Saddam Hussein sentenced to death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

The current white house thaught me you dont need more then that and people will buy it hook, lina and sinker

---

i think that's more of a case of people putting trust in their government rather than "if it's on paper it must be true." otherwise i'd write "i have $3 billion" on a piece of paper and be one of the happiest people alive.

anyway, if everyone believed what was written on paper we wouldn't be on this forum talking about how not true it is. the people who believe it because it's on paper would probably believe it even if it wasn't; writing it on paper might've been in excess of the "proof" required to win them over.

On the most recent Real Time with Bill Maher (I try to vary my political diet as much as possible to get all viewpoints) they did a bit where they mocked those death rolls at awards shows (those slideshows of the people that died in the past year). They showed all the Republicans that got voted out in last week's election; all got standing ovations by the crowd. At the very end they slipped in a picture of Saddam Hussein; no applause, instead mild booing and confused silence. For a guilty verdict against Saddam Hussein. The far left has become absolutely reprehensible in propping Saddam up as some sort of grandfatherly anti-hero (similar to what they've done with Che Guevera). These are the same breed of people that promoted the notion that Hitler wasn't so bad in order to support their agenda of US non-involvement in WWII. How long before these bastards start sporting trendy Hitler "Take back what's ours!" tees?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

At the very end they slipped in a picture of Saddam Hussein; no applause, instead mild booing and confused silence.

---

Um, no. There was laughter, since it was obviously a JOKE. Also, this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

The far left has become absolutely reprehensible in propping Saddam up as some sort of grandfatherly anti-hero (similar to what they've done with Che Guevera).

---

..is completely false. You show me one liberal scholar, speaker, writer, newscaster, whatever that has lionized Saddam Hussein and applauds his accomplishments.

If you want to talk about the lionizing of a murderer and a villain let's start with Ronald Reagan, move on to Henry Kissinger, and finish up with anti-Castro terrorists in Miami.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

These are the same breed of people that promoted the notion that Hitler wasn't so bad in order to support their agenda of US non-involvement in WWII. How long before these bastards start sporting trendy Hitler "Take back what's ours!" tees?

---

This argument is a disgusting slippery slope, and all it serves to show is the weakness of your points that you had to rely on such an extreme example to even remain slightly relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Um, no. There was laughter, since it was obviously a JOKE.

---

Did you actually watch it? The audience clearly refuses to applaud for the conviction of Hussein the way they did for every other person on the roll (Republicans and K-Fed).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

..is completely false. You show me one liberal scholar, speaker, writer, newscaster, whatever that has lionized Saddam Hussein and applauds his accomplishments.

---

Bill Maher himself says almost weekly "For as bad a guy as Hussein was, he kept that region under control. Maybe you need a guy like him to keep things under control, we should put him back in power." Don't pretend to be naive, you know very well that many of your far left brethren share that twisted belief (that Iraq would be better off with Saddam in power). Then again, maybe your brain erases the memories of instances when the far left exposes itself to be a sadistic capitulationist gaggle of cowards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

If you want to talk about the lionizing of a murderer and a villain let's start with Ronald Reagan, move on to Henry Kissinger, and finish up with anti-Castro terrorists in Miami.

---

So now you're comparing Ronald Reagan to Saddam Hussein? That's really lame dude, but if you'd like to actually try to defend that comparison you can have some rope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

This argument is a disgusting slippery slope, and all it serves to show is the weakness of your points that you had to rely on such an extreme example to even remain slightly relevant.

---

It's not at all a slippery slope; Che Guevera murdered thousands and thousands of innocent people based on race, religion, and sexual orientation just like Hitler. His goal was to bring about nuclear armageddon. Even you can't deny that the far left wears Che on tee shirts; are you arguing that it's a slippery slope because Hitler murdered 8 million and Che probably only murdered between 500,000 and 1 million?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Did you actually watch it? The audience clearly refuses to applaud for the conviction of Hussein the way they did for every other person on the roll (Republicans and K-Fed).

---

Yes, I watched it. I just didn't watch it in 'Spo-Vision' so I didn't draw any ridiculous conclusions. You went into the exercise looking for something to validate the deep irrational hatred you feel for the left, and in your mind you got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Don't pretend to be naive, you know very well that many of your far left brethren share that twisted belief (that Iraq would be better off with Saddam in power).

---

Justifying a strongman staying in power is an invention of the right, not the left. Who funded both Saddam and Iran in the 80s with weapons? Reagan. Who supported genocide in Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, and El Salvador by those countries respective military juntas? The Bush CIA and later Reagan. So, sure, you can whine all you want about Bill Maher saying that having a strongman in power is better than chaos, but don't try to paint it as some exclusive leftist ideal. Because it's anything but.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

So now you're comparing Ronald Reagan to Saddam Hussein? That's really lame dude, but if you'd like to actually try to defend that comparison you can have some rope.

---

There's nothing lame about comparing one man who ordered the deaths of thousands with another man who ordered the deaths of thousands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

are you arguing that it's a slippery slope because Hitler murdered 8 million and Che probably only murdered between 500,000 and 1 million?

---

No, I'm saying it's a slippery slope because you cannot begin to infer that anyone who opposes the war 1.) likes Saddam or 2.) is somehow a closet Nazi sympathizer. It's a garbage argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Yes, I watched it. I just didn't watch it in 'Spo-Vision' so I didn't draw any ridiculous conclusions. You went into the exercise looking for something to validate the deep irrational hatred you feel for the left, and in your mind you got it.

---

Are you schizophrenic? How do you come away from that bit hearing the crowd mostly laughing? Reality is not a "ridiculous conclusion". It's comical that you of all people would accuse someone else of partisan hatred. I voted for more Democrats than Republicans last week; you would never vote for a Republican in your natural life. You're a giant hypocrite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Justifying a strongman staying in power is an invention of the right, not the left. Who funded both Saddam and Iran in the 80s with weapons? Reagan. Who supported genocide in Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, and El Salvador by those countries respective military juntas? The Bush CIA and later Reagan. So, sure, you can whine all you want about Bill Maher saying that having a strongman in power is better than chaos, but don't try to paint it as some exclusive leftist ideal. Because it's anything but.

---

Funny how you ignore Carter giving Saddam the go-ahead to invade Iran in the first place. And how you ignore JFK taking us into Vietnam. You sure do love blaming Republicans for the messes of Democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

There's nothing lame about comparing one man who ordered the deaths of thousands with another man who ordered the deaths of thousands.

---

What innocent "thousands" did Reagan order the execution of? When did Reagan execute members of his own cabinet for disagreeing with him? When did Reagan hold routine party meetings in which he randomly executed members to perpetuate a climate of horror and death? When did Reagan torture and execute the US Olympic team for losing? When did Reagan wage holy war on a neighboring country? You're engaging in weak semantic relativism now, you should be ashamed of yourself for this pathetic drivel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

No, I'm saying it's a slippery slope because you cannot begin to infer that anyone who opposes the war 1.) likes Saddam or 2.) is somehow a closet Nazi sympathizer. It's a garbage argument.

---

I never said "anyone that opposes the war", I said "the far left" and referred to the lefties wearing Che Guevera shirts. Can you read?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

Are you schizophrenic? How do you come away from that bit hearing the crowd mostly laughing? Reality is not a "ridiculous conclusion". It's comical that you of all people would accuse someone else of partisan hatred. I voted for more Democrats than Republicans last week; you would never vote for a Republican in your natural life. You're a giant hypocrite.

---

Weak argument. My not voting for Republicans has nothing to do with party identity and everything to do with the issues and the ideology. If any of the Republicans around here were more interested in issues of privacy, defending the Bill of Rights, and preventing the centralization of governmental power in the hands of a would-be dictator, instead of nonsense like gay marriage and opposing stem cell research, then I'd vote for them. But, I live in the reddest part of a red state in the South, so there you are.

Naturally by your 'Spo-logic' this perfectly rational explanation is just a cover and I'm really somehow physically incapable of voting for a Republican, so I don't know why I even bothered to write it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

What innocent "thousands" did Reagan order the execution of?

---

Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, etc. The massacres at El Mazote, the destruction of more than 600 Indian communities, the mining of Sandino harbor, the rape and murder of American nuns because they supported Óscar Romero, then later the assassination of Óscar Romero. I can go on for awhile, if need be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Weak argument. My not voting for Republicans has nothing to do with party identity and everything to do with the issues and the ideology. If any of the Republicans around here were more interested in issues of privacy, defending the Bill of Rights, and preventing the centralization of governmental power in the hands of a would-be dictator, instead of nonsense like gay marriage and opposing stem cell research, then I'd vote for them. But, I live in the reddest part of a red state in the South, so there you are.

Naturally by your 'Spo-logic' this perfectly rational explanation is just a cover and I'm really somehow physically incapable of voting for a Republican, so I don't know why I even bothered to write it.

---

My "Spo-Logic" dictates that a guy who always blindly attacks non left wing opinions and has never in his life voted for a Republican is more partisan than a moderate conservative that votes for Democrats and doesn't compare Democratic Presidents to Saddam Hussein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, etc. The massacres at El Mazote, the destruction of more than 600 Indian communities, the mining of Sandino harbor, the rape and murder of American nuns because they supported Óscar Romero, then later the assassination of Óscar Romero. I can go on for awhile, if need be.

---

To qualify those as "executions ordered by Reagan" is sick and pathetic posturing; I could do the same and say that Carter ordered the deaths of the millions of Iranians that Saddam murdered.

How would you propose we fix the situation in Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

And how you ignore JFK taking us into Vietnam. You sure do love blaming Republicans for the messes of Democrats.

---

You're forgetting that it was Eisenhower who officially began U.S. involvement in Vietnam, six years before Kennedy took office, but yes, JFK did escalate it. Looking back, he had reason to, since the Bay of Pigs disaster, the Berlin Wall, and the settlement between the communists and pr0-western government in Laos left us little choice but to keep Vietnam free. At least we actually had a justification for being there, unlike Iraq. In truth, I don't see how the next president, Democrat or Republican, is going to be able to find a truly satisfactory end to the Iraq War. Bush has fucked this up so badly that no one will come out on top politically in 2008.

That being said, I really don't think that anyone can honestly blame only Republicans or only Democrats for the mess we have now. It's a bipartisan clusterfuck. This whole stupid logic of fighting "the greater of two evils" during the cold war has made the world a more dangerous place, and it's the fault of both parties. Instead of having to defend against a Great White shark (USSR), we now have dozens of piranha that are biting the hell out of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

To qualify those as "executions ordered by Reagan" is sick and pathetic posturing;

---

Wrong. He gave the order, and his strongmen lackeys carried it out. Naturally, as the bodies began to pile up he said his allies were getting a 'bum rap', and sent them more weapons with which to commit genocide. The blood is on his hands and the hands of his administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpoDaddy

How would you propose we fix the situation in Iraq?

---

Where the fuck did this come from? There is no quick fix to the problem Bush has gotten us in, but I have a few ideas. First, we began pulling out US troops. They aren't doing anything there but standing in the crossfire of a civil war. Second, we partition the country into three virtually autonomous regions with individual governments to handle internal disputes within their 'state' but all part of a federal government whose primary purpose will be to control the army and the oil.

al-Maliki has to go, he's proven entirely worthless. We get the Iraqi parliamentarians back in Iraq (most of them are hiding outside of the country) and get them pumping out broad New Deal style projects to get as many people at work in paying jobs in as little time as possible. To restore order we need Muslim soldiers from surrounding Muslim countries. Syrians, Jordanians and Turks can go into the Sunni triangle. We pay off al-Sadr (something we have been on the cusp of doing for awhile now) and get him to turn his rag tag rabble into something more akin to a paramilitary style force to maintain order in the Shi'ite areas. Bush needs to eat major crow here and get the Iranians to help them in this regard.

Would these reforms end all the violence in Iraq? No, but I think they're a damn sight better than that stay the course garbage.