|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 25, 2003 18:35:39 GMT -5
Issue 502, 18 October 2002, Page 7 THE WARMONGERS would have us believe that Saddam Hussein is a uniquely evil dictator who they have always opposed. In fact he is the product of four decades of intervention in Iraq and the Middle East, first by both superpowers during the Cold War, and then by the US and its allies. He could not have come to power without the West. And he could not have remained in power if, at key moments, the West had not thrown its weight behind his regime. Britain carved Iraq out of the Middle East in 1922 as part of its strategy to control oil. The British also imposed a king on the country. He was one of a chain of unpopular monarchs in the region who sat on their thrones thanks to the British army. There was deep resentment across the Middle East against pro-Western rulers. That feeling extended beyond the working class, the peasantry and the poor. Middle class students, army officers and intellectuals also wanted to see Arab states build up their own economies free from Western control. In 1952 a colonel in the Egyptian army, Gamal Abdel Nasser, overthrew the British-backed monarchy. Four years later he nationalised the Suez Canal. That prompted an attempted invasion by Britain, France and Israel. Nasser was able to withstand invasion, largely because the US decided not to back it. The humiliation of Britain and France at Nasser's hands encouraged a wave of sympathy across the Middle East for his message of Arab solidarity and modernisation. In Iraq the Ba'ath Party put forward a similar message. Saddam Hussein joined it in 1956. Two years later Abdul Karim Kassem, an Iraqi army officer modelling himself on Nasser, overthrew the Iraqi monarch. A million people came onto the streets of the capital, Baghdad, to celebrate. Western leaders panicked. The US believed Kassem would spearhead a move towards a string of radical nationalist regimes. Britain landed troops in Jordan, which borders Iraq. The US sent marines to Lebanon. The Iraqi Ba'ath Party fell out with Kassem, and Saddam and other Ba'athist activists soon began cooperating with the CIA to overthrow him. The coup against Kassem came in 1963. A CIA radio station in Kuwait broadcast the names of Communist activists, which had been gathered from Saddam Hussein among others, to the Ba'athists and army officers who toppled Kassem. The US recognised the new government within hours. A bloodbath followed as the Ba'athists and their allies butchered thousands of Communists and Kassem supporters. The US then began flying weapons to Iraq for use against Kurdish rebels in the north. Under the new regime US companies such as Parsons, Bechtel and Mobil were given contracts and concessions. One of the Iraqi businessmen who benefited most was Ahmad Chalabi, who is now touted by the US as a possible replacement for Saddam. But the new Ba'athist regime had little popular support. It was quickly replaced by rival army officers. A second coup in 1968, with tacit CIA support, brought the Ba'athists back to power. Saddam soon became second in command. He used his control of the Ba'athists' paramilitary wing to eliminate opposition from all quarters. But he also sought to co-opt opponents. So they hanged some Communist leaders, while at the same time trying to get others to back their National Patriotic Front. The repression was wrapped in the fake language of opposing imperialism. The Iraqi regime claimed to be the saviour of the Palestinians, who had been driven out of their homes by Israeli forces and after 1967 were under occupation on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. But when, in 1970, King Hussein of Jordan launched the murderous "Black September" attack on Palestinian refugees in his country, the 15,000 Iraqi troops in Jordan at the time did not lift a finger to stop the slaughter of Palestinian fighters. In the 1973 war between Israel and the Arab states the Iraqi regime sent the vast majority of its army to crush Kurds rather than defend the Palestinians. The main concerns of Saddam and the Ba'athist leaders were to enrich themselves, promote their allies and see off rival factions. The US and Russia both courted the Iraqi regime in the early 1970s. The US supplied the Iraqi regime with sophisticated communications equipment. But the US's main ally in the Gulf was Iran, Iraq's neighbour and rival. That meant the Iraqi regime tilted towards Russia, which became its main arms supplier. The Shah of Iran and the US armed and trained Kurdish guerrillas in the Kurdish Democratic Party in 1973 to fight the Iraqi army. Then in 1975 Iraq and Iran came to an agreement over disputed access to the Gulf. Suddenly the US and Iran cut off aid to the Kurdish Democratic Party, which soon found itself at the mercy of the Iraqi army. The Iraqi regime murdered Kurds with the utmost brutality, using MIG jets to strafe helpless people. That same year the US government allowed the Pfaulder corporation to supply Iraq with blueprints for a chemical warfare plant. As with several other regimes at the time, such as Siad Barre's Somalia and Mengistu's Ethiopia, Iraq first supported one side and then the other in the Cold War. These regimes' violence and lack of democracy worried neither Russia nor the US. Saddam became formal leader of Iraq in 1979. In that year revolution in Iran toppled the Shah, depriving the US of a key ally. Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran inspired a wave of anti-Western feeling across the Middle East. The US feared the Iranian Revolution would spread. It moved decisively to back Saddam Hussein against Khomeini. Iraq launched war against Iran in September 1980. Western arms sales to Iraq soared. So did direct US military assistance. It gave the Iraqi army satellite and other intelligence pinpointing Iranian positions for poison gas attacks. Evidence of mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops emerged in the early 1980s. US president Ronald Reagan vetoed condemnation of Iraq. His defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, flew to Baghdad to shake hands with Saddam Hussein and the US reopened its embassy there. That backing encouraged Saddam Hussein to use poison gas again in 1988 against Kurdish civilians. Every time Iraqi troops suffered a defeat in the war with Iran, the US upped its aid to Iraq. US warships escorted Iraqi oil tankers and assisted attacks on Iranian rigs. The US shot down an Iranian airliner. Increasingly overt US support in 1988 and 1989 forced Iran to accept an end to the war. Saddam Hussein was now saddled with huge debts from the war. He accused Kuwait of pumping out so much oil as to depress the price and invaded in August 1990. Days before the invasion the US ambassador to Iraq had told the regime she regarded a dispute between Kuwait and Iraq as purely an "Arab affair". Saddam believed he had US blessing for the invasion. But the US feared Iraq would gain overwhelming control of oil production and turned against him. It was then that Western newspapers suddenly discovered the massacres of the Kurds and Iraqi oppositionists. The US and its allies, with UN cover, launched war against Iraq in 1991. They slaughtered Iraqi conscripts and civilians and then cynically betrayed the Kurds who the West claimed it was liberating. What has followed since is 11 years of sanctions and regular bombing raids, whose victims have been ordinary Iraqis rather than the regime. Now the Bush gang is determined to go to war. It is not about putting right what they have done in the past. It is an attempt to reorder Iraq and possibly the whole Middle East by imposing regimes every bit as repressive as Saddam's, but this time wholly committed to Western interests. Kevin Ovenden - www.iso.org.au/socialistworker/archive/502/p7a.html |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 25, 2003 19:04:12 GMT -5
I can't for the life of me figure out why you posted this garbage. Why don't you just start posting transcripts of Saddam's speeches? And entitle the subject (w/o quotes or any reference to the source) as Bush Wants To Destroy Islam or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 25, 2003 19:12:19 GMT -5
I can't for the life of me figure out why you posted this garbage. Why don't you just start posting transcripts of Saddam's speeches? And entitle the subject (w/o quotes or any reference to the source) as Bush Wants To Destroy Islam or something. I'm sorry if the historical facts are inconvenient. I just want to balance out the background of this conflict. I do not apologize for the author's rather few editorial comments, as he is entitled to his opinion. Saddam's speeches don't interest me in the least. Who knows, maybe someone else will post them. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 25, 2003 20:00:12 GMT -5
