← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · butterfly542
Thread ID: 15398 | Posts: 15 | Started: 2004-10-21
2004-10-21 22:53 | User Profile
[color=#14254b][size=3][font=Times New Roman]Finally, something that puts this war back into perspective. For so long, weââ¬â¢ve had the negative attributes of this war pounded into our heads. Suicide bombings, beheadings, Iraqis taking to the streets denouncing ââ¬Åthe occupation,ââ¬Â and the list goes on. Upon seeing this movie, however, the real reasons for taking out Saddam Hussein resurfaced. Weapon of Mass Destruction: The Murderous Reign of Saddam Hussein is a refreshing alternative to the negative press the war has been receiving. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
[color=#14254b][size=3][font=Times New Roman]
[color=#14254b][size=3][font=Times New Roman]I was shocked to see that 1.3 million Iraqis were murdered at the hands of this despot, who did nothing more than squander the countryââ¬â¢s incredible wealth on himself and his repugnant sons. Mass graves, gas bombings, torture chambers, these were all the norm in Iraq before the invasion. This being the case, it is clear that Iraqis are infinitely better off now that this man is no longer a threat to them.
[color=#14254b][size=3][font=Times New Roman]
[size=3][font=Times New Roman][color=#14254b]Do yourself a favor: go to [/color][color=#14254b][font=Verdana][url="http://www.wmddvd.com/"][font='Times New Roman'][color=#0000ff]http://www.wmddvd.com/[/color][/font][/url][/font][/color][color=#14254b] and read more about the film. If anything, it will reinforce your views that something incredibly positive has occurred as a result of the invasion[/color][/font][/size][color=#14254b][font=Verdana]
2004-10-21 23:44 | User Profile
Butterfly,
Quite frankly I wish Saddam were still in charge.
2004-10-22 00:02 | User Profile
That is how rulers in that region have always ruled. Does Nebuchadnezzar ring a bell? They have always been depots and always will be. The next ruler will be just like Saddam if he wants to survive. That is the way of secular and Islamic governments. The US is not the world's policeman. There are despots all over the world who are as bloody as Saddam, like Mugabe in Zimbabwe, whom the media ignores. I prefer to work on my own country.
2004-10-22 00:36 | User Profile
A dictator uses three stages in order to take over and control a country.
Stage one,,,,,,, open war and kill all those against you.
Stage two,,,,,, clean house by killing those in the background who are
against you.
Stage three,,,,, kill one or two a month to show who is the boss.
Saddam was on stage three and women were free to walk around at night plus there were jobs is you wanted to work, there was electricity and food.
Now Iraq is once again in stage one with the US in command but not in control.
2004-10-22 11:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Quite frankly I wish Saddam were still in charge.[/QUOTE]
No need to preface that with a "quite frankly," as if implying that its a strange (other than statistically, that is) point of view. Its incredibly obvious that the USA, and Western Civilization in general, were MUCH better off with Saddam using his iron fist to keep a lid on Mesopotamia. Do we want Iraq in the throes of civil war, constantly threatening to bring Iran, Turkey, Saudia Arabia and Israel into it as a regional conflagration ensues, while Al-Qaeda uses it as a base of operations for acquiring the means to kill thousands more Americans and Europeans, or do we want a Stalinoid dictatorship that has almost no influence at all on the rest of the world, other than the positive one of supplying said world with much-needed petroleum? A retarded child (if not Bush) could see Saddam was a great boon to the entire international system (despite being an apparently sadistic bastard, much like many of the soldiers staffing our military prisons). Few Third World political events could help us more than a return to the Ba'athist dictatorship in Iraq. Given a shot at free elections, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it happen. That's one reason (among several) there won't BE any free elections in Iraq....
2004-10-22 12:52 | User Profile
Welcome Butterfly! You're the newest and latest FreeRepugnant troll!!
Saddam Hussein is the second most demonized leader in world history behind Adolf Hitler. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe make Hussein look like Gandhi.
About 90% of what the US has said about Hussein are gross exaggerations or outright lies.
Iraq, under Hussein, had a First World infrastructure, health care, universities, women's rights, religious freedoms (not a theocracy), and gun rights. What was the problem? The US-Israeli New World Order was the problem and leaders like Hussein are an obstruction to NWO. Period. Gotta run.
2004-10-22 15:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=butterfly542]If anything, it will reinforce your views that something incredibly positive has occurred as a result of the invasion[/QUOTE]
LET'S ROLE!!!
