I'm not a Rather fan or anything but the fact that he was giving an interview to a murdering dictator in his home land what else can you expect. He would have found himself Daniel Pearled in the parking lot if he pressed the issues.
Good God, how far it goes....Yeah, he's a homicidal maniac now...you do realize that the man has met with several heads of state, including American leaders many times, has been interviewed many times in the past, and has yet to go ballistic on anyone...lol..He has had security clearances you or I would never get, for God's sake...and yes he was the same man then doing the same things...the only difference with him now is that he is a target. This need to demonize any enemy has gotten childish...
Adolf Hitler met with several heads of state as well, including the Prime Minister of Britian. But I guess your right, we shouldn't demonlize Adolf as wel. Really man....Why don't you go volunteer to protect his palaces, just make sure to tell our armed forces where you'll be going first so we can paint a nice thank you note on a tomahawk.
1) Right...and Adolph Hitler, lest my memory fails me, never went stark raving mad and started gunning down journalists interviewing him. That was the point...next time I'll say it slower. That we feel this need to make enemy=raving lunatic is evidence of a fairly sophmoric way of looking at the world. 2) I do see your point...anyone who objects with you or your view should not only be criticized, but you should wish them dead...It's a pretty good point, really, in view of the fact that your original point was that we should go to war because Saddam Hussein is a homicidal maniac who oppresses the freedom of his people and wants those who disagree with him to die...Thank you for making your position abundently clear...and you do see the irony, right, nitwit? America...Land of the Free....
No need for name calling MacBeth. Just because someone disagrees with YOU, doesn't give you the right to call them a nitwit. I don't think we equate our enemies to raving lunatics. It just happens that the two names mentioned in your post, Hussein and hitler, ARE raving lunatics. But then again, in time of war, the enemy is simply the enemy. How are we supposed to think of our enemy?
because it's symptomatic of over-simplification...There's a history here...any time leaders decide to make war on Nation A, they always depict Nation A's leader to be a monster...and since Hitler the prefered depiction is insane. Without going into too much detail, the very fact that many of us consistently buy into this in the so-called Age of Information is laughable. Saddam Hussein is according to credible objective source, a tyranical ruthless despot. But there are many of those around...and despot or ruthless does not equal insane. Julius Ceaser wiped out over a million people and enslaved another million in the name of Rome, Glory, and Peace. Was Ceaser insane? U.S. Grant approved the slaughter of countless natives...was U.S. Grant insane? William the Conqueror had thousands of Saxons put to death after Hastings...was he insane? Elizabeth had thousands of Catholics burned at the stake..was she insane? Truman approved the use of 2 nuclear arms on targets with significant civilian density, killing thousands of civilians immediately, and countless others over time....was Truman insane? Saddam Hussein had many people killed while he was our ally, and being supplied arms by us...was he insane then? If so, why did we support him? All records show that we knew all about it...was it the COld War? Did we say that, well, yeah, he's a monter...but at least he's our monster!?!?!?! Or did we recognize him then for what he was..a pretty run of the mill tyrant, not unlike several others we put in power or helped to stay there by crushing popular revolts against them. Wait....were we insane? We wittingly helped ruthless dictators stay in power and continue to murder countless people during the Cold War because our leaders felt it was in our own best interests at the time, given the threat the USSR represented to our world power. Do you not think that Hussein has 'reasons' for doing what he does...Does he not see the Kurds, or potential rivals as threats? Why is it that when we do it, or support those who do it ( like Saddam) we are merely being pragmatic, but when someone else does it, or when someone we no longer need to use does it, they suddenly are insane madmen who might potentially shoot television journalists? This doesn't strike you as just a tad childish? If it doesn't...remember in the event of a nuclear bomb; Duck and Cover!
You are joking, right? Not that you're being one-sided here, but you might have noticed that prior to my unforgivalble breach in decorum, the man said he wished that I would be killed...Not merely as harsh as the dreaded 'nitwit', granted, but were you not so myopic you might have noticed that small item....
Coma, AdmrPhilly76 you can think of them whatever you like, as long as it is easier for you. Kill all the bastards and all that will come on the way. And when you are done go and find some new ones and fight them too, of course in the name peace.