1920 Treaty of Sevres, which carved up the Ottoman Empire after World War I, calls for the creation of an autonomous Kurdish state. Instead, the Kurds are split up, with their population living mainly in Iran, Iraq and Turkey. 1931 Kurdish leader Ahmad Barzani rebels against the Iraqi government. 1961 Mustafa Barzani, the son of Ahmad Barzani, launches a new round of armed resistance against Iraqi rule that continues for 14 years, mostly with Iranian support. 1963 American diplomats encourage Kurdish leaders to support the new Ba'ath government in Baghdad, following a U.S.-supported coup. (See interviews with Jalal Talabani and James Akins) The Ba'ath Party leadership issues a statement saying it "recognized the rights of the Kurdish people." 1970 The main Kurdish group in Iraq, the Kurdish Democratic Party, negotiates a power-sharing agreement with Vice President Saddam Hussein, believing he is a man they can do business with. Afterwards, four Kurdish leaders become Cabinet Ministers in the Iraqi government. 1971 Iraqi agents try to assassinate Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani, head of the Kurdish Democratic Party. They hide explosives on a visiting cleric and blow the cleric up via remote control when he sits next to Barzani. (See interview with Mahkmoud Othman who was in the room when the cleric exploded. Also read interview with Abdul-Rahman who talks about repercussions after this assassination attempt, when the Kurds realized they could no longer trust Saddam.) 1972 Saddam Hussein visits Moscow and signs a "Friendship and Cooperation" treaty with the USSR the following year. 1973 Richard Nixon makes a secret agreement with Shah of Iran to begin covert action against Saddam's government. The U.S. and Iran then begin funding the Kurds in their battle against the Iraqi regime for an autonomous Kurdistan. (See interview with James Akins.) 1973-1975 Working with Iran and Israel, the U.S. funds the Kurdish peshmerga (guerrilla army - rough translation: "those who do not fear death") and encourages them to fight Saddam's government. CIA and Israeli agents operate in Kurdistan. (See interviews with Akins, Othman, Talabani, and Abdul-Rahman) Kurdish officials visit Washington to meet secretly with CIA officials (Read interview with Othman, who made the visit. Also, Talabani discussing general relations with the U.S. at the time) 1975 Saddam Hussein makes surprise peace deal with the Shah of Iran at a meeting in Algiers. Within days, all U.S. support for the Kurds is stopped and Saddam begins to counterattack their forces. (See interviews with Akins, Abdul-Rahman, Talabani. ) 1975 March Jalal Talabani, leader of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), breaks away from the KDP following the collapse of U.S. support for the Kurds. Talabani forms the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and ever since, Iraq's Kurdish opposition has been riven with factionalism. 1975-1990 U.S. forbids American officials from having any open contact with Iraqi Kurdish groups. (See interview with Othman on being shunned by State Department.) At the same time, Iraq's government persecutes the Kurds. In 1988 Saddam Hussein uses chemical weapons against the Kurdish village of Halabja; thousands of men, women and children are killed. 1979 Legendary Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani dies in Washington D.C. On his deathbed, he laments once having trusted the U.S. (See interview with Akins who knew Barzani well and was with him in his final days.) 1990 After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, US officials begin to meet with Iraqi opposition figures for the first time in 15 years. 1991 March After Iraq's defeat in Kuwait, Shias in Southern Iraq launch a popular uprising against the Baghdad regime. Following the Shias' lead, the Kurds in the North also revolt. Within two weeks, 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces are free of government control. However, once it is clear that the U.S. will not support the rebellion, Saddam's forces crush the revolt throughout Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds flee into the mountains. In response to humanitarian pleas, U.S. troops move into Northern Iraq in "Operation Provide Comfort". No-fly zones are established over Kurdistan. April 1991 Kurdish leaders meet Saddam in Baghdad to negotiate a settlement after the uprisings. (See interview with Abdul-Rahman on meeting Saddam again; he hadn't seen him since 1971.) 1992-5 The Iraqi National Congress (INC), the U.S.-funded opposition to Saddam's government, uses Kurdistan as a base. Kurdish groups contribute forces to a CIA-backed rebel army. (See Talabani, Abdul Rahman on Kurdish role. Chalabi on the INC and relations with the Kurds and the U.S.) May 1994 Open fighting breaks out between the two major Kurdish factions, the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union for Kurdistan (PUK). March 1995 The KDP, the largest Kurdish group under Mousoud Barzani (the son of the legendary Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani), breaks with the INC after the U.S. government fails to back a planned attack on Saddam's forces. (See Abdul Rahman on decision to break with the U.S., and Talabani, whose KDP faction stayed loyal to U.S.). August 1996 KDP troops join the Iraqi Army in an attack on the INC forces based in Irbil, the largest city in Kurdistan. U.S.- backed rebels request American air support but request is denied. Iraqi troops arrest and execute hundreds of rebel leaders. (See Abdul Rahman on KDP decision to back Saddam. Talabani on lack of U.S. response to attack, which he considers another American betrayal. Also Chalabi on Kurdish infighting.) 1996-99 Kurdish groups strike autonomy deal with Saddam's government and remain skeptical of the extent to which the U.S. is serious about its support for the Iraqi opposition. (See abdul Rahman on KDP's arrangement with Saddam.) 1999 U.S. government explicitly states that an Iraqi attack on the Kurds would lead to a heavy U.S. response. State Department tries to resolve disputes between the two main Kurdish factions, the KDP and PUK, but sharp divisions remain. Summer 1999 U.S. government refuses to give Kurdish leaders security guarantees that would enable them to hold a general meeting of the Iraqi opposition inside Kurdistan. Instead, the meeting is held in New York City in October, 1999. - www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/kurds/cron.html |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 25, 2003 20:02:14 GMT -5
"Saddam Hussein is the most methodical Arab leader of the 20th century. He's organized. He's a daydreamer. And also, he had the following. He was popular. But Saddam Hussein is a planner. And he has affected the Middle East so considerably that we need to understand him. *** Well, the first thing to remember is that Saddam Hussein spent 20 years creating a personality, an image for himself. And since the Gulf War, his opponents have done the same -- created a completely different personality, of course. So you have to sift through what Saddam created and what his opponents created to reach the real person. The real person has no ideology whatsoever. That is the most important thing to remember about Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is into realpolitik. He wanted to take Iraq into the 20th century. But if that meant eliminating 50 percent of the population of Iraq, he was willing to do it." - www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 25, 2003 20:10:52 GMT -5
I'm sorry if the historical facts are inconvenient. I just want to balance out the background of this conflict. ...Yes another failed assumption on your part. I read this: THE WARMONGERS would have us believe that Saddam Hussein is a uniquely evil dictator who they have always opposed.then scrolled down to the bottom and found this: What has followed since is 11 years of sanctions and regular bombing raids, whose victims have been ordinary Iraqis rather than the regime.
Now the Bush gang is determined to go to war.
It is not about putting right what they have done in the past.
It is an attempt to reorder Iraq and possibly the whole Middle East by imposing regimes every bit as repressive as Saddam's, but this time wholly committed to Western interests.and came to the logical conclusion that probably everything in between is crap as well. Hence, my query as to why you made the post. Do you really want people to scavenge through piles of crap in hope of finding a trickle of fact? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 25, 2003 20:19:12 GMT -5
...Yes another failed assumption on your part. I read this: THE WARMONGERS would have us believe that Saddam Hussein is a uniquely evil dictator who they have always opposed.then scrolled down to the bottom and found this: What has followed since is 11 years of sanctions and regular bombing raids, whose victims have been ordinary Iraqis rather than the regime.
Now the Bush gang is determined to go to war.
It is not about putting right what they have done in the past.
It is an attempt to reorder Iraq and possibly the whole Middle East by imposing regimes every bit as repressive as Saddam's, but this time wholly committed to Western interests.and came to the logical conclusion that probably everything in between is crap as well. Hence, my query as to why you made the post. Do you really want people to scavenge through piles of crap in hope of finding a trickle of fact? Don't worry about it Spozzy, it's called shoveling. Just throwing it our there and hope it sticks or riles someone but no ORIGINAL THOUGHT or info. Noise, just noise. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 25, 2003 21:28:14 GMT -5
It's all information.
The vast majority of what I've posted in this thread consists of either facts, or well-reasoned opinion based on fact. That you don't like it or agree with it because, to borrow a phrase, "it doesn't serve your purpose" is obvious. I take it that is why the word "noise" was used to describe listings of actual historical occurrences, or to the interview with a prominent Arab scholar who has particular insight into Saddam, having been his biographer.
