After weeks of negotiation, Saddam Hussein is finally interviewed by an American

[BTS]

AN INTERVIEW WITH SADDAM

THE LICE-COVERED BUTCHER OF BAGHDAD





REPORTER: Well, Mr. Hussein, are they treating you well?



SADDAM H.: Barbarians, not fit to shine the hooves of my camels, these…



REP: Maybe Mr. Hussein isn’t quite right? Should I call you General Hussein, maybe, or Mr. Butcher de Baghdad, or Your Dictatorship, or Mr. Mass Murderer? What are you comfortable with?



SADD: Usually my people called me ‘Equal With Muhammad’ Now sometimes they said some irreverent, almost unkind things as they were being shoved into the shredder/chippers or watching my men torture their miserable brats. My people love me. Except a few deviants.



REP: What about the three hundred thousand you tortured and killed?



SADD: Tortured? Killed? Not me. We did execute a number of common criminals, thieves, murders, those who disagreed with me. Some ex wives. That sort of thing.



REP: Many in the Muslim world are angry with you because you neither fought against your American captors or blew your brains out. Why was that?



SADD: More erroneous American propaganda, dammit!! Can’t trust those running dogs. Eaters of unclean flesh! Do you know that many Americans actually listen to Fox News? And believe it? The truth is I fought like a demon but was out numbered six thousand to one. When finally captured after a long struggle, I tried to club one soldier with my empty pistol since I had run out of ammunition. And he spat in my face. I Saddam Hussein, the fearless leader of all the Iraqis, leader of the pan Arab world. Killed more than fifty Americans with my own hands. Then I was drugged. DRUGGED? Me, drugged!!



REP: Ok…ok…guess we can take that with a grain of sodium chloride. Now what have you told the CIA agents in charge of your interrogation?



SADD: NOTHING. I HAVE TOLD THEM NOTHING. How dare you imply such a thing?



REP: Well, for one thing, a briefcase full of important, sensitive documents were found in your possession. Then, using information from you, American troops have been able to identify and capture the members of several extended Ba’athist in your employ who have been targeting Coalition Convoys.



SADD: NO! That briefcase was destroyed in the fierce fighting just before my capture. And even though they keep me in a small room with pictures of Bush the butcher and my gentle, beloved sons, Ouday and Qusay on the walls. THEY LIE!!



REP: A moment ago you called yourself the leader of the Pan Arab World. How can you justify that in light of your incarceration?



SADD: I don’t need to justify anything. I am merely the latest in a long line of glorious Iraqi leaders stretching from Hammurabi, and continuing through Nebuchadnezzer, Darius, Xerxes, and Suleimen The Magnificent. I was elected by a vote of one hundred per cent of my people. My political hero of the Twentieth Century is the man of iron, Joseph Stalin of the U.S.S.R,



REP: Quite a lineup. Let’s see. If I recall things right. Nebuchadnezzer became an insane, deranged king late in life; Darius and Xerxes were not only defeated by much smaller Greek armies, but were Persian, which means the Iranians and not the Iraqis are descended from them; Suleimen reigned in Turkey in the sixteenth century and is unrelated to any living Iraqi, including you. Mr. Hussein. Oh, and Joe Stalin, will be best remembered for the paranoid killer of twenty-three million of the Russian People. Great role model!



By the way, where did you hide the WMD, the weapons of mass destruction.



SADD: That’s for me to know and you mangy dogs to find out. Ask another question.



REP: Ok. How did you survive the last several months? What did you eat? Folks back home want to know.



SADD: Well, my people were very generous. They treated me like a king and fed me like a Sultan. Early in the war we captured a large shipment of American food destined for the poor of my country. My family appropriated this for me and placed food and drink in every one of my dozens of hiding places. I have been eating a wonderful processed meat for months now. It’s called Spam.



REP: Your Brutal Butchery, do you know that Spam is made from ham. I thought pork was an abomination to all good Muslims.



http://expage.com/lukester301

[spot]

You don't see that as offensive?

Saddam Hussain has been held exclusively by the Americans since his capture. With whom was this supposed American supposedly negotiating in order to interview the man?

It is too too easy to demonize someone you don't like, to the point where you retain no human feeling toward him at all. To the point where you no longer recognise his humanity. Once you achieve that, you lose all chance of understanding him. It is, in my opinion, a sinful position to adopt.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: You don't see that as offensive?



Saddam Hussain has been held exclusively by the Americans since his capture. With whom was this supposed American supposedly negotiating in order to interview the man?



