Kuwait didn't just oppose OPEC decreasing production(By the way, by being a member of OPEC, they are part of an organization dedicated to collusion.), they went out of their way to flood the market with cheap oil. This action is completely spiteful, considering Iraq specifically requested what they did so they could pay down war debts and start rebuilding infastructure.
I actually *AM* saying that he's not the bastard everyone makes him out to be. He brought about modern education to Iraq, as well as roads, electricity, and mining infastructure, gave women rights and a place in the workplace, and abolished islamic law in favour of western style law, all while dealing with EXACTLY the same people we're killing in Iraq today (not to mention having to deal with war against the Iranians, who -- oh geez, we're forced to deal with today too!)
There were certainly excesses. However, the information I've read seems to point to one of the most progressive leaders in the reigon.
"To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs.Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims."
"Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)."
As I said; If I know little, you know absolutely nothing.
That's a ridiculously transparent thing to say: Almost all technology is 'dual use'. You can take an RTD, a plastic jug, and a heater, and use it to create a fermentation chamber. If you know what you're doing, you can make some of the most destructive chemicals known to man without working all that hard to acquire the raw materials.
The really important thing has never been about the 'dual use' technology, but ensuring that the people with the skills to do something with it aren't there -- and the shitty conditions in the war ravaged country more or less took care of that.
It's not about evil, it's about neccessity. You're going to have to use extreme force to combat extreme force. The people largely responsible for the current turmoil in Iraq were the same people who were responsible for the turmoil in Iraq under Saddam. I'm arguing that we're using the same justifyable force as Saddam did.
I've set a double standard intentionally. You can't keep going "We helped in the world wars so we're good" forever. On the other hand, the people who want to kill you for playing god will never go away just because you stop thinking about them.
The fact that you're a sheep who believes every bit of propoganda they hand you doesn't change the reality of the situation. I may be mistaken as to the absolute nature of the regime, but I know this: If I know little, you know absolutely nothing.
Because just because something is moral doesn't make it fun. Nobody WANTS to do the shit job. However, it has to get done, and someone has to do it, and in slave economies, it's the slaves who do it.
We're no different. The only difference between our forefathers and ourselves is that we import our slave labour from other countries.
Absolutely, but we're not talking about the brits here, nor realistically about actions which came from their pursuits. The current enemies of the US were bought and paid for by the US. The British went through the same problems, and what are they now? Part of a nerfed Europe which came about starting with the napoleonic wars, and culminating in near total destruction after World War II.
"Left" doesn't mean much to me. It's part of that fuzzy political logic that lets people pick up an ideology and never have to bother looking at what they actually think.
Frankly, it's just the sort of behaviour from the proles that made me give up on democracy: People aren't willing to be democrats, thus rendering the process useless. Now it's just a way of legitimizing a government so they don't have to go to war with those who disagree with the leadership.
And by the way, Every source I've seen says that holding prisoners indefinitely is against US law.
Rather than asking how long ago Irans government was toppled, why not ask why it matters today? World War II isn't pertient anymore because the world has moved on. The middle east, on the other hand, is still in bits and pieces thanks to two powers playing god.
That's the thing about sins and triumphs: You live with sins forever, but triumphs are always fleeting. History shows that well.
Kuwait was actively working against Iraqi attempts to rebuild after the nine year war with Iran. Iraq went to OPEC and asked them to reduce production to raise prices so the country could finance it's rebuilding and start to pay off the massive debts. Kuwait responded by flooding the market by cheap oil.
Frankly, I think considering the circumstances, Kuwait had it coming.
And I hate to break the news to you, but we're there killing tens of thousands of Iraqis too. Considering in a lot of cases it's the same groups Saddam had to put up with, I'm failing to see the moral difference.
Can we stop letting C and D students into the presidency? I mean, there'a a lot of really ambitious and skilled A and B students who I'm sure have some interesting ideas about running the country, like letting congress use calculators when discussing the budget so they don't vote for tax cuts paid for by federal debt.:P
To be fair, neither is responsible for the JS-23311A, the space-based stike fighter which futurists believe will evolve into the "zig", which they believe will move for great justice when all our base are belong to Cats.
