Treason Bill

[mox 298]

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

You know how to read, that's clear. It's comprehension I think you need help with.

[Brad and Vika 129]

But, if we learned anything from Saddam Hussein, it was that even a totalitarian regime is better for the stability of a country than being invaded by a foreign power and "democratized."

You must be completely nuts.

Well...you have to admit that Iraq was more stable under Saddam Hussein than it is now. Having said that, I don't necessarily agree with the overall statement. Zimbabwe is a totalitarian regime that could possibly benefit from being invaded and democratized. The only problem is there is no country on the planet that has either the credibility or the ability to pull it off.

Edit: Having said that, I lack the conviction to actually defend this post. Feel free to disagree, anyone, you're probably right. I'm really not sure how I stand on this.

I think mox and Slim have a point here, if I am understanding them. And there is no difference between certain goals of the government in Saddam's Iraq, or the current governments in other parts of the world including Russia, the US, and Zimbabwe. Those goals definitely in my mind include survival of the current party or government - the difference is the methods used to to neutralize the other players in each country's political game.

IMO casting opposition members as crazy, unpatriotic, or enemies of the state is pretty common everywhere. Here we are used to seeing political fringe candidates caste this way even when they have a fairly large following. We then, behave as we are expected to behave and ignore them. People who are sympathetic to groups that advocate violence against the government are arrested, detained, etc. In places like Belarus or Russia, the method seems to include arrest/detention for even the nonviolent dissidents or any one else who is publically critical of the government. Sometimes people even vanish without explanation. In either case, the result is "stability", just like in Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes "stability" (people moving about without protest or violence, doing business, etc.) is fear based, sometimes disinformation based. Sometimes stability is affluence based - the easiest method IMO.

In Zimbabwe the method of suppressing the voice of opposition includes beating opposition leaders half to death in the street without consequence, and public rape and execution of opposition members regardless of their nonviolent protests against their current government. I think it is safe to say that silencing dissidents by hacking them and their relatives apart with machetes in public creates enough terror to slow political opposition down short term - but the backlash of armed violence further destabilizes the country.

[slim 1,514]

Summed up quite well above.

[Ban Hammer 12,827]

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

You know how to read, that's clear. It's comprehension I think you need help with.

i'm finding it odd that someone considers rape rooms to be not such a big deal. got that?

[Blues Fairy 0]

The term Stability is usually used in a positive context (economic prosperity, rule of law, reasonable social welfare, smooth functioning of govt. structures etc). I just don't see how anyone can apply that to a totalitarian regime like Saddam's or Kim's or whoever else's. Misapplying the concept of stability to a repressive regime implies that the said regime is/was in some ways more desirable for the country than what comes/came after. Which is an absolutely insane thing to say.

Edited December 21, 2008 by Blues Fairy

[mox 298]

The term Stability is usually used in a positive context (economic prosperity, rule of law, reasonable social welfare, smooth functioning of govt. structures etc). I just don't see how anyone can apply that to a totalitarian regime like Saddam's or Kim's or whoever else's. Misapplying the concept of stability to a repressive regime implies that the said regime is/was in some ways more desirable for the country than what comes/came after. Which is an absolutely insane thing to say.

The term "stability" isn't a positive or negative. It is just "stability." Saddam Hussein's regime was stable, in that it was successful at keeping 3 tribes who hate each other's guts from killing each other. There was a rule of law in place (harsh, abusive, yes, but it was in place and it kept order), there was a smooth functioning government, and an infrastructure that would have been considered very modern anywhere else in the Middle East. Iraq had one of the highest literacy rates in the world, women had more rights, there was a higher live birth rate than most countries in the Middle East, etc.

This is not saying that the government was not repressive. It's certainly not a place where I'd want to live. But it was "stable," as opposed to now, where it is a very unstable government. That's not a moral judgment, it's just stating the facts.

[Blues Fairy 0]

The term "stability" isn't a positive or negative. It is just "stability." That's not a moral judgment, it's just stating the facts.

No matter how much we like or dislike Putin, he's here to stay. But, if we learned anything from Saddam Hussein, it was that even a totalitarian regime is better for the stability of a country than being invaded by a foreign power and "democratized."

Are you very sure the above was said in a neutral, non-judgemental way?

[mox 298]

Are you very sure the above was said in a neutral, non-judgemental way?

Who are you asking this question of, me or slim? Because you quoted both of us.

[sara..... 371]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

[Ban Hammer 12,827]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

better is subjective i suppose. no rape rooms, no worrying about saddam killing off your entire family, no worries about saddam's sons raping your daughters or wife, no ears being cut off in the military.

[sara..... 371]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

better is subjective i suppose. no rape rooms, no worrying about saddam killing off your entire family, no worries about saddam's sons raping your daughters or wife, no ears being cut off in the military.

no that worry is not there. just now the worry of the very people we are suppose to be protecting worry abut us going into their homes and raping their wifes and daughters, or pulling them off the street when they go to market, and lets not forget the wonderful kids we send over there that killed off the girls family raped her and killed her off to and tried to hide it by burning everything, she was i believe 14, we have killed off more of their people than saddam every did and when he did kill them off with chemicals where did he get them from? US the good old USA

our men were sent to a country that they had no clue about culture or religion. i agree that is no fault of theirs, but what was done in the name of liberation is our fault.

what we did was prolly make more terrorist because of our own actions than there was to begin with, every family member that lost someone because of our actions are now or enemy.

look charles most the time i really enjoy what u post and laugh and have a good time with it. but what we did to Iraq in MY own opinion is worse than what saddam did and he was one of the Worst excuses of a human. I simply meant when i first posted that the people had a system better than what they have now, the women and children can not freely walk about, for that matter neither can the men. we are suppose to be protecting them liberating them what have we done to liberate them that makes us better than saddam?

and it is only my opinion i think on the iraq matter there will always be difference of opinions.