Admittedly the "war-mongering" could be seen as noise on the same level that comparing Saddam to Hitler can be. But that's a small price to pay for a wealth of information concisely and coherently presented, I think.
Facts aren't original thought. They just are. I made no claim otherwise. Also I am not interested in reinventing the wheel; if someone else has more eloquently voiced a point of view, let it be posted in their words.
As for "riling" anyone up, that's not my concern, nor my objective. Each person here is responsible for their own "rilability". Nothing I can do about that. I am only broadening the knowledge base on the topic. That is all.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 25, 2003 21:28:40 GMT -5
First off, I'm not to impressed by spouting some ISO propoganda. They're about as reliable as "The World of News" or whatever it is that you pick up at the checkout of the grocery store that proclaims they saw Satan in the smoke from the World Trade Centre. They're noted for the use of sensationalized half truths. Let me post a section from one of their other little diatribes entitled "US will use nukes" before I tear this one apart (the other part focuses on the use of depleted urainium, which is a least slightly more believeable).:
Now... as for your little contribution to the degredation of the human mind....
'fraid not. First off, this fact ignores that Iraq was actually part of the British controlled Middle East that resulted from the destruction of the Turkish Empire at the end of World War I as perscribed but the League of Nations.
Secondly, it was well into the fifties that oil became the resource it is today. It was used mostly for engines etc - not for electricity or heating like it is today. This is evidenced by the Deadly Fog of London in 1952 that killed 4000 (caused by a temperature inversion and massive amounts of coal burning, which does not burn as clean as oil).
Once again, because of the LoN at the end of World War I. The French were also assigned large portions of the former Turkish Empire.
Not quite how things happened. First off, the monarchy wasn't entirely British backed. In fact, the monarchy was in the process of trying to kick the British out. It also happens to be a fact that King Farouk (the king of Egypt) was the Caliph of Islam (to put it in terms most will under stand, he was the Muslim Pope).
Anyways... the Britsh retained control of the Sudan despite Egyptian independance thanks to a series of treaties. They had a good reason too. The Egyptians were too busy killing each other to keep track of who was in control.
The Monarchy was removed via a coup d'ete in 1952, but it wasn't Nassar that came to power, but General Naugib. Two years (and several assassination and assassination attempts later) General Nasser lead another coup d'ete against Naugib, and took control. Despite the fact that Nasser was courting the Soviets, the British followed through on their agreement and in 1956 the Sudan and the Suez Canal reverted to Egyptian control. Almost immediatly thereafter, Egypt moves to nationalize the Suez Canal (in other words, charge other countries for its use.
Britian disliked that idea (having it's vital trade route to the east cut by a possibly soviet country). So they said Nasser couldn't have the Suez. Nasser takes it anyways under threats from the USSR. Meanwhile, Nasser has been sponsoring terrorist attacks on Jewish settlements. And they mobilize their army in the East. Which makes Israel nervous so they launch a pre-emptive strike on the Egyptians. Fighting is heavy. Britian, seizing the chance, invades the Suez with France to make sure "it isn't damaged in the fighting" (in other words, to make sure the pinkos don't get it)". This turns into a fiasco for the English and French (and a peace deal is brokered by those nasty, oil grubbing Yankee's BTW), and in the end, peace is settled upon and the UN gets control of the Suez.
Just the fact that he ignored the fact that Nasser did not lead the coup in '52 should be proof enough that this article was not written with facts in mind.
The CIA was involved in the rise to power of the Ba'ath party, and following the motif of the times, to create a bulwark against Communism. The Ba'ath party, IIRC, had nothing to do with Kassem. They were from different "tribes" among other things.
Hussien, joined the Ba'ath party, BTW, because he was a 'rough and tumble' kind of guy, the same type as your stereotypical 'grunt' in today's military. He was also a bit of a criminal.
----
Most of the rest of this I can't speak to of any knowledge of fact. But there's enough flaws in even the facts in the first part (as well as other articles by this source) and to disregard most of it as pro-communist glurge that hates capitalist America.
Later,
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 25, 2003 21:42:14 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying a handful of points. But that's all.