:tank: :gunsmilie :cowboy: :caiphas:
2004-10-22 16:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Butterfly,
Quite frankly I wish Saddam were still in charge.[/QUOTE] Fmr. GOP Congressman Jim Rogan was on Bill Maher and he was giving the neo-con mantra about Saddam and the rape rooms, and Maher responed in his usual sarcastic way that Saddam was a bad guy, we all know that, etc. Rogan then gave the neo-con line, "The world is better off without Saddam in power." Maher interrupted him and shut him up by saying, "No it's not."
How could anyone think the world is better off without Saddam in power in Iraq?? Hell, Saddam in an angry bout of paranoia would not be killing 1/100 the number of Iraqis the U.S. military is killing each day. And he certainly wouldn't be killing women and children simply going about their business or sleeping in their homes in Fallujah or Ramadi or Baghdad. And women at universities wouldn't be threatened to leave and don hijabs by Islamists. And Christian churches and businesses would not be bombed and shot up. And on and on.
2004-10-22 16:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]A dictator uses three stages in order to take over and control a country.
Stage one,,,,,,, open war and kill all those against you.
Stage two,,,,,, clean house by killing those in the background who are against you.
Stage three,,,,, kill one or two a month to show who is the boss.
Saddam was on stage three and women were free to walk around at night plus there were jobs is you wanted to work, there was electricity and food.
Now Iraq is once again in stage one with the US in command but not in control.[/QUOTE] And the U.S. military will never be able to get to stage two even if they fight for a hundred years. I wonder what genius at the Pentagon thought up the plan to take Fallujah? It will be like the fly capturing the flypaper. They will destroy many buildings, kill many people, and will, IMO, exponentially increase the number of resistance fighters and bombers. The Shiite south is relatively calm because they are under the assumption that they will own Iraq in the near future. And since the Shi'a clerics are the first and last word on all aspects of life in the south now, what kind of government should we expect to see?
2004-10-22 16:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Butterfly,
Quite frankly I wish Saddam were still in charge.[/QUOTE] Come on, Butterfly, please ask me why I think this after using the standard neocon line "Isn't the world better off?"
2004-10-22 16:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=butterfly542]
[color=#14254b][size=3][font=Times New Roman]<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
[color=#14254b][size=3][font=Times New Roman]I was shocked to see that 1.3 million Iraqis were murdered at the hands of this despot, who did nothing more than squander the countryââ¬â¢s incredible wealth on himself and his repugnant sons. Mass graves, gas bombings, torture chambers, these were all the norm in Iraq before the invasion. This being the case, it is clear that Iraqis are infinitely better off now that this man is no longer a threat to them.
[color=#14254b][size=3][font=Times New Roman]
[/QUOTE]This 1.3 million figure is stated in as much a matter-of-fact way as Saddam has "n" mobile bio-weapons labs and "n" liters of VX nerve gas, etc. The vast majority of graves are filled by Shiites who rose up against Saddam, with the backing of the U.S., in a violent and bloody attempt to seize power. The U.S. military has stated, in its assessments, that it has killed thousands of Shiites in places like Najaf. When Saddam killed Shiites en masse it was a result of a direct attack. When the U.S. military killed Shiites en masse it did so in spite of any attack or threat of attack. Hell, they can't even stretch their linguistic engineering and call it "collateral damage."
2004-10-22 17:28 | User Profile
But Saddam killed 6 million Je.., eh, I mean 1.3 million Iraqis!
2004-10-22 19:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=butterfly542][color=#14254b][size=3][font=Times New Roman]I was shocked to see that 1.3 million Iraqis were murdered at the hands of this despot, who did nothing more than squander the countryââ¬â¢s incredible wealth on himself and his repugnant sons. Mass graves, gas bombings, torture chambers, these were all the norm in Iraq before the invasion. This being the case, it is clear that Iraqis are infinitely better off now that this man is no longer a threat to them.
2004-10-22 20:48 | User Profile
This review from the movie website is what damns it more than anything else, in my opinion.
(Liberty Film Festival) MOVIE REVIEW - WMD: THE MURDEROUS REIGN OF SADDAM HUSSEIN Doug from Upland, FreeRepublic | 10-7-04 | Doug from Upland
Posted on 10/07/2004 8:18:26 PM PDT by doug from upland
MOVIE REVIEW
WMD: THE MURDEROUS REIGN OF SADDAM HUSSEIN...
If this bugwit recommends this piece of propaganda, then I know it's trash.
2004-10-22 20:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]But Saddam killed 6 million Je.., eh, I mean 1.3 million Iraqis![/QUOTE]
hahahaha...and not ONE less... :yawn: