Laughing at Saddam

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Monday, January 5, 2026 21:57
VIEWED: 10444
PAGE 12 of 17

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 5:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You underestimate the stranglehold that Hussein had on Iraq and you overestimate the ability of the US to enact regime change through clandestine operations in that country. But setting aside these various misconceptions...

I simply don't buy the picture that they're painting for us. You do. Who's to say who's right or wrong, since neither of us are there. Our Government is trying to sell us a war based on black and white and good and evil and I'm sorry, but many people in America are just not buying it. Most of us have no clue why we're even fighting this war in the first place, and if that isn't Orwelian, I don't know what is. Test that theory out for yourself. Ask 5 different people in your office why we're at war and you'll most likely have 3 different answers at least.

If the point of this war was to win, a few well placed nukes would get the job done in 24 hours and no more of our kids would have to die, and after the bombs went off, they'd know we haven't had our nuts cut off yet and there'd be nobody in the Middle East foolish enough to try anything stupid again.

There are far too many hidden agendas for me to believe that Saddam had any such stranglehold on Iraq, and even less of a chance that somebody is going to make me believe that our military couldn't get this job taken care of by now without it deliberately being a clusterfuck.

Quote:
you’re right that the former Ba’athist regime in Iraq was secular, but you’re not about it being the only secular regime in the Middle East. There are actually several, most in fact. Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan and Egypt are all secular regimes; some are allies, some are not....

Okay.... let me stop you right there.

Obviously, you read a whole lot more newspapers than I do. (See Thomas Jefferson quotes above). So there's other regimes... what's your point? Saddam had a lot of influence and was obviously one of the big players or we wouldn't have given him so much attention all these years. I don't really give a rats ass about some two bit no-name secular regimes out there, and besides, we've just prooven that we'll kill their leaders when we're through using them and they no longer suit our purposes. If I was any of them, I wouldn't trust the US at all. If they were smart in the Middle East, they'd all band together and kick our asses out of there. All we do is give them guns and bombs and sit back and watch them kill each other, then dig one of their leaders out of a hole, hang them, and celebrate as if we've ridded the world of some unspeakable evil. Then we build a schoolhouse and a puppet state Democracy and call ourselves liberators.

Quote:
The largest misconception that you have is perhaps the notion that a regime in the Middle East need necessarily be a brutal ruthless dictatorship

While I appreciate your opinion that I even have a misconception here, let me first point out that I never had even said anything of the sort in my former post. But now that you mention it, I have to disagree with your statement. These are ruthless people who have been backed into a corner. They are going to fight and fight and fight until they are all dead or their wills are crushed. Your pussy Arab Democracies are cute and all, and will probably have a place in the Middle East if we ever get a handle on the situation (which we NEVER will) but when they're being raided their "peace is the answer" attitudes are not going to shield them from the bullets and bombs like magic. Simply because you think this is not true at all, or that you think that is an unfortunate attitude to take does not mean that I have any misconceptions on the issue. Are we in disagreement, yes.

Truthfully, you really lost me from that point on.

What I don't think you're getting here is that I don't believe that we have one single legitimate reason for being there. Are there agendas? Yes there are, on all sides. The big boys are jockying for position while the Americ

HERO

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I've seen no proof that the quality of life for the average "Liberated" Iraqi has increased in the slightest.

It's not a matter of proof, both sides put up tons of it...its about credibility. On one hand we have the eyewitness testimony of tens of thousands of American servicemen. On the other the self-serving testimony of those seeking American defeat in the war either for personal political gain, in the case of the Democratic Party and much of the media, or to justify and distract from corruption, as in the case of the UN and France, or to promote the anti-American, pan-Arab jew killin agenda...or just because they hate Bush and would do anything to see him defeated.

Lets take one example. A widely broadcast world media story showing a dead American soldier's last message home before being killed (on a flash drive found on his dead body). He admits to crimes, drug use, and is against the war. Very sad. Except he's alive, was not in Iraq over the holidays (thus no message home admitting anything),is in favor of the war, and getting ready to redeploy later this year. But that story does not seem to make the world and especially the Arab media. Gee, I wonder why.

So on one hand we have a soldier, dead and anti-war. On the other hand, same soldier, alive and pro-war. Who do we believe? Perhaps if you poked him in the chest it would give you a clue as to which is correct, after all even Jesus was doubted on the subject of being alive.

H

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I simply don't buy the picture that they're painting for us. You do. Who's to say who's right or wrong, since neither of us are there. Our Government is trying to sell us a war based on black and white and good and evil and I'm sorry, but many people in America are just not buying it. Most of us have no clue why we're even fighting this war in the first place, and if that isn't Orwelian, I don't know what is. Test that theory out for yourself. Ask 5 different people in your office why we're at war and you'll most likely have 3 different answers at least.

The people in my office are probably better informed on these matters then yours, but in any regard you asked why no one responded to a post in which your principle argument was a blatant misconception on the nature of secular regimes in the Middle East. When I explain your misconception to you, you simply ignore it, and that probably explains, more then anything else, why you ‘have no clue’ about why we are fighting this war. You got that whole “Iraq is the only secular regime” crap from the media, I imagine or from some punditry. That’s an ideological viewpoint that is not consistent with a factual understanding of Middle East politics. If you’re going to base your understanding of this war on misconceptions like that, then you really have to expect that you will have a less then adequate grasp of the politics of this war.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 6:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I follow these rules. I do as little hurt to my fellow human beings as I can. I try to help as much as I can.

