Login to BatWeb
Forgot your password?
BatMUD Forums > Bs > Re: Interesting read concerning IRAQ War Protests
Gore wrote
Horrors or not, the regime of Saddam Hussein has also done alot of good for
the country, but that's easily forgotten in the sea of propaganda.
Everyone seems to just glean over the the fact that during Hitlers regime,
crime in Germany was at an all time low, literacy was at an all time high, and
unemployment was virtually non-existant.
For some reason, the propoganda surrounding Hitlers regime totally overwhelmed
all the good things Hitler did too.
It's sad and unfair, really it is.
Horrors or not, the regime of Saddam Hussein has also done alot of good for
the country, but that's easily forgotten in the sea of propaganda.
Everyone seems to just glean over the the fact that during Hitlers regime,
crime in Germany was at an all time low, literacy was at an all time high, and
unemployment was virtually non-existant.
For some reason, the propoganda surrounding Hitlers regime totally overwhelmed
all the good things Hitler did too.
It's sad and unfair, really it is.
Welwood wrote:
Gore wrote
Horrors or not, the regime of Saddam Hussein has also done alot of good for
the country, but that's easily forgotten in the sea of propaganda.
Everyone seems to just glean over the the fact that during Hitlers regime,
crime in Germany was at an all time low, literacy was at an all time high, and
unemployment was virtually non-existant.
For some reason, the propoganda surrounding Hitlers regime totally overwhelmed
all the good things Hitler did too.
It's sad and unfair, really it is.
Horrors or not, the regime of Saddam Hussein has also done alot of good for
the country, but that's easily forgotten in the sea of propaganda.
Everyone seems to just glean over the the fact that during Hitlers regime,
crime in Germany was at an all time low, literacy was at an all time high, and
unemployment was virtually non-existant.
For some reason, the propoganda surrounding Hitlers regime totally overwhelmed
all the good things Hitler did too.
It's sad and unfair, really it is.
Instead of refuting any of my claims with facts, you choose to compare
apples with oranges.
Hitler's regime in Germany brought the country out of a recession,
it united a broken country that had lost its identity by the bitter
defeat in world war 1. The reason why your analogy fails is because
during WW2 the allied forces waged a war against Germany to "save
Europe", whereas the war against Iraq is being marketed as a war to
"save Iraqis from their regime". The Iraqi people, apart from the 10+
long years of UN sanctions, lived in prosperity compared to many
neighbours, and given the chance to do so without foreign intervention,
might live in prosperity once more.
What it is that a war against Iraq has to offer? Democracy, free speech?
Neither of those feed starving people or cure illness caused. And
neither will bring back the million Iraqis that have died during this
era of UN sanctions, replacing Saddam's regime with another pro-western
regime will not make the Iraqis embrace the western world with joy. They
will still remember the death of their loved ones from bombings and the
embargoes. Democracy and free speech are "nice to have", but they are not
necessities for life.
It's sad that the winner always dictates history. In a more neutral
atmosphere it would have been pretty obvious that both the allies and
the axis powers during WW2 committed atrocities (Dresden?). The same
is happening with Iraq, where a former ally and the bastion of western
values was deceived by the US (given a promise that the US would treat
an Iraqi incursion as an arab-matter and stay out of the conflict) has
now been ridiculed and charged with events that happened decades ago
under the approving eyes of the west.
Please leave Hitlerisms out of any next reply, thank you
++ Gore
apples with oranges.
Hitler's regime in Germany brought the country out of a recession,
it united a broken country that had lost its identity by the bitter
defeat in world war 1. The reason why your analogy fails is because
during WW2 the allied forces waged a war against Germany to "save
Europe", whereas the war against Iraq is being marketed as a war to
"save Iraqis from their regime". The Iraqi people, apart from the 10+
long years of UN sanctions, lived in prosperity compared to many
neighbours, and given the chance to do so without foreign intervention,
might live in prosperity once more.
What it is that a war against Iraq has to offer? Democracy, free speech?
Neither of those feed starving people or cure illness caused. And
neither will bring back the million Iraqis that have died during this
era of UN sanctions, replacing Saddam's regime with another pro-western
regime will not make the Iraqis embrace the western world with joy. They
will still remember the death of their loved ones from bombings and the
embargoes. Democracy and free speech are "nice to have", but they are not
necessities for life.
It's sad that the winner always dictates history. In a more neutral
atmosphere it would have been pretty obvious that both the allies and
the axis powers during WW2 committed atrocities (Dresden?). The same
is happening with Iraq, where a former ally and the bastion of western
values was deceived by the US (given a promise that the US would treat
an Iraqi incursion as an arab-matter and stay out of the conflict) has
now been ridiculed and charged with events that happened decades ago
under the approving eyes of the west.
Please leave Hitlerisms out of any next reply, thank you
++ Gore
The question of future rulership is posed as a deterrent to removal of a
dictator? The article questions who will rule, and the general populance not
well versed in governing is left to wonder.
The atrocities committed by Saddam, and perpetuated by Saddam are well known
and easily researched on the internet. It might be easy not living in Iraq,
especially not being a female living in Iraq, to question if toppling Saddam
from power is worthwhile. Time and approval (or not) by anyone doesn't
mitigate past crimes, particularly the crimes that are recurring.
For the people suffering under Saddam, a question of who will rule next isn't
so relevant. It is a legitamate question, it's simply not a deterrent for
removing Saddam from power.
I don't have an answer on who would rule Iraq, I've some ideas, but I'm no
king maker, and neither are you. The political players have no doubt
considered the question. I can see many reasons why they've not made public
the answer. Myself, I am confident that removing Saddam will benefit Iraq.