It is too too easy to demonize someone you don't like, to the point where you retain no human feeling toward him at all. To the point where you no longer recognise his humanity. Once you achieve that, you lose all chance of understanding him. It is, in my opinion, a sinful position to adopt.there, there. you go ahead and dab your eyes now. it's okay to shed a tear for saddam hussein and his humanity. besides being a father, he's also directly responsible for the torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of his country's citizens. he's directly responsible for the gassing to death of an entire kurdish village of some 5,000 people. he's directly responsible for the deaths of some half a million conscripts, sent into the marshes between iran and iraq to try to claim said marshes for his glory.



hey, hitler was people too. and stalin. and mao. so what if combined they cost the lives of more than 100 million people. it's just plain wrong to be mean to them. i get it now. i really do get it.



so, does this mean you'll stop demonizing george bush. he's people too!

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: so, does this mean you'll stop demonizing george bush. he's people too!I've tried so hard to avoid any form of personal attack on any of the Bushes. If I were dripping acid on the guy, drip drip drip, I'd quote stuff like "Whenever Bush plays dress-up, as he does at nearly every photo-op on a military site from the USS Lincoln to torture seminar rooms at Ft. Bragg, he comes off as the missing member of the Village People, which may explain his enduring appeal to the latent types manning the controls of the Christian right these days." But I'm doing all I can to stick to issues instead of making fun of a guy who is, after all, just a disposable front-man for far nastier chaps with far more long-term interests. If his owners see another four-year term at the expense of having him assassinated, do you seriously hold out much hope for his life?

Let's try to stay on topic, if we may. Saddam's just this guy, you know? He gets up people's noses but underneath all that he's a simple psychopath out to retain power. He makes friends, he bribes people, he stays in front as long as he can manage to. I prefer power systems with restraints, myself.

[abbey]

"Saddams just this guy, you know?".......WTF are you on Spot??

Yea and Hitler was misunderstood!!

[BTS]

spot wrote: You don't see that as offensive?



Saddam Hussain has been held exclusively by the Americans since his capture. With whom was this supposed American supposedly negotiating in order to interview the man?



It is too too easy to demonize someone you don't like, to the point where you retain no human feeling toward him at all. To the point where you no longer recognise his humanity. Once you achieve that, you lose all chance of understanding him. It is, in my opinion, a sinful position to adopt.
I hope you do not think this was a REAL interview?

[spot]

abbey wrote: "Saddams just this guy, you know?".......WTF are you on Spot??It's a quote.abbey wrote: Yea and Hitler was misunderstood!!Hitler's been impossible to discuss or analyse sensibly since he was demonized. Once you say there was never any possibility of good in any man, you lose all chance of learning anything from his life. It's like the problem of the Orcs in Lord of the Rings - can you convert an Orc? Evangelize to an Orc? Welcome an Orcish believer into your communion? People aren't Orcs. Nobody is incapable of salvation.

I'm told that watching the new German film "Downfall" is educational. Hitler's treated as a person in that, instead of a demon.

[spot]

BTS wrote: I hope you do not think this was a REAL interview?No, I thought it was a piece of text explicitly designed to antagonize Muslims in general, actually. I found it rather sickening.

[BTS]

spot wrote: No, I thought it was a piece of text explicitly designed to antagonize Muslims in general, actually. I found it rather sickening.KewL.....We disagree..... I thought it rather clever myself.

Although I think many many Muslims detested him in general.

[Jives]

How can you demonize a person that used chemical weapons on people? Isn't he already pre-demonized?

[David813]

I would hope any American interviewer would apologize to Hussein for invading his country. And to say sorry, we thought you were a threat to US security. When in fact he's just one of many many tinpot dictators. He was friends with Reagan & the 1st Bush so I bet there will be some respect shown.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Hitler's been impossible to discuss or analyse sensibly since he was demonized. Once you say there was never any possibility of good in any man, you lose all chance of learning anything from his life. It's like the problem of the Orcs in Lord of the Rings - can you convert an Orc? Evangelize to an Orc? Welcome an Orcish believer into your communion? People aren't Orcs. Nobody is incapable of salvation.


herein we turn to fiction to guide us regarding things already writ in blood in reality.





I'm told that watching the new German film "Downfall" is educational. Hitler's treated as a person in that, instead of a demon.
that hitler was human goes without saying. that his actions were inhuman goes without saying. that the man shares the same physical form in kind with my own does not in any way lessen the 'demonizing' he so rightly deserves for his actions. he was a human who took innocent lives. why should i try to 'understand' him? there have been murderous wretches throughout history. that they deserve to be snapped in two like a twig for their crimes should go without saying.



but we live in 'warm' times. we are to "understand" a hitler, a mussolini, a franco, a stalin, a mao. what are we to make of this? are we supposed to empathize with them? i'd much rather urinate on their graves, thank you. and spend my time understanding those humans who give us cause to celebrate humanity, to believe that humans *can* enrich each other's lives without taking from others in the process. a martin luther king. michaelangelo. chief joseph. wim wenders. the buddha. florence nightingale. thomas jefferson. pope john paul II. helen keller. stanley kubrick. and many, many more.

