America In Denial

[vicente]

Will America continue their denial of the illegal invasion of Iraq which has killed more than 1400 of my fellow Americans whom I will now never get to meet?
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html

In 2003, we invaded a nation that had not attacked us, did not threaten us, and did not want war with us to disarm it of weapons it did not have. Patrick J. Buchanan
http://amconmag.com/2005_02_28/buchanan.html

"The Iraqis under Saddam didn't pay any direct taxes, had minimum restrictions on starting businesses, free medical care from cradle to grave, no property taxes, no sales taxes, minimal zoning and planning laws, free college education with daily meals provided in the campus cafeteria. Iraqi's were encouraged to own guns, had virtually no crime, no homeless, (The Bedouin choose their nomadic lifestyle) Iraqis were free to travel, write, create, make art and worship their God of their choice.

Saddam's revolution ended Iraqi backwardness. Education, including higher and technological education, became the top priority. More important, centuries of vicious discrimination against girls and women was ended by one stroke of the modernizing dictator's pen.

Before Bush's illegal invasion, it was commonplace to see hundreds of girl-students thronging the campus', none in "burkhas" or "chador" -- the head-to-toe black cape that was, and is again, essential dress for women in Iraq.

The liberation of women -- that is half the population of Iraq, as for any other country -- was the most dramatic achievement of Saddam's regime. To understand how dramatic just look across the Iraqi border at America's favorite Arab satrap, Saudi Arabia." Mani Shankar Aiyar

Did Saddam kill thousands as Bush propagandizes? I'm looking forward to Saddam's trial,...hope it will be at least alittle fair.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/THO209A.html

[DoWalker]

Vicente, you occasionally make a good point, but this time you're way over in na-na land.

Yeah, the war was unjustified, and GW is a fool, but to imply that Saddam was anything but a brutal, inhuman dictator is just silly. He slaughtered thousands, tortured, murdered, and raped at leisure. I'm no flag-waving automaton, but the guy was slime, and in a broad historical view, Iraq is better without him.

(Of course, setting up a puppet government may not improve things a whole hell of a lot.)

[vicente]

Yeah, the war was unjustified, and GW is a fool, but to imply that Saddam was anything but a brutal, inhuman dictator is just silly. He slaughtered thousands, tortured, murdered, and raped at leisure. I'm no flag-waving automaton, but the guy was slime

Except from Republican neo-cons and Iraqi fundamentalist whom Saddam dispised, I heard much different stories.

All I know for sure is that Saddam was the pre-illegal invasion elected President of Iraq and he wrote romance novels.

Like I said,...I'm looking forward to the trial,...I understand a former US Attorney General is one of his lawyers.

:)

[DoWalker]

All I know for sure is that Saddam was the pre-illegal invasion elected President of Iraq and he wrote romance novels.


Easy to be elected when you have any other candidates killed and run on a ticket that just says: "Saddam Hussein should be re-elected. Yes/No"

[vicente]

a ticket that just says: "Saddam Hussein should be re-elected. Yes/No"

Up until last week that's how they did it in Egypt to. Is that an excuse to illegally invade their Country?

As Conservative Pat Buchanan said, "In 2003, we invaded a nation that had not attacked us, did not threaten us, and did not want war with us to disarm it of weapons it did not have. "
http://amconmag.com/2005_02_28/buchanan.html

But, let's switch it around. Most Countries on Earth think Bush is more despotic than Saddam,...should they attack us? Morally speaking?

:)

[sonrisa]

that's what I'm afraid of. One day those bushits are gonna get a little too arrogant & go a little too far & we will be attacked & invaded.

[DoWalker]

Up until last week that's how they did it in Egypt to. Is that an excuse to illegally invade their Country?

Of course not. That's the part we agree on. It's the vision of Saddam as a swell guy that I'm taking exception to.

As Conservative Pat Buchanan said, "In 2003, we invaded a nation that had not attacked us, did not threaten us, and did not want war with us to disarm it of weapons it did not have. "


How many times are you going to quote that whackjob? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

[jesupocaplypse]

How do any of you know what Saddam was like? What are your sources? American Media? Did you ever go to Iraq and see for yourself what it was like before or after the invasion?

I have.

I had nothing to fear. I saw a peaceful evolving nation.

Quite different now, since this sick joke of a war.


And what's being done to stop this nonsense? All i see At best, is whining and complaining, by a sedated docile populace more concerned with Brad and Jen, than the well being of the Human Race, and the steady onset of a American Government led Cataclysm.


Evil happens when good people stand aside and do nothing.

[IHaveIssues]

Well to say Sadam is ALL evil, is like saying Bush is ALL evil, its nonsense.
Obviously Sadam had a few good traits, he ran a tight ship thats for sure.
People are more complex than they are painted, and one thing I dislike about the Bushites, is how the paint the enemy as all "terrorists" and "evil". It insults our intelligence.

One thing we can pretty much safely say, is we havent gotten Iraq running to the pre-war level yet. Heck, do we have Iraq running at all, yet? We have a nucleus formed, the nucleus is getting attacked, we are getting attacked, the insurgents are getting attacked, brutality is still going on, etc..

[vicente]

It insults our intelligence

If only that was true. Not only did 86% support the illegal invasion of Iraq,...a majority voted the faith-based anti-American, George Bush to a second term.

Sorry IHaveIssues,...there is little intelligence in America.

:)

[vicente]

European Thoughts on America:
http://www.knife-party.net/flash/barry.html

[CSwriter1]

How important is it if Saddam did more good things than bad things, compared to:

"Given our known oil supply and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possibly war". Quoted from a 1920's newspaper. That is, since the 1920's scientific information made our future predictable, and did our leadership make good or bad choices? What of mass ignorance of reality, and a democracy that talks more about people being good and bad, and "feelings" than science and reality? I think the whole world is asking, should a nation like this be armed?

[vicente]

How important is it if Saddam did more good things than bad things, compared to:


Bringing up Saddam so-called positive stuff, which are somewhat known around the Planet, but denied in US media, brings attention to the media-ted perceptions US citizens (I wouldn't necessarily call them Americans) have about the world and itself.

Saddam bombed the Kurds, so we have the right to bomb his family,...but where is the proof that Saddam bombed the Kurds. The only proofs I've seen is that he didn't bomb the Kurds.

Bush said Saddam had WMD's,...and illegally (arrorcing to the US Consititution) invaded Iraq.
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html Yet US Citizens elected him to a second term?

What is wrong with this picture?

V
:)