The only difference between Saddam killing thousands and us killing thousands is that we're slightly more discriminating in which thousands we're killing.
Why is slavery wrong? If we're talking about an agrarian society, by preference utilitarianism, if a large group of no-cost or low-cost workers are needed for the prosperity of the state, and the state protects everyone (even the slaves themselves) with some measure of law and order, then can't it be said that slavery is not wrong at all, and instead a vital institution for the good of the many?
You guys need to stop living in 1942. It's the most insane fallacy there is.
You know who did even more than the United States to secure victory in WWII? Who sustained more casualties than any three other nations and most scholars believe was responsible for turning the tide of battle?
The Soviet Union under Stalin.
Since then, the cold war showed the darkest side of the US, with the government playing God around the world, setting up proxy wars, deposing governments -- both elected and otherwise, and sponsoring terrorism against their enemies.
And who are the three main names today?
Iran: We toppled their democratically elected government because it was looking too socialist. Iraq: We used them as a proxy against soviet-backed Iran. Afganistan: We sponsored the Taliban to fight the soviets.
You know, I'm not even a terrorist -- I'm a white anglo-saxon urbanite -- and I still want to bomb your ass for a response like that. "They don't like us because we're so great."
It's official. The United States is officially the "geek with no freinds and a superiority complex" of the western world.
Slashdot Mirror
Kuwait didn't just oppose OPEC decreasing production(By the way, by being a member of OPEC, they are part of an organization dedicated to collusion.), they went out of their way to flood the market with cheap oil. This action is completely spiteful, considering Iraq specifically requested what they did so they could pay down war debts and start rebuilding infastructure.
I actually *AM* saying that he's not the bastard everyone makes him out to be. He brought about modern education to Iraq, as well as roads, electricity, and mining infastructure, gave women rights and a place in the workplace, and abolished islamic law in favour of western style law, all while dealing with EXACTLY the same people we're killing in Iraq today (not to mention having to deal with war against the Iranians, who -- oh geez, we're forced to deal with today too!)
There were certainly excesses. However, the information I've read seems to point to one of the most progressive leaders in the reigon.
Class. You've got it.
Here's a bit of information
Let's see....
"To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs.Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims."
"Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)."
As I said; If I know little, you know absolutely nothing.
That's a ridiculously transparent thing to say: Almost all technology is 'dual use'. You can take an RTD, a plastic jug, and a heater, and use it to create a fermentation chamber. If you know what you're doing, you can make some of the most destructive chemicals known to man without working all that hard to acquire the raw materials.
The really important thing has never been about the 'dual use' technology, but ensuring that the people with the skills to do something with it aren't there -- and the shitty conditions in the war ravaged country more or less took care of that.
From what I read, admittedly not too much, most of the "ethnic clensing" was done against the kurds, who were opposing Saddam with the help of Iran.
I think the current situation justifies that to some extent. It wasn't france and germany who wanted to rush into Iraq and head into war.
And as for the soviets, I severely doubt there are many russians who are exactly blind to the excesses of their government.
It's not about evil, it's about neccessity. You're going to have to use extreme force to combat extreme force. The people largely responsible for the current turmoil in Iraq were the same people who were responsible for the turmoil in Iraq under Saddam. I'm arguing that we're using the same justifyable force as Saddam did.
I've set a double standard intentionally. You can't keep going "We helped in the world wars so we're good" forever. On the other hand, the people who want to kill you for playing god will never go away just because you stop thinking about them.
The fact that you're a sheep who believes every bit of propoganda they hand you doesn't change the reality of the situation. I may be mistaken as to the absolute nature of the regime, but I know this: If I know little, you know absolutely nothing.
Because just because something is moral doesn't make it fun. Nobody WANTS to do the shit job. However, it has to get done, and someone has to do it, and in slave economies, it's the slaves who do it.
