French terrorists and American idiots

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
You probably included Katsav as the Israeli president, attempting to blame him of some Israeli wrong doing, without realizing that in Israel - this is an immaterial post.

Yes, but i don't know much about Israel politics (other than that Jews really like to enrage all Muslims around them).

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Underseer
What? You mean if you continually ridicule other nations and ignore everything they say, piss all over most of the agreements you previously had with them, then do things that are incredibly immoral and harmful, then your relations with those nations sour?

THAT'S NOT FAIR!

WAH!

Do you talk about your president Bush? Sometimes i don't understand american humor.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ellestar

Yes, but i don't know much about Israel politics (other than that Jews really like to enrage all Muslims around them).

Nor do you know anything about Iraq.

Sadly you keep making ignorant remarks nonetheless.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I fear for the state of the Russian educational system if you really believe half the "facts" you post are true. The war with Kuwait happened because of Kuwaiti provocation. We had nothing to do with the Iraq/Kuwait dispute beyond a foolish statement from a State Department official.

I fear for the state of your country educational system. After all, they didn't thought you how to read. In the same post you quoted i said that i don't trust any official sources.

Anyway, if you support some crazy dictator with a megalomania and give a chemical and biological weapons and then you say that he can do anything he wants then you get an obvious result. Blaming only Saddam for that is like giving a grenade to a kid and then blaming him that he blew up someone.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Nor do you know anything about Iraq.

Sadly you keep making ignorant remarks nonetheless.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I could respond to any of your fictitious claims...

Well, if you think you do know much then do what you claimed you can do instead of all that windbagging.

[Ellestar]

To Sirotnikov:

I'm glad that, as expected, you have nothing to say. Don't let your mouth write checks your ass cant cash (c)

[DinoDoc]

I like you. You're silly.

[Sirotnikov]

Hey, you know the principle in math.

An example of falsehood in facts or logic is usually enough to prove a larger theory is wrong.

I'm not the one making bald assertions here - you are. If you can't bring yourself to come up with facts or some logical support for your theories - it is your responsibility.

I'm calling you to defend your version of things. Obviously - you can't. I don't have to bring on a different story. I haven't claimed anything, beyond calling "bull****" on your statements.

Examples:

You said:

Saddam wasn't "probably" better, he definately was better. That is, if you'll look at the results while ignoring all that propaganda bull****. Iraq was relatively calm after USA betrayed Saddam.

I asked you to explain your logic behind that statement, and bring some support for your claim.

Do you have casualty numbers of saddam's kidnappings and executions in the 1991 - 2003 timeframe?

Can you compare the sum or intensity (say, people killed per month) to the statistics in the 2003-2006 period?

Do you at least have opinion polls that prove that the average iraqi thinks that 1991-2003 was "calm" or "better" in regard of civilian casualties and suffering?


Then you have this statement

(he just knew too much about his former US allies and their support and so he was eliminated, unlike most other murderers)

which I can't even begin to comprehend.

What did Saddam knew, that the US was so afraid of?
Do you have any proof what so ever that the US was afraid of some secrets?
What other former murderer allies did the US not touch?

[Sirotnikov]

I'll muse you and respond some.

Originally posted by Ellestar

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
How Iraq was "relatively calm" in the 1990's?

In comparision.

In comparison to what?

What two figures are you comparing?

What is the figure for Iraqi deaths, kidnapping and violence between 1991-2003, and what is the figure for 2003-2006?

No, there were no wars so i guess less people died because of his actions compared to previous years.

How about this then:

The failed Shia revolt in 1991 claimed around 100,000 lives according to western estimates, and according to Iraqi ones, upto 80,000 more can be accounted in the total aftermath of the 1991 repressions.

For example, who in CIA gave him all these WMD. Who gave him orders. But he knew too much so he was silenced. That's why he wasn't been judged by a world tribunal.

It is well known that the 1980s Saddam regime had american ties.

I've yet to see this as a reason for the US wanting to remove him.

To establish this motive, you have to find evidence of Saddam's intentions to "expose" the CIA involvement in his WMD project.

I'm not familiar with anything like that.
Also, if anything- the US attack only gave rise to conspiracy theories regarding early US-Iraq relations.

Then you have this smart statement:

Bush, Putin, Blair, Moshe Katsav etc. The difference is in rhetoric while the only thing that really matters is a body count caused by their actions. I don't say that it's exactly a bad thing, after all it's hard not to do it. I just want to say that there are too much double standarts and worthless rhetoric while many leaders are no less murderous than Saddam.

Which proves you have no factual basis for anything you say, because you just lump national leaders together and... well... blame them of stuff.

I have no idea what you are accusing Putin, Blair, or poor Moshe Katsav of.

Wait a little. Iran war was a USA affair, it doesn't matter if they did it with Iraq hands. Besides, that's where Saddam got all his WMD from USA. And that's why CIA was 100% sure that he still has some WMD somewhere (after all, Saddam didn't use it all).
Kuwait war happened because USA provoked Saddam. Saddam was sure that USA will not mind if he'll invade Kuwait (USA gave him some clues). But he was no longer needed after Iran war and so he was dumped by USA.

