1. He was a brutal dictator
2. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment, supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand it's presence
in the Gulf
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
11. He had no WMD, after they were destroyed by Iraq and UN inspectors
12. He and Iraq were not involved with any terrorist activities other
than related to their war against Iran
14. He is a scapegoat
.
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
14 Dec 2003 05:48:40 PM |
|
|
In article <e7fptvgr7040r967uf4fuehfttkjkrb1lh@4ax.com>, Mark Tyme <MarkTyme@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
1. He was a brutal dictator
2. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
I believe this is inaccurate. Have you a reliable source for this?
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment, supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand it's presence
in the Gulf
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
11. He had no WMD, after they were destroyed by Iraq and UN inspectors
We don't know if he did/didn't have WMD - we just don't have evidence to prove
that he did. We cannot conclude that he definitely didn't have any, though.
12. He and Iraq were not involved with any terrorist activities other
than related to their war against Iran
14. He is a scapegoat
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewhere up north" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
14 Dec 2003 06:05:48 PM |
|
|
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:sF6Db.14519$JW3.13776@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
11. He had no WMD, after they were destroyed by Iraq and UN inspectors
We don't know if he did/didn't have WMD - we just don't have evidence to
prove
that he did. We cannot conclude that he definitely didn't have any,
though.
Woods
Come on Woods... ever tried to prove a negative?
Al
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
16 Dec 2003 09:04:05 PM |
|
|
In article <I%6Db.4027$mV5.2484@read1.cgocable.net>, "Somewhere up north" <nospam@greatwhitenorth.com> wrote:
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:sF6Db.14519$JW3.13776@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
11. He had no WMD, after they were destroyed by Iraq and UN inspectors
We don't know if he did/didn't have WMD - we just don't have evidence to
prove
that he did. We cannot conclude that he definitely didn't have any,
though.
Woods
Come on Woods... ever tried to prove a negative?
Well, you can't, of course, as I've pointed out on many occasion. However, we
really need to leave it open, since there were prior indications that there were
some WMDs (prior to the first Gulf War).
I just don't think it's a good idea to completely dismiss something unless you
have evidence that makes it necessary. (Which, as you point out, is not
possible in this case).
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Tyme" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
14 Dec 2003 06:12:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:48:40 GMT, (Woodswun)
wrote:
In article <e7fptvgr7040r967uf4fuehfttkjkrb1lh@4ax.com>, Mark Tyme <MarkTyme@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
1. He was a brutal dictator
2. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
I believe this is inaccurate. Have you a reliable source for this?
It is not "inaccurate". The CIA put Saddam, and the Shah of Iran, and
a dozen other tinpot dictators into power.
Start with the poor man's intelligence sources on google, to begin
with:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22saddam+hussein%22+and+cia+and+1963&btnG=Google+Search
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment, supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand it's presence
in the Gulf
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
11. He had no WMD, after they were destroyed by Iraq and UN inspectors
We don't know if he did/didn't have WMD - we just don't have evidence to prove
that he did. We cannot conclude that he definitely didn't have any, though.
If they had them, Saddam would have used them, with his back against
the wall. Even after offering a $25 million reward, not one single
Iraqi scientist or military officer has produced any evidence
whatsover of WMD. Not one.
Why did the US have to produce bogus "evidence", forged documents
to the UN, to try to make a case? Any UN resolution, founded on
bogus evidence and forged docuemnts would be null andvoid.
There are no WMD in Iraq after 1996. Before that, there
were some, but they continued to be destroyed along
the way. Most of the WMD that Iraq had were supplied
by the US to begin with.
Why did the US give the world this Frankenstein?
12. He and Iraq were not involved with any terrorist activities other
than related to their war against Iran
14. He is a scapegoat
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "WarpedFrets" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
15 Dec 2003 01:58:08 AM |
|
|
"If they had them, Saddam would have used them, with his back against
the wall. Even after offering a $25 million reward, not one single
Iraqi scientist or military officer has produced any evidence
whatsover of WMD. Not one."
It's good to know you have a telepathic connection with the guy.. since you
obviously can read his mind.
Even with the reward it took this long for someone to fess up and rat Saddams
location out. Who knows if or where the weapons are? But it's impossible to say
they don't exist just because people aren't banging down the door with hot
tips.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Tyme" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
15 Dec 2003 07:52:40 AM |
|
|
On 15 Dec 2003 07:58:08 GMT, (WarpedFrets) wrote:
"If they had them, Saddam would have used them, with his back against
the wall. Even after offering a $25 million reward, not one single
Iraqi scientist or military officer has produced any evidence
whatsover of WMD. Not one."
It's good to know you have a telepathic connection with the guy.. since you
obviously can read his mind.
Even with the reward it took this long for someone to fess up and rat Saddams
location out. Who knows if or where the weapons are? But it's impossible to say
they don't exist just because people aren't banging down the door with hot
tips.
Apparently only 4 people knew Saddams's exact whereabouts, which is
why it took this long to 'turn him in'.
Iraq had over 30,000 scientists who would have known if there were WMD
programs. Not one of them has stepped forward to claim $25 milion, to
provide evidence there had been WMD in Iraq.
You are obviously not a very smart man, are you ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
16 Dec 2003 09:05:55 PM |
|
|
In article <mruptvkgt4n4e1sig7g56t1u12t064cf1n@4ax.com>, Mark Tyme <MarkTyme@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:48:40 GMT, (Woodswun)
wrote:
In article <e7fptvgr7040r967uf4fuehfttkjkrb1lh@4ax.com>, Mark Tyme
<MarkTyme@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
1. He was a brutal dictator
2. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
I believe this is inaccurate. Have you a reliable source for this?
It is not "inaccurate". The CIA put Saddam, and the Shah of Iran, and
a dozen other tinpot dictators into power.
Start with the poor man's intelligence sources on google, to begin
with:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22saddam+hussein%22+and
+cia+and+1963&btnG=Google+Search
Thanks.