So a guide dog is a Human Being.

Can you objectivly prove that any of this is true?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So a guide dog is a Human Being.

Closer than Saddam.

Quote:
Can you objectivly prove that any of this is true?

You first, please. You're the one who claims to be able to identify a human being. What is your criteria? Why is it that no one is willing to tell me what it is about Saddam which makes him a human being in your eyes?

I've stated my reasoning:

Quote:
So what makes a human anyway? The decorative packaging, or what's inside? Is it a general acceptance of the rules we've developed over time; don't murder, don't lie, don't steal, don't hurt, etc.? Can some human-looking beings be so far outside these rules that they don't qualify for the benefits of humanity any more? Obviously, I think so.

What's your's?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 7:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You first, please. You're the one who claims to be able to identify a human being. What is your criteria?

No I didn't. You made the claim, I never have. You're the one telling us that you have the ultimate measure of what it is to be Human and that Saddam doesn't measure up, I've not made one claim to back up. You have, on the other hand, and to detract attention from the fact you haven't even tried to back them up you demand I back up claims I haven't even made.

Why is that?

Quote:
Why is it that no one is willing to tell me what it is about Saddam which makes him a human being in your eyes?

Because it's a stupid question.

But in the interests of completeness.

All your reasons for saying Saddam wasn't human pretty much devolve down to, 'because I say so'. Your criteria are arbitrary, and far from complete, "Saddam wasn't a Human because I say so", "I am a human being, because I say so", so why you think it's then reasonable to expect a complete and reasoned response with objective criteria from others is beyond me. You haven't provided such yourself, but feel perfectly fine about demanding it from others?

Is this the definition of hypocrisy?

The criteria for being a Human being is...
ChrisIsAll saying they're Human.

Ergo Saddam must be human, because ChrisIsAll says so.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 8:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You first, please. You're the one who claims to be able to identify a human being. What is your criteria?
No I didn't. You made the claim, I never have.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Saddam was a human being, twisted and evil perhaps, and he lost his right to live among us as he tortured his first victim, but he was still a human being.

Is this you identifying Saddam as a human being? Did you have some criteria, or did you just take a contrarian position so you could argue?

Quote:
All your reasons for saying Saddam wasn't human pretty much devolve down to, 'because I say so'. Your criteria are arbitrary, and far from complete, "Saddam wasn't a Human because I say so", "I am a human being, because I say so", so why you think it's then reasonable to expect a complete and reasoned response with objective criteria from others is beyond me. You haven't provided such yourself, but feel perfectly fine about demanding it from others?

OK. Here's my hypothesis.

There are certain rules which have been developed by human beings over the ages, just by trial and error, that are good rules to live by. Stuff like don't kill people just because you want to, don't take their family or their stuff just because you can, Don't lie, etc. Though not exactly the same rule-set in every society, there are some general universal priciples the vast majority all pretty much agree on. The understanding of and agreement to these rules, at some level, is what differentiates us as human beings, rather than animals in human being skins.

Some individuals don't buy into these rules at all. They break them at will and with no compunction. At some point, their behavior becomes so egregious that they go beyond the bounds of humanity.

Even a cursory reading of Saddam's actions since 1958 would indicate that he has obviously passed beyond the bounds of humanity, and is therefore not a human being.

_______________________________________________

Now in normal discourse, you would present your hypothesis as to why Saddam is a human being.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
OK. Here's my hypothesis.

There are certain rules which have been developed by human beings over the ages, just by trial and error, that are good rules to live by. Stuff like don't kill people just because you want to, don't take their family or their stuff just because you can, Don't lie, etc. Though not exactly the same rule-set in every society, there are some general universal priciples the vast majority all pretty much agree on. The understanding of and agreement to these rules, at some level, is what differentiates us as human beings, rather than animals in human being skins.

Some individuals don't buy into these rules at all. They break them at will and with no compunction. At some point, their behavior becomes so egregious that they go beyond the bounds of humanity.

Even a cursory reading of Saddam's actions since 1958 would indicate that he has obviously passed beyond the bounds of humanity, and is therefore not a human being.

Well this is all very backwards. Human Behaviour defines Humans? Surely Humans define Human Behaviour? You wouldn't make a very good Biologist.

"This isn't a Dog, it doesn't do Dog things".

Quote:
Now in normal discourse, you would present your hypothesis as to why Saddam is a human being.

In normal discourse one would hope you wouldn't setup strawmen. Why must I back up a claim I haven't made?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 8:41 PM

I wandered out for just a bit and when I came back Slick had turned the thread into a Kafka novel. How absurd.

There are more interesting questions to answer than 'Was Hussein human?' How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? If athletes get athlete's foot, do astronauts get mistletoe? Can God make a rock bigger than He can lift? and .. Why ask pointless questions?

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Why must I back up a claim I haven't made?

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Saddam was a human being, twisted and evil perhaps, and he lost his right to live among us as he tortured his first victim, but he was still a human being.

You didn't make this claim?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE