened.
Moral superiority? None of this excuses any single thing Saddam had perpetrated. This is the argument, Dustin. It’s not a matter of who was worse, when, or moral superiority. There is no comparison - that is the argument.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
kroby wrote:
You really need to look at the statistics of his regime, lixy. There’s only two other leaders with this amount of blood on their hands. Stalin and Hitler.
Is that worth it?
This is also an incorrect statement. The government leader/dictator taking home the gold as being the worst ever and has the blood of between 40 million and 70 million (Many put the actual figure around 50 million) people on his hands is Mao Zedong.
Dustin[/quote]
Forgive me, most honorable teacher. May I edit my statement to say “three other leaders” ??
It still does not refute the fact of Saddams hands being bloody, and lixy being obtuse to this fact.
Follow the argument, Dustin.
[quote]kroby wrote:
Yet here you are, lecturing me? Hypocrite.
[/quote]
You are constantly cheerleading for the U.S. cause and attacking anyone who dare say anything negative about the U.S (see lixy). I was simply pointing out how idiotic it is for American’s to portray their government as the Earth’s moral guiding light. I then presented a few examples to back up my claims. How that makes me out to be a hypocrite for pointing out historical facts is beyond me.
And lasted well into the 19th century. What the rest of the world did at that time regarding slavery holds no relevance. Where talking about the U.S. My “chirp” is quite pertinent and proves my point.
Yeah, they were forcibly rounded up from the Southeast and herded like cattle to my homestate.
The life-blood of the plains Indians where intentionally killed because our government new that “for every buffalo killed, and Indian would die”.
We can sit here play synonym games if you want, but the truth remains that the U.S. government instituted methods to remove, displace, and kill off American Indians.
With ruthless force. The military slaughtered them until they gave up. Try to rationalize it if you wish.
It was forcibly occupied to make sure that “American interests were safe” under Woodrow Wilson. More ruthless aggression that you’re trying to rationalize and excuse.
See the Philippines and Haiti. We invaded the Hawaiian Islands and put down anyone that didn’t play by our rules.
Right. You did an excellent job of excusing horrendous behavior by the “moral and just” American government.
You see, I know a little history as well. You enlightened absolutely no one.
No one is excusing Saddam’s behavior. Why do the Iraq war apologists always try to make this argument? We all agree that he sucked.
The statement was made that American presidents have done some unsweet things as well. I pointed those out.
You’re right, there is no comparison. Because while American presidents weren’t setting up torture chambers, they had no problem supporting dictators that would do such things. With military aid, or economic aid. These presidents also had no problem with their military intentionally targeting civilians during times of war, or to protect economic interests like I highlighted above. So yeah, if we had some type of running tally on the amount of lives that were lost either directly or indirectly because of the U.S. government, I’d say we would far surpass Saddam.
Dustin
[quote]kroby wrote:
Forgive me, most honorable teacher. May I edit my statement to say “three other leaders” ??
It still does not refute the fact of Saddams hands being bloody, and lixy being obtuse to this fact.
Follow the argument, Dustin.[/quote]
You made a definitive statement. I simply corrected you. Don’t take it personally.
No one is obtuse to how big a bastard Saddam was. Everyone acknowledges this. Quit making this ridiculous argument.
Dustin
[quote]kroby wrote:
It still does not refute the fact of Saddams hands being bloody, and lixy being obtuse to this fact. [/quote]
Obtuse? I have repeatedely denounced the horrors of Saddam in this very thread. I’ll refresh your memory.
First, there’s this statement in the OP:
“I don’t think getting down that Saddam thug…”
Then I go on to explain that:
“Saddam didn’t wake up one morning and decided to become a monster. He’s been a tyrant during all his reign and his horrors date back to 68 when the Ba’athists came to power.”
That you have the nerve to say that I’m being obtuse to the fact that Saddam had bloody hands is beyond me.