Lythlandria Sybranetyra
dictator? The article questions who will rule, and the general populance not
well versed in governing is left to wonder.
The atrocities committed by Saddam, and perpetuated by Saddam are well known
and easily researched on the internet. It might be easy not living in Iraq,
especially not being a female living in Iraq, to question if toppling Saddam
from power is worthwhile. Time and approval (or not) by anyone doesn't
mitigate past crimes, particularly the crimes that are recurring.
For the people suffering under Saddam, a question of who will rule next isn't
so relevant. It is a legitamate question, it's simply not a deterrent for
removing Saddam from power.
I don't have an answer on who would rule Iraq, I've some ideas, but I'm no
king maker, and neither are you. The political players have no doubt
considered the question. I can see many reasons why they've not made public
the answer. Myself, I am confident that removing Saddam will benefit Iraq.
Lythlandria Sybranetyra
Lythlandria wrote:
The question of future rulership is posed as a deterrent to removal of a
dictator? The article questions who will rule, and the general populance not
well versed in governing is left to wonder.
The atrocities committed by Saddam, and perpetuated by Saddam are well known
and easily researched on the internet. It might be easy not living in Iraq,
especially not being a female living in Iraq, to question if toppling Saddam
from power is worthwhile. Time and approval (or not) by anyone doesn't
mitigate past crimes, particularly the crimes that are recurring.
For the people suffering under Saddam, a question of who will rule next isn't
so relevant. It is a legitamate question, it's simply not a deterrent for
removing Saddam from power.
I don't have an answer on who would rule Iraq, I've some ideas, but I'm no
king maker, and neither are you. The political players have no doubt
considered the question. I can see many reasons why they've not made public
the answer. Myself, I am confident that removing Saddam will benefit Iraq.
Lythlandria Sybranetyra
dictator? The article questions who will rule, and the general populance not
well versed in governing is left to wonder.
The atrocities committed by Saddam, and perpetuated by Saddam are well known
and easily researched on the internet. It might be easy not living in Iraq,
especially not being a female living in Iraq, to question if toppling Saddam
from power is worthwhile. Time and approval (or not) by anyone doesn't
mitigate past crimes, particularly the crimes that are recurring.
For the people suffering under Saddam, a question of who will rule next isn't
so relevant. It is a legitamate question, it's simply not a deterrent for
removing Saddam from power.
I don't have an answer on who would rule Iraq, I've some ideas, but I'm no
king maker, and neither are you. The political players have no doubt
considered the question. I can see many reasons why they've not made public
the answer. Myself, I am confident that removing Saddam will benefit Iraq.
Lythlandria Sybranetyra
party on the telly. THIS IS BS, THIS IS A GAME, A MUD. I dont wanna hear any
more well written essays on BS. If you wanna write this stuff go do a PhD on
politics or summat. I want good porn links and LALALAL your mums a bitch and
such postings THANKS!
Rating:
-1
Votes:
1
Lythlandria wrote:
The question of future rulership is posed as a deterrent to removal of a
dictator? The article questions who will rule, and the general populance not
well versed in governing is left to wonder.
The atrocities committed by Saddam, and perpetuated by Saddam are well known
and easily researched on the internet. It might be easy not living in Iraq,
especially not being a female living in Iraq, to question if toppling Saddam
from power is worthwhile. Time and approval (or not) by anyone doesn't
mitigate past crimes, particularly the crimes that are recurring.
For the people suffering under Saddam, a question of who will rule next isn't
so relevant. It is a legitamate question, it's simply not a deterrent for
removing Saddam from power.
I don't have an answer on who would rule Iraq, I've some ideas, but I'm no
king maker, and neither are you. The political players have no doubt
considered the question. I can see many reasons why they've not made public
the answer. Myself, I am confident that removing Saddam will benefit Iraq.
Lythlandria Sybranetyra
dictator? The article questions who will rule, and the general populance not
well versed in governing is left to wonder.
The atrocities committed by Saddam, and perpetuated by Saddam are well known
and easily researched on the internet. It might be easy not living in Iraq,
especially not being a female living in Iraq, to question if toppling Saddam
from power is worthwhile. Time and approval (or not) by anyone doesn't
mitigate past crimes, particularly the crimes that are recurring.
For the people suffering under Saddam, a question of who will rule next isn't
so relevant. It is a legitamate question, it's simply not a deterrent for
removing Saddam from power.
I don't have an answer on who would rule Iraq, I've some ideas, but I'm no
king maker, and neither are you. The political players have no doubt
considered the question. I can see many reasons why they've not made public
the answer. Myself, I am confident that removing Saddam will benefit Iraq.
Lythlandria Sybranetyra
help all the other countries with evil leaders that suppress their people,
like North Korea. North Korea has Nuclear weapons, chemical and prolly
biological weapons too. They seem willing to sell them, because the country is
so poor. Their government allows hunger that kills lots of people altought the
land if fertile and could support the population if it was farmed right.
So overall it is much bigger threath to free world that Iraq. I can come up
with two reasons. First North korea does have weapons of mass destruction and
prolly would use them if they were attacked, which would result massive
casualties. Second North Korea really has nothing USA wants (=oil).
So being righteous about attacking Iraq because it is a evil leader is lame
excuse to get more power in world biggest oil area.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong." -- H L Mencken
© 1990-2025 Balanced Alternative Techniques ry. All rights reserved. BatMUD™ is a registered trademark of Balanced Alternative Techniques ry.
The individual comments are the property of their posters, and may not reflect the views or opinions of the administration.