-- James A. Donald
I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam.
baudmax23@earthlink.net wrote:
That is quite a presumption there. "If you're not with US, you're with the terrorists",
If you call for the release of Saddam, or you justify 9/11, as the "anti-war" posters in this thread have been arguing, then indeed you are with the terrorists. You are stupid evil, and a loser.
Uncle Ho" was the leader of the Indochinese resistance, leader of a popular anti-colonial nationalist movement
A popular anti-colonial nationalist movement which he led from Moscow? Somehow I seriously doubt that Stalin's Moscow was the place to find nationalist movements, let alone popular ones. When Ho came to power in North Vietnam, he treated the population as though they were the enemy, and himself the quisling leader of a hostile alien occupation force. In his terror against the Vietnamese, he set execution quotas. His servants had to kill such and such a number of "class enemies" in each village.
Chickens always come home to roost. This is the case with Saddam, same as it was for Bin Laden as well (another CIA Frankenstein, run amok on Master).
I deleted most of your lies without comment, as too obvious and stupid to merit rebuttal, but this lie, though equally obvious and equally stupid, is significant, as it links the fans of Saddam, with the fans of Stalin and Soviet expansionism. You accuse the US of not merely being allied to bin Laden, but of "creating" him, which presupposes that the US created the Afghan resistance, and indeed every resistance to Soviet tyranny. Hey, if it had not been for that nasty CIA the afghans would have been happy as pigs in mud enjoying the vast benefits of being uplifted by the Soviets to the superior level of civilization enjoyed by the beneficiaries of Soviet alliance :-) That is a lie we have heard over and over again, with thirty different wars of Soviet aggression, starting in the 1920s. We heard it most infamously uttered against East German resistance, and every time we heard that tired old lie, those servants of tyranny uttering it were less believable, and less believed.
in particular: In the quotations collected below, the name of the leader who was assassinated is spelled variously as Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. But, however you spell his name, when he took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, he certainly got recognized in Washington. He carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go! In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time.
oh come on. The Baathist coup was part of a pan arab conspiracy for simultaneous coups in all major arab countries, to create a united pan arab socialist government modelled on Stalin's dictatorship, which would supposedly make the arabs strong in the way that Stalin had supposedly made the Soviet Union strong. It is plausible that the CIA might support an ordinary military coup against a pro Soviet tyrant, but it is unbelievable that the CIA would support a pan arabist coup, intended to unite the arab world and subjugate the drunken fat princes of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc. Plus, if you really believed that Saddam was a CIA agent, how come you are calling for him to be released, or turned over to the questionable justice of his fellow tyrants and mass murderers running the court in the Hague? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG TvAY6+Fkueg9q0ZdMfMzOTt1CMEcIaszUot0IXzl 4nh/RBzF7wz2eI/jN6gnWICUVvW8DNV8OwkTIisqt