Do you want me to praise your government who, despite the fact that it got hundreds of thousands innocents killed, rid the world of Saddam? Sorry, that ain’t gonna happen. Saddam had to go, and I don’t think you’ll find anybody on this planet besides his entourage that says otherwise. But getting countless people killed, wrecking a country and providing a breeding ground for terrorists was a too high price to pay.
There is nothing more frustrating (and predictable) than cries about “US and slavery!,” “US treatment of Native Americans!,” “the inquisition”
And? What about it? How is that relevant when dealing with the problems of Islamic jihad today? It’s simply noise.
Of course the US has it dark history. Of course Christian institutions have committed horrible crimes. We all know this! Well, I damn sure know all this and make no attempt to deny it.
Problem is, I don’t have a time machine. Therefore, I’m restricted to identifying and dealing with the threats and horrors of today. And, at present, Islamic extremism is a serious issue. And, for a hell of a lot more people than just US citizens, by the way.
Did people do this when faced with Nazism? “Well Gee, we should probably stay silent, the US did practice slavery.”
Can we please discuss today’s issues, without trying to muddy the waters with non-related events in the past?
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Slavery?[/quote]
You mean how the US (along with the Anglo world, with Britain leading the way) helped extiguish what was a universal practice?
You mean how Americans did treated Indian tribes exactly the way they treated each other - only to again, like slavery, help extinguish this kinds of practice?
The whining is lost about support of Stalin. It needed to be done to stop Hitler. I realize your fantastically naive approach to history can’t tolerate that kind of harsh, realistic choice - but I think we have been through this before.
This is not to say the US has never been on the side of ill. It is rather to say this “presumption” that the US is the cause of everything “bad” since 1776 - for some 1492! - and its painfully stupid radical followers must be combatted at every turn because the rest of us - be us liberals or conservatives - have grown tired and impatient of playground radicalism getting in the way of the society’s important debates.
It requires robust defense of the US and her history, which often lends the impression that we think the US is flawless. We don’t. But an extreme position - like your bone-headed radicalism - is often met with rhetoric that sounds as extreme.
Ask two questions of any society: what world did it inherit, and what has it done to improve upon it? With the US, the answer goes on for days.
Does your silly radicalism permit you to do that? Or must you continue to whine and dither about the US not being “perfect” according to some abstract standard made up in a coffee house by affluent radical brats?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
There is nothing more frustrating (and predictable) than cries about “US and slavery!,” “US treatment of Native Americans!,” “the inquisition”
And? What about it? How is that relevant when dealing with the problems of Islamic jihad today? It’s simply noise.
Of course the US has it dark history. Of course Christian institutions have committed horrible crimes. We all know this! Well, I damn sure know all this and make no attempt to deny it.
Problem is, I don’t have a time machine. Therefore, I’m restricted to identifying and dealing with the threats and horrors of today. And, at present, Islamic extremism is a serious issue. And, for a hell of a lot more people than just US citizens, by the way.
Did people do this when faced with Nazism? “Well Gee, we should probably stay silent, the US did practice slavery.”
Can we please today’s issues, without trying to muddy the waters with non-related events in the past?
[/quote]
My only reason for even bringing the aforementioned events to light is because of the American’s always shaking their finger at another country for misbehavior, when the U.S. government did the very same thing numerous time in the past 200 plus years. I also mentioned it because of the propensity of Americans to forget about said events and make retarded statements like, “at least we’re not as bad as the Nazis”. Garbage like this has been posted on this very message board before.
Kroby tried to say that American presidents’ hands are clean in comparison to Saddam. I disagreed and brought up a few examples. That’s all.
If you go back and read the last handful of posts, you’ll see my line of reasoning. And, for those posts, my comments about the past were pertinent.
Dustin
[quote]Sloth wrote:
There is nothing more frustrating (and predictable) than cries about “US and slavery!,” “US treatment of Native Americans!,” “the inquisition”[/quote]
You can set your watch by this when getting into a “debate” - if you can call it that - with wannabe radicals.
To say a country is “better” than another - a reason for relativists to wet their panties - is not the same as saying “perfect”. Just don’t pop the radical’s illusion - then they might have to get a job.