I'd be happy to see evidence of USA or CIA involvement in favor of Saddam's nuclear project at ... well... any time.

I'd also be happy to hear how the USA was involved in the Iran-Iraq war, or at least - how the US provoked Saddam to attack Iran, and Later Kuwait.

Not to say I don't agree that the US used the political game to gain power and make those "win" situations.

I just don't see any proof of the US instigating any of those.

On the contrary - I see both events as hardcore to Saddam's expansionist policy - attempting to put his hands on resources - first in Iran, and later in Kuwait. That as part of an strategy to make Iraq a regional super-power.

No, i don't watch TV and i don't read newspapers. All official sources of any country are full of lies and propaganda. Western newspapers are full of bull**** as well.

that's an interesting concept.

No, i'll not. Now Iraq is under a foreign occupation, in a civil war and with a destroyed economy (even compared to what it was before US invasion). It's like saying that Chechens do live better after two Chechen wars. Only shameless hypocrite can say something like that.

I do not compare the economical situation.
You were talking about public safety and civilian casualties.

You have yet to prove that Iraqis were safer from unprovoked violence against them under Saddam's rule, than they are now.

Also - the current civil war is partially Saddam's fault - as Baathist loyalists certainly use force to protect their interest.

They did the same thing before, only it was less of a fair fight - since they were part of the state mechanism.

Besides, there were opinion polls just after US invasion. Majority said that it didn't become better after US invasion. Now situation is much worse...

Finally.

I'll be happy to see these polls and analyze with you the questions asked and the answers received.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ellestar

I agree with what you said, but here comes that double standarts thing. Iraq isn't USA so you can't be a peace-loving hippie or a ****** and expect to wake up next morning as a leader of your country.

Only a peace loving hippie would have refrained from genocide against Kurds and Marsh Arabs?

[lord of the mark]

BTW the US never game chem or bio weapons to Iraq. When we were favoring Iraq, we gave them sat intell on Iranian forces.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Hey, you know the principle in math.

An example of falsehood in facts or logic is usually enough to prove a larger theory is wrong.

I'm not the one making bald assertions here - you are. If you can't bring yourself to come up with facts or some logical support for your theories - it is your responsibility.

I'm calling you to defend your version of things. Obviously - you can't. I don't have to bring on a different story. I haven't claimed anything, beyond calling "bull****" on your statements.

Blah blah blah. You started personal attacks AND you said that you can prove that i'm wrong. It was a mistake to do both things instead of either of them. I wish you good luck. Next time when you'll decide to start a flame war, pay attention to what are you saying or it can backfire. Unfortunately, now you can't sweettalk out of the ass you put himself in.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
You said:

Saddam wasn't "probably" better, he definately was better. That is, if you'll look at the results while ignoring all that propaganda bull****. Iraq was relatively calm after USA betrayed Saddam.

I asked you to explain your logic behind that statement, and bring some support for your claim.

Do you have casualty numbers of saddam's kidnappings and executions in the 1991 - 2003 timeframe?

Can you compare the sum or intensity (say, people killed per month) to the statistics in the 2003-2006 period?

Do you at least have opinion polls that prove that the average iraqi thinks that 1991-2003 was "calm" or "better" in regard of civilian casualties and suffering?

I stated the fact that now Iraq is under a foreign occupation, with a USA puppet regime and in a civil war. So, obviously, after USA invasion things are going worse in Iraq compared to what it was.

Casulaties counts differ a lot. Say, official death counts in such unsafe zones are consistently 10 times lower than the real ones. That is, later findings show that tendency.

Anyway, about the only thing that is not under question (as i udnerstand) is a mortality rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Lancet_Iraqi_death_count_Figure_4.gif

The above-mentioned U.N. "pre-invasion mortality rate" of 9 deaths/1,000/year is more than either the 2002 or 2003 mortality rates measured by both Lancet studies.
* "Pre-invasion: 5.5 deaths/1,000/year
* March 2003-April 2004: 7.5 deaths/1,000/year
* May 2004-May 2005: 10.9 deaths/1,000/year
* June 2005-June 2006: 19.8 deaths/1,000/year
* Overall post-invasion: 13.2 deaths/1,000/year"

Now it's your turn to prove me that 19.8 deaths/1,000/year is "more calm" and "better" than 5.5 or 9 deaths/1,000/year.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Then you have this statement

(he just knew too much about his former US allies and their support and so he was eliminated, unlike most other murderers)

which I can't even begin to comprehend.

What did Saddam knew, that the US was so afraid of?
Do you have any proof what so ever that the US was afraid of some secrets?
What other former murderer allies did the US not touch?

As i already said, USA killed him (with the hands of their puppet regime) so he'll not be able to tell what he knew. Which is consistent with actions of criminals who eliminate unwanted witness. So, the answer is that we'll not know what Saddam knew. That's whe whole point. Also, it's nothing to do with US. US can't be afraid. Some buerocrats or generals may be afraid and they're powerful enough to lobby their interests. You forget that just about anyone else was judged by a world tribunal (like, Nazis after WW II or Slobodan Miloshevich). But USA didn't want to let Saddam to talk and he was the only one with a close ties to USA (as you said himself). Isn't it obvious why they did it?