[spot]

Jives wrote: How can you demonize a person that used chemical weapons on people? Isn't he already pre-demonized? I expect, Jives, that you can avoid it if you think in terms of pots not calling kettles black. Who'ya gonna demonize, out of this batch?

Major use of chemical warfare during the 20th century:

April 22, 1915. Germans attack the French with chlorine gas at Ypres, France. This was the first significant use of chemical warfare in WWI.

September 25, 1915. First British chemical weapons attack; chlorine gas is used against Germans at the Battle of Loos.

February 26, 1918. Germans launch the first projectile attack against U.S. troops with phosgene and chloropicrin shells. The first major use of gas against American forces.

June 1918. First U.S. use of gas in warfare. [MAJ(P) Heller, Chemical Warfare: The American Experience, 87; Hersh, Chemical and Biological Warfare, 5.]

June 28, 1918. The United States begins its formal chemical weapons program with the establishment of the Chemical Warfare Service.

1919. British use Adamsite against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War.

1922-1927. The Spanish use chemical weapons against the Rif rebels in Spanish Morocco.

1936. Italy uses mustard gas against Ethiopians during its invasion of Abyssinia.

December 1943. A U.S. ship loaded with mustard bombs is attacked in the port of Bari, Italy by Germans; 83 U.S. troops die in poisoned waters.

April 1945. Germans manufacture and stockpile large amounts of tabun and sarin nerve gases but do not use them.

1962-1970. U.S. uses tear gas and four types of defoliant, including Agent Orange, in Vietnam.

1963-1967. Egypt uses chemical weapons (phosgene, mustard) against Yemen.

1975-1983. Alleged use of Yellow Rain (trichothecene mycotoxins) by Soviet-backed forces in Laos and Kampuchea. There is evidence to suggest use of T-2 toxin, but an alternative hypothesis suggests that the yellow spots labeled Yellow Rain were caused by swarms of defecating bees.

1979. The U.S. government alleges Soviets use of chemical weapons in Afghanistan, including Yellow Rain.

August, 1983. Iraq begins using chemical weapons (mustard gas), in Iran-Iraq War.

1984. First ever use of nerve agent tabun on the battlefield, by Iraq during Iran-Iraq War.

1987-1988. Iraq uses chemical weapons (hydrogen cyanide, mustard gas) in its Anfal Campaign against the Kurds, most notably in the Halabja Massacre of 1988.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: he was a human who took innocent lives. why should i try to 'understand' him?There's an interesting discussion of this in today's LA Times. You can read the full text at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... -headlines

As a taster:

It was hard, though, while eating the Scheer family's dumplings, to connect the dots between Auschwitz and these pleasant, normal people. When I asked if the Nazis had been strong in the area, my uncle just shrugged. "You were either Red or Brown, and we were not Red," he said.

Even the Protestant church where my father was baptized has been led by a minister who wore a Nazi uniform. My aunt and uncle's wedding certificate was bound into a hardback copy of Hitler's "Mein Kampf," signed by the village mayor.

I believe that my German uncle, the spitting image of my American father, was a decent man who, like the new pope who once joined the Hitler Youth, was swept along by events far beyond his control. He recalled that as a teenager, Hitler was a distant voice on the radio promising to return order and prosperity to a depressed country. Little did he know that the highway built near the town in the '30s, eagerly welcomed for creating local jobs, was intended to carry tanks to conquer Paris, or that the coming war would leave him near death on the Russian front.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: There's an interesting discussion of this in today's LA Times. You can read the full text at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... -headlines



As a taster:



It was hard, though, while eating the Scheer family's dumplings, to connect the dots between Auschwitz and these pleasant, normal people. When I asked if the Nazis had been strong in the area, my uncle just shrugged. "You were either Red or Brown, and we were not Red," he said.



Even the Protestant church where my father was baptized has been led by a minister who wore a Nazi uniform. My aunt and uncle's wedding certificate was bound into a hardback copy of Hitler's "Mein Kampf," signed by the village mayor.



I believe that my German uncle, the spitting image of my American father, was a decent man who, like the new pope who once joined the Hitler Youth, was swept along by events far beyond his control. He recalled that as a teenager, Hitler was a distant voice on the radio promising to return order and prosperity to a depressed country. Little did he know that the highway built near the town in the '30s, eagerly welcomed for creating local jobs, was intended to carry tanks to conquer Paris, or that the coming war would leave him near death on the Russian front.
so what?



fallacy: conflating germans, nazis, etc with hitler himself. you were talking about trying to understand hitler himself. now you are talking about understanding the german people, the nazi movement, etc, in general. deflecting the conversation in this way means either of two things: you have attention deficit disorder, and can't keep your thoughts straight from post to post, or you are a Troll.



which is it?