[Ban Hammer 12,827]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

better is subjective i suppose. no rape rooms, no worrying about saddam killing off your entire family, no worries about saddam's sons raping your daughters or wife, no ears being cut off in the military.

no that worry is not there. just now the worry of the very people we are suppose to be protecting worry abut us going into their homes and raping their wifes and daughters, or pulling them off the street when they go to market, and lets not forget the wonderful kids we send over there that killed off the girls family raped her and killed her off to and tried to hide it by burning everything, she was i believe 14, we have killed off more of their people than saddam every did and when he did kill them off with chemicals where did he get them from? US the good old USA

our men were sent to a country that they had no clue about culture or religion. i agree that is no fault of theirs, but what was done in the name of liberation is our fault.

what we did was prolly make more terrorist because of our own actions than there was to begin with, every family member that lost someone because of our actions are now or enemy.

look charles most the time i really enjoy what u post and laugh and have a good time with it. but what we did to Iraq in MY own opinion is worse than what saddam did and he was one of the Worst excuses of a human. I simply meant when i first posted that the people had a system better than what they have now, the women and children can not freely walk about, for that matter neither can the men. we are suppose to be protecting them liberating them what have we done to liberate them that makes us better than saddam?

and it is only my opinion i think on the iraq matter there will always be difference of opinions.

i think one major difference between saddam's rule and our occupation is the rape topic - whereas under saddam it was condoned (done by saddam's son and others in power) and while it happens during the us occupation, it's not condoned and the perpetrators are punished.

while the usa did provide some material for chemical weapons, it was not nearly as much as other countries:

The know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained by Saddam's regime from foreign firms.[12] By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie Ltd.) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[13]

link

[sara..... 371]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

better is subjective i suppose. no rape rooms, no worrying about saddam killing off your entire family, no worries about saddam's sons raping your daughters or wife, no ears being cut off in the military.

no that worry is not there. just now the worry of the very people we are suppose to be protecting worry abut us going into their homes and raping their wifes and daughters, or pulling them off the street when they go to market, and lets not forget the wonderful kids we send over there that killed off the girls family raped her and killed her off to and tried to hide it by burning everything, she was i believe 14, we have killed off more of their people than saddam every did and when he did kill them off with chemicals where did he get them from? US the good old USA

our men were sent to a country that they had no clue about culture or religion. i agree that is no fault of theirs, but what was done in the name of liberation is our fault.

what we did was prolly make more terrorist because of our own actions than there was to begin with, every family member that lost someone because of our actions are now or enemy.

look charles most the time i really enjoy what u post and laugh and have a good time with it. but what we did to Iraq in MY own opinion is worse than what saddam did and he was one of the Worst excuses of a human. I simply meant when i first posted that the people had a system better than what they have now, the women and children can not freely walk about, for that matter neither can the men. we are suppose to be protecting them liberating them what have we done to liberate them that makes us better than saddam?

and it is only my opinion i think on the iraq matter there will always be difference of opinions.

i think one major difference between saddam's rule and our occupation is the rape topic - whereas under saddam it was condoned (done by saddam's son and others in power) and while it happens during the us occupation, it's not condoned and the perpetrators are punished.

while the usa did provide some material for chemical weapons, it was not nearly as much as other countries:

The know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained by Saddam's regime from foreign firms.[12] By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie Ltd.) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[13]

link

and on this i agree with u 100 percent

[akdiver 3]

The Patriot Act and others, while deplorable in their own right, weren't motivated by a paranoid desire keep this government in power.

You're kidding, right??

If people went around spouting off the very same words used by the nation's "founding fathers" and began to ferment serious dissent and got people to raise up arms against a government that needed to be dissolved, you just see how fast the government squashes such a movement.

Hell, read the questions on many of the immigration forms. Pay particular attention to ones like, "Have you ever advocated (either directly or indirectly) the overthrow of any government by force or violence?" - and yet, that's exactly how this country was founded.

You bet your ### the government will do anything it can to keep itself in power.

[Brad and Vika 129]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

better is subjective i suppose. no rape rooms, no worrying about saddam killing off your entire family, no worries about saddam's sons raping your daughters or wife, no ears being cut off in the military.

no that worry is not there. just now the worry of the very people we are suppose to be protecting worry abut us going into their homes and raping their wifes and daughters, or pulling them off the street when they go to market, and lets not forget the wonderful kids we send over there that killed off the girls family raped her and killed her off to and tried to hide it by burning everything, she was i believe 14, we have killed off more of their people than saddam every did and when he did kill them off with chemicals where did he get them from? US the good old USA

our men were sent to a country that they had no clue about culture or religion. i agree that is no fault of theirs, but what was done in the name of liberation is our fault.

what we did was prolly make more terrorist because of our own actions than there was to begin with, every family member that lost someone because of our actions are now or enemy.

look charles most the time i really enjoy what u post and laugh and have a good time with it. but what we did to Iraq in MY own opinion is worse than what saddam did and he was one of the Worst excuses of a human. I simply meant when i first posted that the people had a system better than what they have now, the women and children can not freely walk about, for that matter neither can the men. we are suppose to be protecting them liberating them what have we done to liberate them that makes us better than saddam?

and it is only my opinion i think on the iraq matter there will always be difference of opinions.

This goes directly to the stability issue last raised by Blues Fairy. How many Iraquis were beheaded, or otherwise executed after we invaded and "stabilized" the country? Thousands apparently. This did not happen during Saddam's regime, therefore it was more "stable"