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment, supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand it's presence
in the Gulf
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
11. He had no WMD, after they were destroyed by Iraq and UN inspectors
We don't know if he did/didn't have WMD - we just don't have evidence to prove
that he did. We cannot conclude that he definitely didn't have any, though.
If they had them, Saddam would have used them, with his back against
the wall. Even after offering a $25 million reward, not one single
Iraqi scientist or military officer has produced any evidence
whatsover of WMD. Not one.
That's not evidence, that's assumption.
Why did the US have to produce bogus "evidence", forged documents
to the UN, to try to make a case? Any UN resolution, founded on
bogus evidence and forged docuemnts would be null andvoid.
Again, that's not evidence of anything other than Bush's anxiousness to find a
reason to support a war he wanted.
There are no WMD in Iraq after 1996. Before that, there
were some, but they continued to be destroyed along
the way. Most of the WMD that Iraq had were supplied
by the US to begin with.
Why did the US give the world this Frankenstein?
Beats me!
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Tyme" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
16 Dec 2003 10:27:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 03:05:55 GMT, (Woodswun)
wrote:
In article <mruptvkgt4n4e1sig7g56t1u12t064cf1n@4ax.com>, Mark Tyme <MarkTyme@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:48:40 GMT, (Woodswun)
wrote:
In article <e7fptvgr7040r967uf4fuehfttkjkrb1lh@4ax.com>, Mark Tyme
<MarkTyme@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
1. He was a brutal dictator
2. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
I believe this is inaccurate. Have you a reliable source for this?
It is not "inaccurate". The CIA put Saddam, and the Shah of Iran, and
a dozen other tinpot dictators into power.
Start with the poor man's intelligence sources on google, to begin
with:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22saddam+hussein%22+and
+cia+and+1963&btnG=Google+Search
Thanks.
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment, supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand it's presence
in the Gulf
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
11. He had no WMD, after they were destroyed by Iraq and UN inspectors
We don't know if he did/didn't have WMD - we just don't have evidence to prove
that he did. We cannot conclude that he definitely didn't have any, though.
If they had them, Saddam would have used them, with his back against
the wall. Even after offering a $25 million reward, not one single
Iraqi scientist or military officer has produced any evidence
whatsover of WMD. Not one.
That's not evidence, that's assumption.
How many came forward with any evidence of WMD?
How many?
Why did the US have to produce bogus "evidence", forged documents
to the UN, to try to make a case? Any UN resolution, founded on
bogus evidence and forged docuemnts would be null andvoid.
Again, that's not evidence of anything other than Bush's anxiousness to find a
reason to support a war he wanted.
There are no WMD in Iraq after 1996. Before that, there
were some, but they continued to be destroyed along
the way. Most of the WMD that Iraq had were supplied
by the US to begin with.
Why did the US give the world this Frankenstein?
Beats me!
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WarpedFrets" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
15 Dec 2003 01:55:48 AM |
|
|
Yeah... you can find anything in a google search, it doesn't mean it
accurate...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=aliens%2C+ufo%2C+elvis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Tyme" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
15 Dec 2003 07:50:28 AM |
|
|
On 15 Dec 2003 07:55:48 GMT, (WarpedFrets) wrote:
Yeah... you can find anything in a google search, it doesn't mean it
accurate...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=aliens%2C+ufo%2C+elvis
Judge each source independently, and cross refrence to other sources.
If you are unable to do that, then you probably are not very educated.
Just because it's on Google also in no implies it's inaccurate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Guelfo" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
14 Dec 2003 02:02:34 PM |
|
|
Mark Tyme wrote:
1. He was a brutal dictator
Yes.
2. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people
Yes
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
Really?
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988+
Proof of this claim?
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment, supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
That's a lie.
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
False. He did the war for his own reasons.
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
Bull...
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand it's presence
in the Gulf
True.
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
We don't know that for sure.
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378&R=798D1B52B
11. He had no WMD, after they were destroyed by Iraq and UN inspectors
WMD still need to be found.
12. He and Iraq were not involved with any terrorist activities other
than related to their war against Iran
Utter *****. He paid 10 thousand dollars to the families of
palestinian kamikaze.
14. He is a scapegoat
So what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewhere up north" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
14 Dec 2003 06:04:13 PM |
|
|
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDCC1D1.4@netscape.net...
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378&R=798D1B52B
American intelligence.... another Oxy-Moron ....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Prof Rollerball" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
14 Dec 2003 02:23:35 PM |
|
|
Brilliant - couldn't put it better myself, Guelfo!
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDCC1D1.4@netscape.net...
Mark Tyme wrote:
1. He was a brutal dictator
Yes.
2. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people
Yes
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
Really?
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988+
Proof of this claim?
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment, supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
That's a lie.
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
False. He did the war for his own reasons.
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
Bull...
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand it's presence
in the Gulf
True.
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
We don't know that for sure.
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378&R
=798D1B52B
11. He had no WMD, after they were destroyed by Iraq and UN inspectors
WMD still need to be found.
12. He and Iraq were not involved with any terrorist activities other
than related to their war against Iran
Utter *****. He paid 10 thousand dollars to the families of
palestinian kamikaze.
14. He is a scapegoat
So what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anon Ymous" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
15 Dec 2003 02:14:01 PM |
|
|
"Prof Rollerball" <roller@miller-williams.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<brigs5$4u2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Brilliant - couldn't put it better myself, Guelfo!
I cant believe I find myself actually sticking up for kooky Mark, but
I really didnt find much in his post to argue against except for the
strong possibility of connections with Al Qaeda and Palestinian
suicide bombers, and a few problems with vagueness. See comments
below:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDCC1D1.4@netscape.net...
Mark Tyme wrote:
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
Really?
Im not sure about the details, but yeah, Im pretty sure the U.S. had a
hand in putting the moderate baathist in power.
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988+
Proof of this claim?
Again, not sure of the details, but I think the U.S. supported Iraq
against the more fundementalist Iran.
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment, supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
That's a lie.