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: I expect, Jives, that you can avoid it if you think in terms of pots not calling kettles black. Who'ya gonna demonize, out of this batch?



Major use of chemical warfare during the 20th century:




yet again, the deft sleight of hand, ever so subtly deflecting the direction.



yes, long list of uses of chemical warfare in the 20th century. all very tragic, indeed. notable word there: warfare.



saddam ordered the kurdish village gassed because they were kurds. there was no military action taking place. there were no soldiers in that village. there were only men, women, and children - civilians - all annihilated because of hussein's tribal hatred for the kurds.



not the same as use in warfare, old chap. not the same.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: so what?You're not very good at reading between the lines, anastrophe. That article wasn't about Germany in the 1930s, it was about America in the 21st century.

anastrophe wrote: are we supposed to empathize with them? i'd much rather urinate on their graves, thank you.There's so much anger in you. The red mist is stopping you from seeing the world as it is. Meditate, learn calm, learn quietism, learn to think internally instead of to scream internally. This isn't a jungle, we are no longer restricted to red teeth and claws for survival.

There is a scale of human possibility, and nobody, not even Hitler, glued his needle to the end-post. The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. We've had "So let it be with Hitler" with sixty years of fear of being mistaken for a sympathiser. That's long enough.

anastrophe wrote: you were talking about trying to understand hitler himself. now you are talking about understanding the german peopleEach is a shape on the screen of history. Hitler was a man no different from you or I. I'd rather understand that part of myself which is Hitler than deny it exists.

I've re-read the original post of this thread. I still find it utterly vomit-making. Is it seriously capable of making some people laugh? Are there really people that sick?

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: saddam ordered the kurdish village gassed because they were kurds. there was no military action taking place. there were no soldiers in that village.The number of deformed births as a result of the Dioxins sprayed over "unpopulated" Vietnam is, I'm told, considerable. Those are just the damaged children who manage to survive until birth. The map you will wish to look at is at http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/exhi ... 50404u.htm and the words of interest are "White Areas Are Considered Unpopulated".

If you want to focus particularly on the 1988 attack on Kurdish villagers, you might like to balance responsibility for the availability of these weapons with the notion that:

In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: You're not very good at reading between the lines, anastrophe. That article wasn't about Germany in the 1930s, it was about America in the 21st century.
thank you for stating that. you equate america with nazi germany.



why do i bother feeding a Troll.





There's so much anger in you. The red mist is stopping you from seeing the world as it is. Meditate, learn calm, learn quietism, learn to think internally instead of to scream internally. This isn't a jungle, we are no longer restricted to red teeth and claws for survival.


blah, blah, blah. rather than deal with it, deflect. i guess instead of urinating on their graves, you'd like to cuddle up with their corpses. hey, whatever turns you on.





There is a scale of human possibility, and nobody, not even Hitler, glued his needle to the end-post.
i disagree, most emphatically. if ever there were benchmarks on the scale of human possibility for evil, a hitler, a stalin, a mao, etc, most certainly pin the needle. if you think otherwise, i pity you. 100 million dead souls at the hands of that club of monsters. and you wring your hands not for them, but for their murderers. okay. as i said, whatever turns you on.





The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones. We've had "So let it be with Hitler" with sixty years of fear of being mistaken for a sympathiser. That's long enough.
what's this? forgive and forget? don't tell me - you're one of those kooks who believes the holocaust didn't really happen. poor mr. hitler was just misunderstood!





Each is a shape on the screen of history. Hitler was a man no different from you or I.
nonsense. absolute poppycock. as i just finished explaining not a few posts ago, we share the same human form. we share the same human DNA. without the moustache, in a crowd, you'd never have known him from anyone else. *but those are irrelevant external attributes*. hitler's *actions* make him far, far different from you and I. if you disagree....well then, shouldn't there be not a soul left on earth, if we're all the same as hitler?





I'd rather understand that part of myself which is Hitler than deny it exists.
who said a single word about 'deny[ing] it exists'? more rhetorical buggery. feel free to wring your hands for hitler, and how there's a part of you that thinks like him. proclaim your brotherhood Mussolini, your kinship with Stalin, your shared humanity with Mao. knock yourself out.



it's funny, you proclaim *i'm* the one filled with anger - yet you're the one who wishes to try to understand your more delicate hitlerish-self. sounds to me as if you're filled with some pathological self-loathing.