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 25, 2003 21:47:21 GMT -5
You only discredited mr bozo's entire information source, TNG. It's not enough...  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 25, 2003 21:54:08 GMT -5
"Well reasoned opinon" based on half truths and without regard to history and circumstances. Anything can be presented of fact but so what? 1 plus 1 is 2. That is a fact. And? Presenting fact without context is noise. I will not waste my time debating with a some unknown or irrelevent writer, on the other hand, I would not mind debating any poster and exchanging opinions. After all, this is a forum for debate and exchange of ones opinion, isn't it? I suppose I could go around and find a few hundred thousand articles and flood the forum with "facts", should I do that? But alas, I am saving myself for my many woman...........or for a debate or exchange of opinions with fellow posters. All I see is noise. (TNG, check your damn mail box. Or else I am sending you a carrier pigeon with diarrhea.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 25, 2003 21:55:36 GMT -5
You only discredited mr bozo's entire information source, TNG. It's not enough... He corrected a few statements and reinterpreted some others; you know, "cleansing" them of their "pinko" slant with barely retsrained vehemence. One thing is certain; he doesn't like socialists. Oh well. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 25, 2003 22:10:06 GMT -5
"Well reasoned opinon" based on half truths and without regard to history and circumstances. Anything can be presented of fact but so what? 1 plus 1 is 2. That is a fact. And? Presenting fact without context is noise. I will not waste my time debating with a some unknown or irrelevent writer, on the other hand, I would not mind debating any poster and exchanging opinions. After all, this is a forum for debate and exchange of ones opinion, isn't it? I suppose I could go around and find a few hundred thousand articles and flood the forum with "facts", should I do that? But alas, I am saving myself for my many woman...........or for a debate or exchange of opinions with fellow posters. All I see is noise. The simplest, most effective solution for you as regards my posts, seems to be to ignore them. As for seeing noise, a good cleaning of the ears should fix that. Just thinking of your health ;D |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 25, 2003 22:12:11 GMT -5
Nope, just corrected or added to.
You know - I could ramble on about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide and how horrible it is. It's a major component of acid rain. It cause thousands of deaths each year. It is a major cause of soil erosion. It can cause acute respirtory failure. It's found in cancer tumours.
But then I can tell the "whole truth" and explain that dihydrogen monoxide is just a fancy name for water, and everything seems much clearer. This paper presents one half of the truth - the truth it wants it readership to see. I merely presented a more factual basis for the entire thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 25, 2003 22:13:01 GMT -5
The simplest, most effective solution for you as regards my posts, seems to be to ignore them. As for seeing noise, a good cleaning of the ears should fix that. Just thinking of your health ;D I suppose I could also flood the forum...........but where is the debate? |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 25, 2003 22:17:17 GMT -5
Yeah, facts are a bitch, aren't they? Especially when they don't support your argument? Sort of like that whole DeGaul didn't liberate Paris thing, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 25, 2003 22:22:55 GMT -5
I suppose I could also flood the forum...........but where is the debate? Do what you want; post an opinion, post some information, reply to a post, make a beautiful captivating piece of ASCII art; there are many ways to use a meassge/bulletin board. Debate is one of them, but not the only one. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 25, 2003 22:30:01 GMT -5
I've yet to see any facts other than wild, asinine speculations and or half-truth propoganda (like this article) that contradict anything HA has written.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 25, 2003 22:31:06 GMT -5
Yeah, facts are a pregnant dog, aren't they? Especially when they don't support your argument? Sort of like that whole DeGaul didn't liberate Paris thing, eh? You got smoked there and you are coming back for more? DeGaul wore down the knees on his pants begging Roosevelt to recognize him an his band of baton twirlers. I thought you knew all this? Should I flood the forum with articles? Be assured that they will have plenty of facts. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 25, 2003 22:35:53 GMT -5