Pretty sure Mark is right here, too--at least when it comes to
chemical. I remember a friend joking back just before "Iraqi Freedom"
that we knew Saddam had chemical weapons because we still had the
receipts.
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
False. He did the war for his own reasons.
Hard to prove this either way, but the war certainly served U.S.
interests at the time.
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
Bull...
Mmmm, again, Mark may be vague in his statement, but someone attached
to the U.S. embassy gave Saddam the idea that the U.S. would not
interfere with an invasion of Kuwait. I forget the person's name, but
it should be an easy google search. This one is well documented.
Now, is that a "green light?" No. But, I don't understand why the
woman didnt say, "you're going to do what?"
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand its presence
in the Gulf
True.
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
We don't know that for sure.
Good chance Mark is wrong on these last few.
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378&R
=798D1B52B
12. He and Iraq were not involved with any terrorist activities other
than related to their war against Iran
Utter *****. He paid 10 thousand dollars to the families of
palestinian kamikaze.
Although Mark uses most of his examples to paint the U.S. in the worst
light possible, his criticism of long-term foreign policy implemented
by the CIA isn't all that far off. Hard to do anything right in the
middle east though. The U.S. certainly isn't guilt-free or
perfect--just the best the world has ever had and likely will ever
have when it comes to superpowers.
S~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guelfo" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
15 Dec 2003 03:00:34 PM |
|
|
Anon Ymous wrote:
"Prof Rollerball" <roller@miller-williams.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<brigs5$4u2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Brilliant - couldn't put it better myself, Guelfo!
I cant believe I find myself actually sticking up for kooky Mark, but
I really didnt find much in his post to argue against except for the
strong possibility of connections with Al Qaeda and Palestinian
suicide bombers, and a few problems with vagueness. See comments
below:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDCC1D1.4@netscape.net...
Mark Tyme wrote:
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
Really?
Im not sure about the details, but yeah, Im pretty sure the U.S. had a
hand in putting the moderate baathist in power.
Wasn't exactly a moderate.
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988+
Proof of this claim?
Again, not sure of the details, but I think the U.S. supported Iraq
against the more fundementalist Iran.
Quite rightly considering Komeini went to power in Iran through a
fundamentalist coup.
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment, supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
That's a lie.
Pretty sure Mark is right here, too--at least when it comes to
chemical. I remember a friend joking back just before "Iraqi Freedom"
that we knew Saddam had chemical weapons because we still had the
receipts.
I'm pretty sure the French sold him nuclear equipment and technology.
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
False. He did the war for his own reasons.
Hard to prove this either way, but the war certainly served U.S.
interests at the time.
Of course it did. Remember that Iran was a violent fundamentalist regime.
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
Bull...
Mmmm, again, Mark may be vague in his statement, but someone attached
to the U.S. embassy gave Saddam the idea that the U.S. would not
interfere with an invasion of Kuwait. I forget the person's name, but
it should be an easy google search. This one is well documented.
Now, is that a "green light?" No. But, I don't understand why the
woman didnt say, "you're going to do what?"
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. But what Mark fails to remember is
that Saddam had 6 months to retreat his troops from Iraq which he chose
not to do. War against him became inevitable.
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand its presence
in the Gulf
True.
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
We don't know that for sure.
Good chance Mark is wrong on these last few.
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378&R
=798D1B52B
12. He and Iraq were not involved with any terrorist activities other
than related to their war against Iran
Utter *****. He paid 10 thousand dollars to the families of
palestinian kamikaze.
Although Mark uses most of his examples to paint the U.S. in the worst
light possible, his criticism of long-term foreign policy implemented
by the CIA isn't all that far off. Hard to do anything right in the
middle east though. The U.S. certainly isn't guilt-free or
perfect--just the best the world has ever had and likely will ever
have when it comes to superpowers.
Absolutely spot-on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
16 Dec 2003 04:23:42 AM |
|
|
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDE20E8.5040800@netscape.net...
Anon Ymous wrote:
"Prof Rollerball" <roller@miller-williams.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<brigs5$4u2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Brilliant - couldn't put it better myself, Guelfo!
I cant believe I find myself actually sticking up for kooky Mark, but
I really didnt find much in his post to argue against except for the
strong possibility of connections with Al Qaeda and Palestinian
suicide bombers, and a few problems with vagueness. See comments
below:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDCC1D1.4@netscape.net...
Mark Tyme wrote:
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
Really?
Im not sure about the details, but yeah, Im pretty sure the U.S. had a
hand in putting the moderate baathist in power.
Wasn't exactly a moderate.
Typical Guelfo evasion..
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988+
Proof of this claim?
Again, not sure of the details, but I think the U.S. supported Iraq
against the more fundementalist Iran.
Quite rightly considering Komeini went to power in Iran through a
fundamentalist coup.
Typical Guelfo evasion.. so you admit there was military aid?
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment, supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
That's a lie.
Pretty sure Mark is right here, too--at least when it comes to
chemical. I remember a friend joking back just before "Iraqi Freedom"
that we knew Saddam had chemical weapons because we still had the
receipts.
I'm pretty sure the French sold him nuclear equipment and technology.
Another typical Guelfo evasion! Look at him go!
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
False. He did the war for his own reasons.
Hard to prove this either way, but the war certainly served U.S.
interests at the time.
Of course it did. Remember that Iran was a violent fundamentalist regime.
...and there's another evasion! 4 for 4.
Iran was a violent regime? Who attacked who in the Gulf War?
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
Bull...
Mmmm, again, Mark may be vague in his statement, but someone attached
to the U.S. embassy gave Saddam the idea that the U.S. would not
interfere with an invasion of Kuwait. I forget the person's name, but
it should be an easy google search. This one is well documented.
Now, is that a "green light?" No. But, I don't understand why the
woman didnt say, "you're going to do what?"
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. But what Mark fails to remember is
that Saddam had 6 months to retreat his troops from Iraq which he chose
not to do. War against him became inevitable.
...and there's teh 5th evasion.