I've re-read the original post of this thread. I still find it utterly vomit-making. Is it seriously capable of making some people laugh? Are there really people that sick?
yes, there really are people as sick as saddam hussein. i've no problem with people who revile vermin such as him.



maybe you ought to ask the average iraqi citizen how they felt about saddam hussein. ask those who had family members tortured - or if they were 'lucky' their family member simply 'disappeared' so they never had to live with the cold reality of saddam's evil. ask the average iraqi if they're glad we got rid of saddam. of course, if you go by the L.A. Times, every single iraqi hates us. that you're swayed by anti-american propoganda promulgated by americans certainly doesn't surprise me. that you don't recognize that you're falling for propoganda doesn't suprise me either.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: The number of deformed births as a result of the Dioxins sprayed over "unpopulated" Vietnam is, I'm told, considerable. Those are just the damaged children who manage to survive until birth. The map you will wish to look at is at http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/exhi ... 50404u.htm and the words of interest are "White Areas Are Considered Unpopulated".
troll. it is not in dispute that we used defoliants on large parts of vietnam. it is worth noting that the dioxins in agent orange were contaminants. that the use of agent orange caused considerable damage later is not in dispute. i do dispute that the dioxins were sprayed with the intent to cause birth defects. certainly, you disagree.





If you want to focus particularly on the 1988 attack on Kurdish villagers, you might like to balance responsibility for the availability of these weapons with the notion that:
yes, it's all our fault. america is at the bottom of everything bad that has ever happened.



dow chemical didn't sell them sarin. they made sarin from the chemicals they received. poor judgement? no doubt. dow chemical didn't dump the sarin on innocent people.

[David813]

Simply being a blind cheerleader for US policy, regardless of how wrong it may be, casts you as so one dimensional A. I know better.

[anastrophe]

David813 wrote: Simply being a blind cheerleader for US policy, regardless of how wrong it may be, casts you as so one dimensional A. I know better.
can you explain what, specifically, make it appear that i'm a 'blind cheerleader for US policy'?



speaking of blindness, tell me about mao and the good he did. balanced of course against to 20+ million 'bandits' he had liquidated.

[David813]

anastrophe wrote: can you explain what, specifically, make it appear that i'm a 'blind cheerleader for US policy'?



speaking of blindness, tell me about mao and the good he did. balanced of course against to 20+ million 'bandits' he had liquidated.It's just that in your eyes the US cannot and has never ever done anything wrong! You seem to leap in defense of US policy regarding the occupation/invasion of Iraq, the environment, economics and alot more. Perfectly fine if they are your opinions but they perpetuate the ugly American stereotype. And with so many international members here I hope to cast another light on what the average American feels about US policy. As a Trotskyist I can't speak for Mao but Google Revolutionary Communist Party,USA. The US Maoist Movement. I do believe the end of colonialism and the corrupt feudalist capitalism under the Kuomintang was a good thing. I also think Mao & Communism did a tremendous job putting China back together after WW2, a civil war and the ruins of the former dictatorship. In a matter of 20 years China became a nuclear power.

[anastrophe]

David813 wrote: It's just that in your eyes the US cannot and has never ever done anything wrong!
where have i said that? where have i written that? of course the US has done wrong things. a great many wrong things. that i fight the notion that *everything* we do is wrong doesn't mean that i don't believe we've ever done anything wrong.





You seem to leap in defense of US policy regarding the occupation/invasion of Iraq, the environment, economics and alot more.
david, david, david. i'm not defending "US policy". i don't base my opinions on US policy.



i was against the invasion of iraq. while the evidence presented seemed pretty strong that he was violating a decade of UN sanctions, and thumbing his nose at the world community, the leap to 'iraq' right after afghanistan did NOT give me a warm fuzzy feeling. now that we're there, however, what we're doing is the right thing. do the ends justify the means? no, absolutely not. i'd have much preferred that if this adventure were to happen at all, it happened with *ACTUAL* "slam dunk" evidence, rather than 'well, shoot! we *thought* it was 'slam dunk' evidence, darnit!'. now that we're there, we have an obligation to see it through. others here, apparently, don't see it that way. they see the insurgents as 'freedom fighters', rather than the insane, islamic extremists they are - far outside the mainstream of the people of iraq.



the environment? i'm totally in favor of alternative energy sources. as i mentioned in another topic, i'm absolutely 'jonesing' for a solar electric setup on my house, but the cost is still out of reach for me. it is reasonable to assume that one day the crude oil will end. historically it's played out that way - up until the 1970's, the US used to produce a significant portion of the oil it consumes - i think more than 60%? i'd have to look it up. but the oil fields of texas and oklahoma and louisiana and california gradually withered. now they produce but a trickle. so, one can pretty much reasonably expect that the oil fields of saudi arabia will play out as well. there will new discoveries of course, but ignoring the inevitable would be foolish. that's why i'm glad that AMERICA is at the forefront of research and development of alternative energy sources (contrary to the ballyhoo of gmc, who seems to think the UK is the center of that research). did you read that just recently a group developed what is effectively a solar 'fabric' that could be used to make clothing that would generate power to run all our little doo-dads - cell phones and pagers and PDA's and laptops? it's not marketable yet, but it's a huge leap forward. and standard silicon cells have increased in efficiency over the years - to where one really can put panels on their roof and generate most of their own electricity.



economics? economics are cyclical. you go up, you go down. it's the nature of the beast. we are coming out of a down cycle, steadily, predictably. it's got nothing to do with who is in the whitehouse. bill clinton didn't make the economy good - he benefitted from the good economy! (with record breaking tax revenues that helped shrink the deficit).





Perfectly fine if they are your opinions but they perpetuate the ugly American stereotype.
maybe so. the ugly american stereotype however seems far more entrenched in the opinions of non-americans regardless of what i think. hatred of america has been a sport ever since we helped europe defeat hitler. france has never forgiven us - they know we saved their sorry asses, and it sticks in their craw! heh.





And with so many international members here I hope to cast another light on what the average American feels about US policy.by all means! knock yourself out. i really prefer hearing *americans* castigating america than a bunch of....well, people who aren't americans and seem to have forgotten they have their own parcel of problems they ought to be focussing on.





As a Trotskyist I can't speak for Mao but www.revolutionbooks.com can. The US Maoist Movement. I do believe the end of colonialism and the corrupt feudalist capitalism under the Kuomintang was a good thing. I also think Mao & Communism did a tremendous job putting China back together after WW2, a civil war and the ruins of the former dictatorship. In a matter of 20 years China became a nuclear power.
at the cost of between 20 and 35 million chinese at the hands of their own leaders.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: thank you for stating that. you equate america with nazi germany.Let me try to be rather more precise than that, since you seem to have misread my words. I have compared, elsewhere, the Boy George administration with the senior ranks of Germany's Nazi party. Regarding the LA Times article, I said that the article wasn't published as a commentary on 30s Germany, it was published as a commentary on America in the 21st century.

anastrophe wrote: yes, it's all our fault.Certainly, the rise to power of the Ba'athist party owed a great deal to the US Intelligence community's interference in the domestic politics of Iraq. History would be so much different if Allen Dulles had been held to account through the fifties, instead of allowed his head to wreak havoc across continents.In February 1963 the Nasserite Colonel Abdul Aref, who is free again, leads a coup against General Kassem, along with the anti-Communist Ba'athists. Kassem is captured, tried & executed. Colonel Aref becomes President.

According to various sources (including the late King Hussein of Jordan), the coup-plotting Ba'athists are in close contact with the CIA, which meets repeatedly with a Ba'athist delegation in Kuwait.

On the day of the coup the CIA radios to the Ba'athists a list of names and addresses of key Iraqi Communists. Thousands of Communists are arrested and executed. This action apparently inspires General Suharto of Indonesia (again with CIA support & lists), to conduct an even larger-scale massacre two years later, when more than half a million people are killed. The future Ba'athist President al Bakr later admits that the 1963 Ba'athist coup succeeded "using an American locomotive".
anastrophe wrote: america is at the bottom of everything bad that has ever happened.What uncalled-for hyperbole. You and I may be poles apart, but I make quite sure that I stay closer to the centerline than you do. You make it very easy.

Your continued use of the word Troll is reminiscent of the notion that "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."(1) I don't think other people here would be so easily influenced. If you want to be more convincing, rant less and drop the accusation. Leave it to the others to make up their minds.

(1) Joseph Goebbels, who also said: "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Let me try to be rather more precise than that, since you seem to have misread my words. I have compared, elsewhere, the Boy George administration with the senior ranks of Germany's Nazi party.
okey dokey. it's no less appalling and offensive however.





Regarding the LA Times article, I said that the article wasn't published as a commentary on 30s Germany, it was published as a commentary on America in the 21st century.
as you already pointed out. the LA times of course is a cheerleader of the anti-american sentiment, so at least you're staying consistent in your choice of news sources.





Certainly, the rise to power of the Ba'athist party owed a great deal to the US Intelligence community's interference in the domestic politics of Iraq. History would be so much different if Allen Dulles had been held to account through the fifties, instead of allowed his head to wreak havoc across continents.
ahem. certainly, history would be much different had not france and the UK carved up the fertile crescent without any regard for historical boundaries that preceded their interference by a few thousand years. so in this case, i blame the UK for where we are right now with iraq.





What uncalled-for hyperbole. You and I may be poles apart, but I make quite sure that I stay closer to the centerline than you do. You make it very easy.
it's unsurprising that you view yourself closer to the centerline. i've found that most far-leftists are so blind to any deviation from their ideology that they believe that the mere-left are on the right.



i'd wager i'm a heck of a lot nearer the center than you. but that would be a pissing contest (among pissing contests).