I've yet to see any facts other than wild, asinine speculations and or half-truth propoganda (like this article) that contradict anything HA has written. And to think that I wrote 10,000 words of my PERSONAL opinion. That is what I call a debate and exchange of opinion. On the other hand, I could toss in 10,000 articles in a few hours. I hope the server does not explode.... |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 25, 2003 22:45:03 GMT -5
You got smoked there and you are coming back for more? DeGaul wore down the knees on his pants begging Roosevelt to recognize him an his band of baton twirlers. I thought you knew all this? Should I flood the forum with articles? Be assured that they will have plenty of facts. You just keep perpetuating that myth there buddy. Why let facts get in the way of a decent rant, eh? Smoked? Sheesh. You were wrong on a fact, and you claim victory? Oh dear... |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 25, 2003 22:48:56 GMT -5
Actually - I have heard some fantastic and non-fallacy based reason to be against the war. Just none here. And I didn't agree with the 'reasons' enough to change my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 25, 2003 23:02:17 GMT -5
You just keep perpetuating that myth there buddy. Why let facts get in the way of a decent rant, eh? Smoked? Sheesh. You were wrong on a fact, and you claim victory? Oh dear... Oh yeah, sure, it was tough to beat down the French are Furious Fighters and Fun Frolickers in Gay Paris. Yup. You got to learn not to set up your Maginot Line to the 7th Cavalry Armored Division. Come to think of it, I only used a slingshot………………. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 25, 2003 23:09:14 GMT -5
That sounds like an extremely long article. Roughly 40 double-spaced typewritten pages. That length of work is better served in print, than on the Web. People scan material on the Web, rather than settle back with it as they would do with ink on paper. I had a history teacher in high school, a dour Scot by the name of John Robertson, who assigned us a weekly essay. We were to respond to a question. Our response was to be no more than 50 words long. If the limit was passed, a red pen stroke marked the fiftieth word. Robertson never read beyond the pen stroke. It was a very difficult exercise, but a wonderful aid to learning to express oneself precisely and not wander from the subject at hand. But I digress... ...I'd recommend posting a maximum of half a dozen articles a day, but even that's pushing it. Links are generally better. Six from one side and six from the other side will relegate all the content to the second page every second day. Three and three. And the Allies of JustWar will defend their articles with the usual bravery. Plus we don't need a ringer to help us. *looks over to THAT guy* |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 25, 2003 23:17:48 GMT -5
Oh yeah, sure, it was tough to beat down the French are Furious Fighters and Fun Frolickers in Gay Paris. Yup. You got to learn not to set up your Maginot Line to the 7th Cavalry Armored Division. Come to think of it, I only used a slingshot………………. Oops, I must have forgotten who liberated France and the precious Brisebois holiday resort, Paris. It was DeGaulle right? P.S. The Maginot Line? Are you talking about the French speed bump? Really HA, if you are going to try and use history for your "opinions" (because we know now you don't like using facts) you should at least try to have a passable knowledge of that which you speak. You implied that DeGaul did not liberate Paris - he did. You implied that DeGaul had to beg Roosevelt to "allow" him to liberate Paris - Roosevelt wanted nothing to do with Paris, and Allied strategy called for them to totally by-pass the Capital, because they didn't want to get bogged down in a costly, deadly street fight. There was no begging to be done, the Americans had no intention of going into Paris, DeGaul did it on his own. You implied that the Maginot Line was a speed bump, quickly run over - the Germans never attacked the Maginot Line, save for Battle Group C, which was the smallest and least equipped of the three battle groups that invaded France. They didn't even have trucks, and attacked on foot and horseback. Following the capitulation of France, German Generals toured the Maginot Line, and to a man, agreed they never would have breached it with a full frontal assault. Hence the reason they went around it. So it was a little more than a speed bump. You continue to perpetuate the myth of the cowardly, lazy French fighter, despite being provided with evidence to the contrary. Whoops, I forgot. You don't like facts. Please ignore this last comment. Rush Limbaugh, Don Cherry, and Ross Perot tactics at their best. Mock, deride, ignore. Facts are meaningless. Every other opinion is unreasonable, poorly argued and wrong. Conclusions are useless, unless reached by our side ("your article is a con job, mine is right"). Twist, slant, manipulate. Sophistry at its... well, mediocre anyways. This is why the Conservative Right has such a bad name... |