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand its presence
in the Gulf
True.
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
We don't know that for sure.
Good chance Mark is wrong on these last few.
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378
&R
=798D1B52B
12. He and Iraq were not involved with any terrorist activities other
than related to their war against Iran
Utter *****. He paid 10 thousand dollars to the families of
palestinian kamikaze.
Although Mark uses most of his examples to paint the U.S. in the worst
light possible, his criticism of long-term foreign policy implemented
by the CIA isn't all that far off. Hard to do anything right in the
middle east though. The U.S. certainly isn't guilt-free or
perfect--just the best the world has ever had and likely will ever
have when it comes to superpowers.
Absolutely spot-on.
Except for the "likely will ever have". And there are many who would argue
the "has ever had".
Well done Guelfo, you managed to evade every single pertinent point in the
post!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guelfo" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
16 Dec 2003 04:40:49 AM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDE20E8.5040800@netscape.net...
Anon Ymous wrote:
"Prof Rollerball" <roller@miller-williams.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<brigs5$4u2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Brilliant - couldn't put it better myself, Guelfo!
I cant believe I find myself actually sticking up for kooky Mark, but
I really didnt find much in his post to argue against except for the
strong possibility of connections with Al Qaeda and Palestinian
suicide bombers, and a few problems with vagueness. See comments
below:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDCC1D1.4@netscape.net...
Mark Tyme wrote:
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
Really?
Im not sure about the details, but yeah, Im pretty sure the U.S. had a
hand in putting the moderate baathist in power.
Wasn't exactly a moderate.
Typical Guelfo evasion..
Don't talk rubbish!
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988+
Proof of this claim?
Again, not sure of the details, but I think the U.S. supported Iraq
against the more fundementalist Iran.
Quite rightly considering Komeini went to power in Iran through a
fundamentalist coup.
Typical Guelfo evasion.. so you admit there was military aid?
I do. But at the time Saddam was a friend not a foe. Is it so hard to
understand?
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment, supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
That's a lie.
Pretty sure Mark is right here, too--at least when it comes to
chemical. I remember a friend joking back just before "Iraqi Freedom"
that we knew Saddam had chemical weapons because we still had the
receipts.
I'm pretty sure the French sold him nuclear equipment and technology.
Another typical Guelfo evasion! Look at him go!
What are you saying?
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
False. He did the war for his own reasons.
Hard to prove this either way, but the war certainly served U.S.
interests at the time.
Of course it did. Remember that Iran was a violent fundamentalist regime.
..and there's another evasion! 4 for 4.
Iran was a violent regime? Who attacked who in the Gulf War?
What are you talking about dimwit? The Guld War and the Iran-Iraq
conflict are quite different things.
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
Bull...
Mmmm, again, Mark may be vague in his statement, but someone attached
to the U.S. embassy gave Saddam the idea that the U.S. would not
interfere with an invasion of Kuwait. I forget the person's name, but
it should be an easy google search. This one is well documented.
Now, is that a "green light?" No. But, I don't understand why the
woman didnt say, "you're going to do what?"
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. But what Mark fails to remember is
that Saddam had 6 months to retreat his troops from Iraq which he chose
not to do. War against him became inevitable.
..and there's teh 5th evasion.
It is not.
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand its presence
in the Gulf
True.
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
We don't know that for sure.
Good chance Mark is wrong on these last few.
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378
&R
=798D1B52B
12. He and Iraq were not involved with any terrorist activities other
than related to their war against Iran
Utter *****. He paid 10 thousand dollars to the families of
palestinian kamikaze.
Although Mark uses most of his examples to paint the U.S. in the worst
light possible, his criticism of long-term foreign policy implemented
by the CIA isn't all that far off. Hard to do anything right in the
middle east though. The U.S. certainly isn't guilt-free or
perfect--just the best the world has ever had and likely will ever
have when it comes to superpowers.
Absolutely spot-on.
Except for the "likely will ever have". And there are many who would argue
the "has ever had".
Well done Guelfo, you managed to evade every single pertinent point in the
post!
I did not evade a thing since no questions were asked to me.
You can only evade things when they are asked directly to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
16 Dec 2003 05:46:44 AM |
|
|
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDEE127.6030309@netscape.net...
tw wrote:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDE20E8.5040800@netscape.net...
Anon Ymous wrote:
"Prof Rollerball" <roller@miller-williams.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<brigs5$4u2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Brilliant - couldn't put it better myself, Guelfo!
I cant believe I find myself actually sticking up for kooky Mark, but
I really didnt find much in his post to argue against except for the
strong possibility of connections with Al Qaeda and Palestinian
suicide bombers, and a few problems with vagueness. See comments
below:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDCC1D1.4@netscape.net...
Mark Tyme wrote:
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
Really?
Im not sure about the details, but yeah, Im pretty sure the U.S. had a
hand in putting the moderate baathist in power.
Wasn't exactly a moderate.
Typical Guelfo evasion..
Don't talk rubbish!
And another evasion! Did the US have a role in putting him into power or
not?
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988+
Proof of this claim?
Again, not sure of the details, but I think the U.S. supported Iraq
against the more fundementalist Iran.
Quite rightly considering Komeini went to power in Iran through a
fundamentalist coup.
Typical Guelfo evasion.. so you admit there was military aid?
I do.
Splendid
But at the time Saddam was a friend not a foe. Is it so hard to
understand?
It is hard to understand how we can fund his killing and torture one moment
then condemn him for it later, yes.
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment, supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
That's a lie.
Pretty sure Mark is right here, too--at least when it comes to
chemical. I remember a friend joking back just before "Iraqi Freedom"
that we knew Saddam had chemical weapons because we still had the
receipts.
I'm pretty sure the French sold him nuclear equipment and technology.
Another typical Guelfo evasion! Look at him go!
What are you saying?
Thta you are a lying, evading little weasel. You evade by bringing up a new
subject.
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
False. He did the war for his own reasons.
Hard to prove this either way, but the war certainly served U.S.
interests at the time.