Your continued use of the word Troll is reminiscent of the notion that "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."(1) I don't think other people here would be so easily influenced. If you want to be more convincing, rant less and drop the accusation. Leave it to the others to make up their minds.
that's a fair enough criticism. my experience and history online goes back a great many years, a decade earlier than most people even think the internet existed. your behaviors thus far have marked you as a troll in my estimation - among them one who manages to bring virtually every topic 'round to their pet grievance (in this case, the US). i'll happily allow the lurker audience to come to their own conclusions.





(1) Joseph Goebbels, who also said: "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"
such as 'the US is evil, the US is evil, the US is evil'.....

[David813]

Spot you should know most Americans declare all news outlets liberal liars and ONLY FOXNEWS, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly and extreme conservatives have the REAL news. Everything else is a left wing conspiritorial lie.

[john8pies]

Nobody can doubt that Saddam (note what it spells backwards!) was a tyrant, but since his `overthrow` there has been murder and carnage on a daily basis on a hitherto unseen scale.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: the LA times of course is a cheerleader of the anti-american sentimentThis is the key to your departure from reality, anastrophe, the point where you admit that you think your view is the only "American" view and that anything which differs from it is anti-American. The sentiments of the LA Times are, by any sane standard, American. It may not support your own jackbooted goose-step into infamy, but the LA Times and the people who create it are undeniably American. It's only when you claim this vast swathe of America to be anti-American that you can falsely accuse me of hating America.

[anastrophe]

john8pies wrote: Nobody can doubt that Saddam (note what it spells backwards!) was a tyrant, but since his `overthrow` there has been murder and carnage on a daily basis on a hitherto unseen scale.
rubbish. the carnage saddam wreaked on the people of his own nation exceeds by orders of magnitude the carnage of this war. if you want to break it down into the simplest of measures, look at the body counts for this war, and during his reign. no comparison.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: This is the key to your departure from reality, anastrophe, the point where you admit that you think your view is the only "American" view and that anything which differs from it is anti-American.
in fact, i did not say or suggest that my point of view is the only american point of view. i'm basing the judgement on the LA Time's history of intentionally distorting the news to match their bias, which is most definitely anti-american. since you aren't an american, nor exposed full-on to our news and culture, i can't expect you to see it - as well, your bias to the extreme left - as demonstrated in your own words, not by my proclamation of same - would necessarily prevent you from seeing what is wrong with 'news' that is biased. oh, for those 'fans' out there who want to toss the 'only fox news meets the redneck definition of news' at me - sorry. i don't watch fox news. what i've seen of it is just as tilted and biased as the other news organizations - only tilted at a different angle. what's amazing is the amount of bile that is apparently generated by the existence of this one 'news' organization that's tilted to the right, compared with the legions that are tilted to the left....





The sentiments of the LA Times are, by any sane standard, American.
certainly, we can play that semantic game. of course the sentiments are 'american', as they are written and produced by americans, in america. that doesn't mean they aren't biased against US policy on a knee jerk level - if the word "republican" or "conservative" can be found associated with any story they intend to report on, you can count on the story being negative, regardless of the actual content. sorry, i prefer a reuters to that kind of crap. give me the news. just the news. don't tilt it or bias it to the left or the right. just give me the damned news.



It may not support your own jackbooted goose-step into infamy,you were saying something previously about the use of labels as a means of propagandizing the matter. should i be shocked at this delightful breach, particularly after i concurred that the labelling did nothing to advance the argument?



sorry amigo, you don't know me, you don't know how i live, or how i feel, besides the words here, most of which are written primarily to counter your arguments.



so for the record: i don't own any jackboots, and i've only goose-stepped in time with the ministry of silly walks on monty python.





but the LA Times and the people who create it are undeniably American.
sigh. this is not in dispute. obviously they are american. their sentiments however are anti-american.





It's only when you claim this vast swathe of America to be anti-American that you can falsely accuse me of hating America.
this is a nonsensical argument. first, there is no 'vast swathe' as you suggest. the LA times, among other elitist liberal publications, is not representative of the vast swathe of centrist americans. think "LA" and its proximity to "Hollywood". anyone who would suggest that hollywood isnt' far left is clearly out of touch with reality.



but i digress. as i said, your argument makes no sense. if i were to claim that XYZ americans were anti-american, how would that in any way affect an accusation that you, an apparent non-american, hate america? it doesn't follow. apples and oranges.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: certainly, we can play that semantic game. of course the sentiments are 'american', as they are written and produced by americans, in america. that doesn't mean they aren't biased against US policy on a knee jerk levelYou may, then, similarly regard my views as biased against US policy on a knee jerk level but not anti-American. I can live with that. I don't see how my nationality changes the issue, semantically or otherwise. I share certain views, many of which are in admiration of many Americans.