Second, i just wanted to tell that there were many leaders who committed the same or comparable crimes but it rarely happens that a country leaders pay for their crimes (like Saddam). Bush is responsible for many thousand deaths in Iraq as well, but he'll never be hanged. So, i find it funny when one murderer (Bush) talks about "justice" while killing another murderer (Saddam) with the hands of his Iraq puppet regime. That's not a legitimate judgement. They should have allowed Haag tribunal to judge Saddam.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
What is the figure for Iraqi deaths, kidnapping and violence between 1991-2003, and what is the figure for 2003-2006?

There is no reliable data available at that moment, and you know it. It will be available only in several years after the end of conflict. However, see my responce above, mortality rate data seems solid and it's enough to make the right conclusion.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov How about this then:

The failed Shia revolt in 1991 claimed around 100,000 lives according to western estimates, and according to Iraqi ones, upto 80,000 more can be accounted in the total aftermath of the 1991 repressions.

Well, when someone revolts in a despotic country, people are expected to die.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
It is well known that the 1980s Saddam regime had american ties.

I've yet to see this as a reason for the US wanting to remove him.

To establish this motive, you have to find evidence of Saddam's intentions to "expose" the CIA involvement in his WMD project.

I'm not familiar with anything like that.

Also, if anything- the US attack only gave rise to conspiracy theories regarding early US-Iraq relations.

Haha. Me against CIA when even Saddam was killed. Very funny. Anyway, as i already said, there is enough undirect evidence. That is, it's enough for me. But it's not enough for you. That's your problem. Direct evidence may appear in 50 years at best, if some US documents will be unclassified.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Which proves you have no factual basis for anything you say, because you just lump national leaders together and... well... blame them of stuff.
I have no idea what you are accusing Putin, Blair, or poor Moshe Katsav of.

Why not? They're responsible for many deaths in Iraq, Chechnya and Lebanon, respectively. In that regard, they're as "bad" as Saddam. But somehow only Saddam is a "bad" dictator and a murderer. That's a double standarts.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I'd be happy to see evidence of USA or CIA involvement in favor of Saddam's nuclear project at ... well... any time.

Nuclear project? No, forget it. I'm talking about chemical and biological weapons. USA supplied a lot of components that were able to be easily converted to chemical and biological weapons on existing Iraq factories. It's official for a long time. The unknown thing is who exactly lobbied the permissions to send all of that to a crazy dictator. I bet Saddam knew who did it and that was one of the reasons why someone in US silenced him.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I'd also be happy to hear how the USA was involved in the Iran-Iraq war, or at least - how the US provoked Saddam to attack Iran, and Later Kuwait.

Not to say I don't agree that the US used the political game to gain power and make those "win" situations.

I just don't see any proof of the US instigating any of those.

Well, there is no proof that US provoked Saddam to attack Iran. So what? The timing was perfect and US helped Saddam to fight in that war. As your admitted himself, it's consistent with an US policy to fight with someones' else hands if possible.
US supported Saddam, US gave him WMD, and US said that they don't care about Kuwait. So, US gave a green light to Saddam. I say it sounds exactly like provoking Saddam to attack and then using it as a casus belli.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
On the contrary - I see both events as hardcore to Saddam's expansionist policy - attempting to put his hands on resources - first in Iran, and later in Kuwait. That as part of an strategy to make Iraq a regional super-power.

Of course, Saddam has his own interests as well. Everyone uses other's interests to promote his own goals. Saddam doesn't look like Santa Claus so to give it to US as a present.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I do not compare the economical situation.
You were talking about public safety and civilian casualties.

You have yet to prove that Iraqis were safer from unprovoked violence against them under Saddam's rule, than they are now.

See mortality rates above.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Also - the current civil war is partially Saddam's fault - as Baathist loyalists certainly use force to protect their interest.

They did the same thing before, only it was less of a fair fight - since they were part of the state mechanism.

Yes, but Saddam kept all of that under control. USA just adds fuel to a fire. So, in that regard Saddam was better for Iraq than USA. That's exactly what i wanted to say in the first place.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
BTW the US never game chem or bio weapons to Iraq. When we were favoring Iraq, we gave them sat intell on Iranian forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Only a peace loving hippie would have refrained from genocide against Kurds and Marsh Arabs?

Wait a second, that wasn't what i wanted to say. Don't split my paragraphs into sentences so to pervert my words. But it's fine, i may explain that simple concept once again.

I said that Saddam is responsible for these deaths but he has less choice to do it or not to do than, say, Bush, who also is responsible for many deaths in Iraq and who had a real choice - to invade or not to invade for the 2nd time. So, Bush didn't need to do harsh things so to stay alive but he did it anyway. Saddam did it so to stay in power and so to control the country (that is essential so to stay alive for a dictator). So, before blaming Saddam blame Bush first.

[Pekka]

Ellestar, so what's your view on Chechnya?

[DinoDoc]

Heh! Quoting Wikipedia is funny.