Of course it did. Remember that Iran was a violent fundamentalist
regime.
..and there's another evasion! 4 for 4.
Iran was a violent regime? Who attacked who in the Gulf War?
What are you talking about dimwit? The Guld War and the Iran-Iraq
conflict are quite different things.
Another evasion! The first Gulf War was the Iran/Iraq conflict, by the way.
And Iraq was the aggressor
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
Bull...
Mmmm, again, Mark may be vague in his statement, but someone attached
to the U.S. embassy gave Saddam the idea that the U.S. would not
interfere with an invasion of Kuwait. I forget the person's name, but
it should be an easy google search. This one is well documented.
Now, is that a "green light?" No. But, I don't understand why the
woman didnt say, "you're going to do what?"
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. But what Mark fails to remember is
that Saddam had 6 months to retreat his troops from Iraq which he chose
not to do. War against him became inevitable.
..and there's teh 5th evasion.
It is not.
It most certainly is. He was given a green light to invade by the only
American he talked to on the matter.
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand its presence
in the Gulf
True.
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
We don't know that for sure.
Good chance Mark is wrong on these last few.
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=337
8
&R
=798D1B52B
12. He and Iraq were not involved with any terrorist activities
other
than related to their war against Iran
Utter *****. He paid 10 thousand dollars to the families of
palestinian kamikaze.
Although Mark uses most of his examples to paint the U.S. in the worst
light possible, his criticism of long-term foreign policy implemented
by the CIA isn't all that far off. Hard to do anything right in the
middle east though. The U.S. certainly isn't guilt-free or
perfect--just the best the world has ever had and likely will ever
have when it comes to superpowers.
Absolutely spot-on.
Except for the "likely will ever have". And there are many who would
argue
the "has ever had".
Well done Guelfo, you managed to evade every single pertinent point in
the
post!
I did not evade a thing since no questions were asked to me.
You can only evade things when they are asked directly to you.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guelfo" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
16 Dec 2003 06:28:54 AM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDEE127.6030309@netscape.net...
tw wrote:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDE20E8.5040800@netscape.net...
Anon Ymous wrote:
"Prof Rollerball" <roller@miller-williams.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<brigs5$4u2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Brilliant - couldn't put it better myself, Guelfo!
I cant believe I find myself actually sticking up for kooky Mark, but
I really didnt find much in his post to argue against except for the
strong possibility of connections with Al Qaeda and Palestinian
suicide bombers, and a few problems with vagueness. See comments
below:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDCC1D1.4@netscape.net...
Mark Tyme wrote:
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
Really?
Im not sure about the details, but yeah, Im pretty sure the U.S. had a
hand in putting the moderate baathist in power.
Wasn't exactly a moderate.
Typical Guelfo evasion..
Don't talk rubbish!
And another evasion!
Did the US have a role in putting him into power or not?
Yes and so?
The US were allied with Stalin in WWII does that make them accomplices
to his crimes?
Of course not.
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988+
Proof of this claim?
Again, not sure of the details, but I think the U.S. supported Iraq
against the more fundementalist Iran.
Quite rightly considering Komeini went to power in Iran through a
fundamentalist coup.
Typical Guelfo evasion.. so you admit there was military aid?
I do.
Splendid
But at the time Saddam was a friend not a foe. Is it so hard to
understand?
It is hard to understand how we can fund his killing and torture one moment
then condemn him for it later, yes.
The US did not fund his killing and torture.
They have always condemned it.
It isn't a crime to sell weapons if those weapons are legal.
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment, supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
That's a lie.
Pretty sure Mark is right here, too--at least when it comes to
chemical. I remember a friend joking back just before "Iraqi Freedom"
that we knew Saddam had chemical weapons because we still had the
receipts.
I'm pretty sure the French sold him nuclear equipment and technology.
Another typical Guelfo evasion! Look at him go!
What are you saying?
Thta you are a lying, evading little weasel. You evade by bringing up a new
subject.
I did not lie! Stop slandering me!
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
False. He did the war for his own reasons.
Hard to prove this either way, but the war certainly served U.S.
interests at the time.
Of course it did. Remember that Iran was a violent fundamentalist
regime.
..and there's another evasion! 4 for 4.
Iran was a violent regime? Who attacked who in the Gulf War?
What are you talking about dimwit? The Guld War and the Iran-Iraq
conflict are quite different things.
Another evasion! The first Gulf War was the Iran/Iraq conflict, by the way.
And Iraq was the aggressor
Actually we consider the firs Gulf War the one in 1991.
Desert Storm.
So as usual your wrong.
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
Bull...
Mmmm, again, Mark may be vague in his statement, but someone attached
to the U.S. embassy gave Saddam the idea that the U.S. would not
interfere with an invasion of Kuwait. I forget the person's name, but
it should be an easy google search. This one is well documented.
Now, is that a "green light?" No. But, I don't understand why the
woman didnt say, "you're going to do what?"
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. But what Mark fails to remember is
that Saddam had 6 months to retreat his troops from Iraq which he chose
not to do. War against him became inevitable.
..and there's teh 5th evasion.
It is not.
It most certainly is. He was given a green light to invade by the only
American he talked to on the matter.
So what? This does not prove the US ordered him to do it!
And actually George Bush Senior has denied such allegations!
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand its presence
in the Gulf
True.
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
We don't know that for sure.
Good chance Mark is wrong on these last few.
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=337
8
&R
=798D1B52B
12. He and Iraq were not involved with any terrorist activities
other
than related to their war against Iran
Utter *****. He paid 10 thousand dollars to the families of
palestinian kamikaze.
Although Mark uses most of his examples to paint the U.S. in the worst
light possible, his criticism of long-term foreign policy implemented
by the CIA isn't all that far off. Hard to do anything right in the
middle east though. The U.S. certainly isn't guilt-free or
perfect--just the best the world has ever had and likely will ever
have when it comes to superpowers.
Absolutely spot-on.
Except for the "likely will ever have". And there are many who would
argue
the "has ever had".