MacBeth, The US helped the Taliban at one time, so I assume you think b/c of that, we should accept what their support and defense of Al Qaeda?
I will never forget seeing the tape of Saddam dissolving the Iraqi Congress. Saddam cooly stood up at the podium, gave a speech, and then cooly called out the names of about 40 Iraqi Congressmen that were not loyal. One by one, the legislators were taken out and executed. Saddam is not crazy- he is worse. He is completely amoral, and does value human life at all. He is not a maniac- he is worse. He has the values of an animal, who sees torture and rape as legitimate tools of the government. The urge to call him crazy is an oversimplication, but demonizing Saddam is inevitable if you care about the truth. Saddam is truly evil.
Thanks for the history lesson. Albeit out of place for this argument. If killing hundreds, thousands, millions of people doesn't indicate a mental disorder, then I don't know what your definition of insane is. But for arguments sake, we'll say Caesar wasn't insane, he was only trying to expand an empire motivated by greed and power at the cost of millions of lives. Elizabeth was definitely not insane; she merely killed people because they didn't follow her same religion. Truman was not insane, he used the A-bomb to repay the Japanese back many fold for invading Pearl Harbor. Playing along the lines of your logic: Caesar was justified because it was during time of war. I mean come on, invading lands to conquer people counts as war, right? Truman was also justified, the damned Japs attacked us. We better nuke their asses. So, what about Elizabeth? Hmmm, wait, I got it, it was war against the non-believers! Ok, now Hussein. Let's run down the list of some of things he has "supposedly" done: * The Faylee Kurds, mainly men ages 16-28, were tortured in Hussein’s detention camps while their families were sent away to Iran. * Women’s public beheadings while family members were forced to watch, women being dragged through village streets, rapes by Hussein’s security forces, kidnapping and mass killings, and displacements. * Hussein’s purposeful polluting of southern Iraq marsh areas, such yielding the dying out of animal life. * Draining of the southern part of Iraq during the 1990s, such "cleansing" thousands of Iraqi Shiites. * More ethnic obliteration of the non-Arab population of Kirkuk, blatantly murdering thousands of Hussein’s political opponents. * Overseeing the murdering of more than 1000 Kuwaitis after his invasion of Kuwait, as well as holding foreign diplomats as hostages, stealing from Kuwaiti citizenry, raining down missiles upon Israeli civilians and seeing through war crimes against American militia. * Amassing weapons of mass destruction and instigating global terrorism. * Committing enough crimes so as to fill millions of pages of documentation on the part of the Clinton administration’s investigative teams who culled data for bringing Hussein and his henchmen to international justice. * Daily executions, secretly carried out, at the whim of Hussein. "In Iraq, not a day passes without us hearing that someone from a family we know has been executed," one refugee is quoted as saying. * Brainwashing of children, beginning at age five. They are enrolled in "Ashbal Saddam" ("Saddam’s Cubs") where they must undergo military training, the latter including cruelty to animals. "From the age of nine, children are put through ‘proper’ military training. * Children are at times arrested, put in prison because a parent opposes Hussein, or merely because a soldier decides it is necessary. * One million of internally displaced persons in Iraq are due to "forced population removal, known as Arabization. Under this program, farmland is confiscated, citizens are harassed, imprisoned, tortured, and not permitted to inherit or purchase business or real estate. * March 1998 massacre of an estimated 5,000 Iraqi civilians in Halabja by Saddam’s forces, in a brutal chemical weapons attack utilising mustard gas and nerve toxins. "Entire families were wiped out and the streets were littered with the corpses of men, women and children", reported the Washington Post (24/3/88). Other forms of life in and around the city - horses, house cats, cattle - perished as well. All of this, during times of peace and prosperity in Iraq. So Hussein must not be insane either, right?
Oh Saphan, may I please, please, please think of them of someone who wants to harm my beloved country? Pretty please? With sugar and a burned American flag on top?
Ahhh, but you're wrong...AntiSonic said "Why didn't Rather go in there packing" My theory is that he DID have a gun, but he was just too scared to use it... Come on Dan, sacrifice yourself for your country!
I'm sorry, the gist of your argument eludes me...are you saying all those people were insane? Or are you saying that because some of them called their actions 'war' they weren't? Or are you saying that they all were insane? Please clarify before I respond...