We're no different. The only difference between our forefathers and ourselves is that we import our slave labour from other countries.
Absolutely, but we're not talking about the brits here, nor realistically about actions which came from their pursuits. The current enemies of the US were bought and paid for by the US. The British went through the same problems, and what are they now? Part of a nerfed Europe which came about starting with the napoleonic wars, and culminating in near total destruction after World War II.
The worst part is that defecit boy discredits himself without resorting to trash journalism.
"Left" doesn't mean much to me. It's part of that fuzzy political logic that lets people pick up an ideology and never have to bother looking at what they actually think.
Frankly, it's just the sort of behaviour from the proles that made me give up on democracy: People aren't willing to be democrats, thus rendering the process useless. Now it's just a way of legitimizing a government so they don't have to go to war with those who disagree with the leadership.
And by the way, Every source I've seen says that holding prisoners indefinitely is against US law.
Rather than asking how long ago Irans government was toppled, why not ask why it matters today? World War II isn't pertient anymore because the world has moved on. The middle east, on the other hand, is still in bits and pieces thanks to two powers playing god.
That's the thing about sins and triumphs: You live with sins forever, but triumphs are always fleeting. History shows that well.
Kuwait was actively working against Iraqi attempts to rebuild after the nine year war with Iran. Iraq went to OPEC and asked them to reduce production to raise prices so the country could finance it's rebuilding and start to pay off the massive debts. Kuwait responded by flooding the market by cheap oil.
Frankly, I think considering the circumstances, Kuwait had it coming.
And I hate to break the news to you, but we're there killing tens of thousands of Iraqis too. Considering in a lot of cases it's the same groups Saddam had to put up with, I'm failing to see the moral difference.
Can we stop letting C and D students into the presidency? I mean, there'a a lot of really ambitious and skilled A and B students who I'm sure have some interesting ideas about running the country, like letting congress use calculators when discussing the budget so they don't vote for tax cuts paid for by federal debt. :P
A....PRESIDENTAL CANDIDATE......HYPING HIMSELF?
No way. I refuse to believe it. You are obviously lying. Nobody in this hallowed institution has ever done such a thing. I bid you good day.
I'm not a fan of Bush, but you have to admit -- that was pretty funny.
To be fair, neither is responsible for the JS-23311A, the space-based stike fighter which futurists believe will evolve into the "zig", which they believe will move for great justice when all our base are belong to Cats.
If the French, West Germans and the Soviets jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?
Sir, you have broken my irony detector. Please send a cheque for it's immediate replacement, or you'll be hearing from my lawyer.
The only difference between Saddam killing thousands and us killing thousands is that we're slightly more discriminating in which thousands we're killing.
Why is slavery wrong? If we're talking about an agrarian society, by preference utilitarianism, if a large group of no-cost or low-cost workers are needed for the prosperity of the state, and the state protects everyone (even the slaves themselves) with some measure of law and order, then can't it be said that slavery is not wrong at all, and instead a vital institution for the good of the many?
You guys need to stop living in 1942. It's the most insane fallacy there is.
You know who did even more than the United States to secure victory in WWII? Who sustained more casualties than any three other nations and most scholars believe was responsible for turning the tide of battle?
The Soviet Union under Stalin.
Since then, the cold war showed the darkest side of the US, with the government playing God around the world, setting up proxy wars, deposing governments -- both elected and otherwise, and sponsoring terrorism against their enemies.
And who are the three main names today?
Iran: We toppled their democratically elected government because it was looking too socialist.
Iraq: We used them as a proxy against soviet-backed Iran.
Afganistan: We sponsored the Taliban to fight the soviets.
You know, I'm not even a terrorist -- I'm a white anglo-saxon urbanite -- and I still want to bomb your ass for a response like that. "They don't like us because we're so great."
It's official. The United States is officially the "geek with no freinds and a superiority complex" of the western world.