Well done Guelfo, you managed to evade every single pertinent point in
the
post!
I did not evade a thing since no questions were asked to me.
You can only evade things when they are asked directly to you.
LOL
Laugh all you want punk! Its the truth!
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
16 Dec 2003 06:43:55 AM |
|
|
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDEFA7B.1080103@netscape.net...
tw wrote:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDEE127.6030309@netscape.net...
tw wrote:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDE20E8.5040800@netscape.net...
Anon Ymous wrote:
"Prof Rollerball" <roller@miller-williams.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<brigs5$4u2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Brilliant - couldn't put it better myself, Guelfo!
I cant believe I find myself actually sticking up for kooky Mark, but
I really didnt find much in his post to argue against except for the
strong possibility of connections with Al Qaeda and Palestinian
suicide bombers, and a few problems with vagueness. See comments
below:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDCC1D1.4@netscape.net...
Mark Tyme wrote:
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
Really?
Im not sure about the details, but yeah, Im pretty sure the U.S. had
a
hand in putting the moderate baathist in power.
Wasn't exactly a moderate.
Typical Guelfo evasion..
Don't talk rubbish!
And another evasion!
Did the US have a role in putting him into power or not?
Yes and so?
You questioned Mark's original point on the matter.
The US were allied with Stalin in WWII does that make them accomplices
to his crimes?
Did I say it did? Yet another typical Guelfo red herring...
Of course not.
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988+
Proof of this claim?
Again, not sure of the details, but I think the U.S. supported Iraq
against the more fundementalist Iran.
Quite rightly considering Komeini went to power in Iran through a
fundamentalist coup.
Typical Guelfo evasion.. so you admit there was military aid?
I do.
Splendid
But at the time Saddam was a friend not a foe. Is it so hard to
understand?
It is hard to understand how we can fund his killing and torture one
moment
then condemn him for it later, yes.
The US did not fund his killing and torture.
You have already admitted they gave substantial sums in military aid. What
did they think he was going to do with it? Have a street party?!
They have always condemned it.
Actually, they haven't.
It isn't a crime to sell weapons if those weapons are legal.
Another red herring...
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment,
supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
That's a lie.
Pretty sure Mark is right here, too--at least when it comes to
chemical. I remember a friend joking back just before "Iraqi
Freedom"
that we knew Saddam had chemical weapons because we still had the
receipts.
I'm pretty sure the French sold him nuclear equipment and technology.
Another typical Guelfo evasion! Look at him go!
What are you saying?
Thta you are a lying, evading little weasel. You evade by bringing up a
new
subject.
I did not lie! Stop slandering me!
Evasion noted.
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
False. He did the war for his own reasons.
Hard to prove this either way, but the war certainly served U.S.
interests at the time.
Of course it did. Remember that Iran was a violent fundamentalist
regime.
..and there's another evasion! 4 for 4.
Iran was a violent regime? Who attacked who in the Gulf War?
What are you talking about dimwit? The Guld War and the Iran-Iraq
conflict are quite different things.
Another evasion! The first Gulf War was the Iran/Iraq conflict, by the
way.
And Iraq was the aggressor
Actually we consider the firs Gulf War the one in 1991.
"We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Desert Storm.
So as usual your wrong.
You must be terribly young. Just one link (plenty more out there)
http://www.ehistory.com/world/WarView.Cfm?WID=41
I assume you will apologise and admit your error..
Oh, and whil I remember the point you're trying to evade, who statred teh
Gulf War? The (at the time, according to you) friendly Saddam Hussein or
those terrible aggressive Iranians you mentioned?
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
Bull...
Mmmm, again, Mark may be vague in his statement, but someone attached
to the U.S. embassy gave Saddam the idea that the U.S. would not
interfere with an invasion of Kuwait. I forget the person's name,
but
it should be an easy google search. This one is well documented.
Now, is that a "green light?" No. But, I don't understand why the
woman didnt say, "you're going to do what?"
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. But what Mark fails to remember
is
that Saddam had 6 months to retreat his troops from Iraq which he
chose
not to do. War against him became inevitable.
..and there's teh 5th evasion.
It is not.
It most certainly is. He was given a green light to invade by the only
American he talked to on the matter.
So what?
So you evaded the fact that you called thios point "bull". Do you actually
read your own posts?
This does not prove the US ordered him to do it!
No one said it did. Stop with the red herrings already!
And actually George Bush Senior has denied such allegations!
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand its presence
in the Gulf
True.
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
We don't know that for sure.
Good chance Mark is wrong on these last few.
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=33
7
8
&R
=798D1B52B
12. He and Iraq were not involved with any terrorist activities
other
than related to their war against Iran
Utter *****. He paid 10 thousand dollars to the families of
palestinian kamikaze.
Although Mark uses most of his examples to paint the U.S. in the
worst
light possible, his criticism of long-term foreign policy implemented
by the CIA isn't all that far off. Hard to do anything right in the
middle east though. The U.S. certainly isn't guilt-free or
perfect--just the best the world has ever had and likely will ever
have when it comes to superpowers.
Absolutely spot-on.
Except for the "likely will ever have". And there are many who would
argue
the "has ever had".
Well done Guelfo, you managed to evade every single pertinent point in
the
post!
I did not evade a thing since no questions were asked to me.
You can only evade things when they are asked directly to you.
LOL
Laugh all you want punk! Its the truth!
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you, Guido. Your evasions and entire
netfull of red herrings proves that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guelfo" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
16 Dec 2003 08:01:42 AM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDEFA7B.1080103@netscape.net...
tw wrote:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDEE127.6030309@netscape.net...
tw wrote:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDE20E8.5040800@netscape.net...
Anon Ymous wrote:
"Prof Rollerball" <roller@miller-williams.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<brigs5$4u2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Brilliant - couldn't put it better myself, Guelfo!
I cant believe I find myself actually sticking up for kooky Mark, but
I really didnt find much in his post to argue against except for the
strong possibility of connections with Al Qaeda and Palestinian
suicide bombers, and a few problems with vagueness. See comments
below:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDCC1D1.4@netscape.net...
Mark Tyme wrote:
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
Really?
Im not sure about the details, but yeah, Im pretty sure the U.S. had
a
hand in putting the moderate baathist in power.
Wasn't exactly a moderate.
Typical Guelfo evasion..
Don't talk rubbish!
And another evasion!
Did the US have a role in putting him into power or not?
Yes and so?
You questioned Mark's original point on the matter.
Did not.
The US were allied with Stalin in WWII does that make them accomplices
to his crimes?
Did I say it did? Yet another typical Guelfo red herring...
Do you think it?
Of course not.
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988+
Proof of this claim?
Again, not sure of the details, but I think the U.S. supported Iraq
against the more fundementalist Iran.
Quite rightly considering Komeini went to power in Iran through a
fundamentalist coup.
Typical Guelfo evasion.. so you admit there was military aid?
I do.
Splendid
But at the time Saddam was a friend not a foe. Is it so hard to
understand?
It is hard to understand how we can fund his killing and torture one
moment
then condemn him for it later, yes.
The US did not fund his killing and torture.
You have already admitted they gave substantial sums in military aid.
And? It I'm a gun merchant and I sell a gun who later kills his wife and
kids with that gun that doesn't make me an accomplice to the murder.
What
did they think he was going to do with it? Have a street party?!
They sold guns in exchange for oil and business guarantees in Iraq.
That's business.
They have always condemned it.
Actually, they haven't.
They have.
It isn't a crime to sell weapons if those weapons are legal.
Another red herring...
Which you have evaded.
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment,
supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
That's a lie.
Pretty sure Mark is right here, too--at least when it comes to
chemical. I remember a friend joking back just before "Iraqi
Freedom"
that we knew Saddam had chemical weapons because we still had the
receipts.
I'm pretty sure the French sold him nuclear equipment and technology.
Another typical Guelfo evasion! Look at him go!
What are you saying?
Thta you are a lying, evading little weasel. You evade by bringing up a
new
subject.
I did not lie! Stop slandering me!
Evasion noted.
Liar!
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US, and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
False. He did the war for his own reasons.
Hard to prove this either way, but the war certainly served U.S.
interests at the time.
Of course it did. Remember that Iran was a violent fundamentalist
regime.
..and there's another evasion! 4 for 4.
Iran was a violent regime? Who attacked who in the Gulf War?
What are you talking about dimwit? The Guld War and the Iran-Iraq
conflict are quite different things.
Another evasion! The first Gulf War was the Iran/Iraq conflict, by the
way.
And Iraq was the aggressor
Actually we consider the firs Gulf War the one in 1991.
"We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Me and other historians.
Desert Storm.
So as usual your wrong.
You must be terribly young. Just one link (plenty more out there)
http://www.ehistory.com/world/WarView.Cfm?WID=41
That's only one historian who calls it like that.
I assume you will apologise and admit your error..
no way. The claim of one historian doesn't make it the truth!
Oh, and whil I remember the point you're trying to evade, who statred teh
Gulf War? The (at the time, according to you) friendly Saddam Hussein or
those terrible aggressive Iranians you mentioned?
That Gulf War was started by Saddam and not by the US.
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
Bull...
Mmmm, again, Mark may be vague in his statement, but someone attached
to the U.S. embassy gave Saddam the idea that the U.S. would not
interfere with an invasion of Kuwait. I forget the person's name,
but
it should be an easy google search. This one is well documented.
Now, is that a "green light?" No. But, I don't understand why the
woman didnt say, "you're going to do what?"
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. But what Mark fails to remember
is
that Saddam had 6 months to retreat his troops from Iraq which he
chose
not to do. War against him became inevitable.
..and there's teh 5th evasion.
It is not.
It most certainly is. He was given a green light to invade by the only
American he talked to on the matter.
So what?
So you evaded the fact that you called thios point "bull". Do you actually
read your own posts?
Don't fabricate my answers tw.
I said ***** to the
"7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US"
claim.
Which is not true.
This does not prove the US ordered him to do it!
No one said it did. Stop with the red herrings already!
That's what the original poster says.
And actually George Bush Senior has denied such allegations!
8. The invasion of Kuwait gave the US the excuse to launch war
against Iraq, and to occupy Kuwait and expand its presence
in the Gulf
True.
9 He had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11
We don't know that for sure.
Good chance Mark is wrong on these last few.
10. He had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda, who hate his guts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=33
7
8
&R
=798D1B52B
12. He and Iraq were not involved with any terrorist activities
other
than related to their war against Iran
Utter *****. He paid 10 thousand dollars to the families of
palestinian kamikaze.
Although Mark uses most of his examples to paint the U.S. in the
worst
light possible, his criticism of long-term foreign policy implemented
by the CIA isn't all that far off. Hard to do anything right in the
middle east though. The U.S. certainly isn't guilt-free or
perfect--just the best the world has ever had and likely will ever
have when it comes to superpowers.
Absolutely spot-on.
Except for the "likely will ever have". And there are many who would
argue
the "has ever had".
Well done Guelfo, you managed to evade every single pertinent point in
the
post!
I did not evade a thing since no questions were asked to me.
You can only evade things when they are asked directly to you.
LOL
Laugh all you want punk! Its the truth!
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you, Guido. Your evasions and entire
netfull of red herrings proves that.
It does not. Your a troll.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Some facts about Saddam |
16 Dec 2003 09:18:45 AM |
|
|
"Guelfo" <pippopoppo1@libero.it> wrote in message
news:3FDF103B.2050105@libero.it...
tw wrote:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDEFA7B.1080103@netscape.net...
tw wrote:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDEE127.6030309@netscape.net...
tw wrote:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDE20E8.5040800@netscape.net...
Anon Ymous wrote:
"Prof Rollerball" <roller@miller-williams.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<brigs5$4u2$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Brilliant - couldn't put it better myself, Guelfo!
I cant believe I find myself actually sticking up for kooky Mark,
but
I really didnt find much in his post to argue against except for
the
strong possibility of connections with Al Qaeda and Palestinian
suicide bombers, and a few problems with vagueness. See comments
below:
"Guelfo" <EGuelfo@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3FDCC1D1.4@netscape.net...
Mark Tyme wrote:
3. He was installed in power by a CIA financed Coup
Really?
Im not sure about the details, but yeah, Im pretty sure the U.S.
had
a
hand in putting the moderate baathist in power.
Wasn't exactly a moderate.
Typical Guelfo evasion..
Don't talk rubbish!
And another evasion!
Did the US have a role in putting him into power or not?
Yes and so?
You questioned Mark's original point on the matter.
Did not.
You said "Really?" which was a question.
The US were allied with Stalin in WWII does that make them accomplices
to his crimes?
Did I say it did? Yet another typical Guelfo red herring...
Do you think it?
Yes, I think it is another one of your typical red herrings.
Of course not.
4. He received $4 billion in military aid from the US in 1988+
Proof of this claim?
Again, not sure of the details, but I think the U.S. supported Iraq
against the more fundementalist Iran.
Quite rightly considering Komeini went to power in Iran through a
fundamentalist coup.
Typical Guelfo evasion.. so you admit there was military aid?
I do.
Splendid
But at the time Saddam was a friend not a foe. Is it so hard to
understand?
It is hard to understand how we can fund his killing and torture one
moment
then condemn him for it later, yes.
The US did not fund his killing and torture.
You have already admitted they gave substantial sums in military aid.
And? It I'm a gun merchant and I sell a gun who later kills his wife and
kids with that gun that doesn't make me an accomplice to the murder.
The analogy would be that you gave him the gun at a time when he was
fighting with his wife. You most certainly would have funded the killing,
which was the point.
What
did they think he was going to do with it? Have a street party?!
They sold guns in exchange for oil and business guarantees in Iraq.
That's business.
Absolutely. They sold/gave arms to someone they knew was killing and
torturing with those weapons. Hence they funded it.
They have always condemned it.
Actually, they haven't.
They have.
What, even when they were selling him arms to do it with?! Rather
hypocritical don't you think?
It isn't a crime to sell weapons if those weapons are legal.
Another red herring...
Which you have evaded.
That's the best thing to do with red herrings, seeing as their purpose is to
deflect from the point.
5. He received nuclear, chemical and biological equipment,
supplies
and technologies from the US, ie, the US supplied him with WMD
That's a lie.
Pretty sure Mark is right here, too--at least when it comes to
chemical. I remember a friend joking back just before "Iraqi
Freedom"
that we knew Saddam had chemical weapons because we still had the
receipts.
I'm pretty sure the French sold him nuclear equipment and
technology.
Another typical Guelfo evasion! Look at him go!
What are you saying?
Thta you are a lying, evading little weasel. You evade by bringing up a
new
subject.
I did not lie! Stop slandering me!
Evasion noted.
Liar!
Wrong, as anyone who can follow a thread can see.
6. He was given conditions of his aid from the US, that he had
to
attack Iran. This resulted in a proxy war on behalf of the US,
and
the death of over 1 million Iranians
False. He did the war for his own reasons.
Hard to prove this either way, but the war certainly served U.S.
interests at the time.
Of course it did. Remember that Iran was a violent fundamentalist
regime.
..and there's another evasion! 4 for 4.
Iran was a violent regime? Who attacked who in the Gulf War?
What are you talking about dimwit? The Guld War and the Iran-Iraq
conflict are quite different things.
Another evasion! The first Gulf War was the Iran/Iraq conflict, by the
way.
And Iraq was the aggressor
Actually we consider the firs Gulf War the one in 1991.
"We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Me and other historians.
Not reputable ones, obviously.
Desert Storm.
So as usual your wrong.
You must be terribly young. Just one link (plenty more out there)
http://www.ehistory.com/world/WarView.Cfm?WID=41
That's only one historian who calls it like that.
Nope:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
http://www.tayak.com/Iran-Iraq_War.shtml
http://iranfilter.com/link.php/386
Wrong again, Guido. How do you like having your little face rubbed in the
mud?
I assume you will apologise and admit your error..
no way. The claim of one historian doesn't make it the truth!
Luckily it is the claim of lots of historians. Here's some more!
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_206.shtml
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/latecoldwar/gulfwar1.html
http://www.jordanembassyus.org/05122000003.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0792313348/002-3305136-2343224
?v=glance
etc etc etc.
Now, about that apology....
Oh, and whil I remember the point you're trying to evade, who statred
teh
Gulf War? The (at the time, according to you) friendly Saddam Hussein or
those terrible aggressive Iranians you mentioned?
That Gulf War was started by Saddam and not by the US.
Hmm, looks like the Iranians weren't as aggressive as you claimed, eh?
7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US
Bull...
Mmmm, again, Mark may be vague in his statement, but someone
attached
to the U.S. embassy gave Saddam the idea that the U.S. would not
interfere with an invasion of Kuwait. I forget the person's name,
but
it should be an easy google search. This one is well documented.
Now, is that a "green light?" No. But, I don't understand why the
woman didnt say, "you're going to do what?"
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. But what Mark fails to
remember
is
that Saddam had 6 months to retreat his troops from Iraq which he
chose
not to do. War against him became inevitable.
..and there's teh 5th evasion.
It is not.
It most certainly is. He was given a green light to invade by the only
American he talked to on the matter.
So what?
So you evaded the fact that you called thios point "bull". Do you
actually
read your own posts?
Don't fabricate my answers tw.
I said ***** to the
"7. He was given the green light to invade Kuwait by the US"
claim.
Which is not true.
He discussed it with a representative of teh American government, they said
it didn't concern them or words to such effect, this is a matter of
historical record. If that's not a green light, what is?
This does not prove the US ordered him to do it!
No one said it did. Stop with the red herrings already!
That's what the original poster says.
We are dis | | | | | | | | | | | |