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 26, 2003 0:05:30 GMT -5
And to think that I wrote 10,000 words of my PERSONAL opinion. That is what I call a debate and exchange of opinion. On the other hand, I could toss in 10,000 articles in a few hours. I hope the server does not explode.... Either we'll discover next week we've been had by the cleverest pranksters ever (who'll say, "April Foool's!!! We knew this was a just war all along!), or their idea of winning a debate is driving us to exhaustion. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 26, 2003 0:49:11 GMT -5
Really HA, if you are going to try and use history for your "opinions" (because we know now you don't like using facts) you should at least try to have a passable knowledge of that which you speak. You implied that DeGaul did not liberate Paris - he did. You implied that DeGaul had to beg Roosevelt to "allow" him to liberate Paris - Roosevelt wanted nothing to do with Paris, and Allied strategy called for them to totally by-pass the Capital, because they didn't want to get bogged down in a costly, deadly street fight. There was no begging to be done, the Americans had no intention of going into Paris, DeGaul did it on his own. You implied that the Maginot Line was a speed bump, quickly run over - the Germans never attacked the Maginot Line, save for Battle Group C, which was the smallest and least equipped of the three battle groups that invaded France. They didn't even have trucks, and attacked on foot and horseback. Following the capitulation of France, German Generals toured the Maginot Line, and to a man, agreed they never would have breached it with a full frontal assault. Hence the reason they went around it. So it was a little more than a speed bump. You continue to perpetuate the myth of the cowardly, lazy French fighter, despite being provided with evidence to the contrary. Whoops, I forgot. You don't like facts. Please ignore this last comment. Rush Limbaugh, Don Cherry, and Ross Perot tactics at their best. Mock, deride, ignore. Facts are meaningless. Every other opinion is unreasonable, poorly argued and wrong. Conclusions are useless, unless reached by our side ("your article is a con job, mine is right"). Twist, slant, manipulate. Sophistry at its... well, mediocre anyways. This is why the Conservative Right has such a bad name... You have taken a bit of ribbing to a full frontal assault. If you want to debate me, you need to chill out. You are far, far away from teaching me any facts or questioning my knowledge. We are not talking about Patrick Traverse here. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 26, 2003 7:50:53 GMT -5
By Frank Bruni THE NEW YORK TIMES Sunday, March 23, 2003 ..."In interviews over recent days, many Turkish and American officials said that a series of misunderstandings between — and miscalculations by — the two countries had created profound tensions that are likely to endure." - www.austin360.com/aas/news/iraq/0303/0323turkey.html*** Jeb Sharp: US policymakers put their strategic goals for the Persian Gulf down on paper decades ago: ensuring access to oil, defending Israel and preventing any one power from dominating the region. After War World Two, America’s energy demands began to outstrip its supply. It turned to the Middle East to quench its thirst. The security of the Gulf became a priority. In the 1950s as the Cold War set in, Washington cultivated allies there to stave off the Soviets. One of those allies was Iraq. But not for long. In 1958 a revolution overthrew the pro-Western monarchy. Baghdad turned toward Moscow. US distaste for Iraq only deepened through the 1960s and 70’s. It wasn’t just that Iraq’s new leaders leaned toward the Soviets. Iraq was also aggressively anti-Israel. Washington put it in the category of radical Arab states that deserved pariah status. Meanwhile US officials made friends with other countries in the Gulf, notably Saudi Arabia and Iran. These two became the so-called “twin pillars” of US support in the region. Then came the Iranian revolution. - www.theworld.org/Iraq/part3.html |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 26, 2003 8:34:12 GMT -5
You have taken a bit of ribbing to a full frontal assault. If you want to debate me, you need to chill out. You are far, far away from teaching me any facts or questioning my knowledge. We are not talking about Patrick Traverse here. Glass houses my friend, glass houses. You may think it is only a "bit of ribbing" but your fellow allies in this debate are taking your cue and pushing the limits. Witness the childish name calling by Spozzy (what the heck is a piggedly-wiggedly?). If you want to debate me, you need to be a bit more respectful yourself. |
|
)