Simply dropping this "anti-American" jibe, and substituting "biased against US policy on a knee jerk level" (or, for brevity, anti-Administration), goes a long way to cut the bickering and allow our genuine differences of opinion to shine through.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: sorry amigo, you don't know me, you don't know how i live, or how i feel, besides the words here, most of which are written primarily to counter your arguments.



so for the record: i don't own any jackboots, and i've only goose-stepped in time with the ministry of silly walks on monty python.I apologize, I used the word "your" to mean "the current US Administration's", in "(the LA Times) may not support your own jackbooted goose-step into infamy". I slipped into thinking of you as an apologist for the current US Administration, and hence mis-spoke myself. Of course I do not regard you as a poser who thinks dressing up in bits of Nazi regalia a joke (unlike our own dear Prince... "Prince Harry, 20, appears to be wearing a German desert uniform and a swastika armband. He is also holding a drink and cigarette." - silly lad). The goose-stepping and jackboots of your - there I go again - Administration are purely metaphorical.



anastrophe wrote: sigh. this is not in dispute. obviously they are american. their sentiments however are anti-american.Not at all. The sentiments of the LA Times may well currently be anti-Administration, given the current Masters of our Fates, but the sentiments of the LA Times would not be seen by sensible people to be anti-American. If you would distinguish between America and the current Administration, these semantic barriers would not exist.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote:

Certainly, the rise to power of the Ba'athist party owed a great deal to the US Intelligence community's interference in the domestic politics of Iraq. History would be so much different if Allen Dulles had been held to account through the fifties, instead of allowed his head to wreak havoc across continents.
anastrophe wrote:

ahem. certainly, history would be much different had not france and the UK carved up the fertile crescent without any regard for historical boundaries that preceded their interference by a few thousand years. so in this case, i blame the UK for where we are right now with iraq.
i did want thank you for your acceding through silence on this point. french and UK imperialism in the middle east is directly responsible for the rise of these conflicts.



your move!

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: anyone who would suggest that hollywood isnt' far left is clearly out of touch with reality.This is the same far-left Hollywood that made "Saving Jessica Lynch", anastrophe? Daniel Paulson Productions? (310) 234-5270? Would you like to check where area code 310 is?

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: i did want thank you for your acceding through silence on this point. french and UK imperialism in the middle east is directly responsible for the rise of these conflicts.Well of course it is. Bad thing, Imperialism. I've spoken against it for many years.



anastrophe wrote: your move!I do wish you stopped thinking of this as a game, anastrophe. As I've said when you've tried to do this in the past, people are dying. Find some decorum.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: i did want thank you for your acceding through silence on this point.You will, I hope, excuse me for being so slow at responding to all of your points. I was not bred for office work. You command the attention of, at most, two of my fingers, and they move quite slowly.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: This is the same far-left Hollywood that made "Saving Jessica Lynch", anastrophe? Daniel Paulson Productions? (310) 234-5270? Would you like to check where area code 310 is?
sooo....you believe that if the overwhelming tenor of hollywood is far left as i suggest, that means that it is *impossible* for there to be anything contrary to that?



a remarkable assertion. i wasn't aware that people were automatons or robots.



furthermore, hollywood is a moneymaking industry. they will whore to whatever they believe will generate revenue. that doesn't preclude those who work within the industry from being far-left.



for every actor you can name who is on the right, i can name twenty who are on the left. this is obvious. if you want to maintain that hollywood and LA aren't far left, be my guest.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote:

I do wish you stopped thinking of this as a game, anastrophe. As I've said when you've tried to do this in the past, people are dying. Find some decorum.
spot wrote:

People who sign up to the armed forces are moral derelicts, in my opinion.


i'd advise the same. yes, i am aware you backed away from that after the hue and cry regarding the offensiveness of the statement. however, i believe the truth was showing when you wrote it. for example, i could have my blood boiling, and you'd never catch me saying "george bush is the greatest president who ever lived". you found the ability to voice the above. i take it at face value.

[spot]

spot wrote: I do wish you stopped thinking of this as a game, anastrophe. As I've said when you've tried to do this in the past, people are dying. Find some decorum.spot wrote: People who sign up to the armed forces are moral derelicts, in my opinion. anastrophe wrote: i'd advise the same. yes, i am aware you backed away from that after the hue and cry regarding the offensiveness of the statement. however, i believe the truth was showing when you wrote it. for example, i could have my blood boiling, and you'd never catch me saying "george bush is the greatest president who ever lived". you found the ability to voice the above. i take it at face value.You silly man, by "people are dying" I was referring to civilians who did nothing to put themselves in a position of danger. The Armed Services can take care of themselves and, moral derelicts or saints, they are by no means defenceless.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: for every actor you can name who is on the right, i can name twenty who are on the left. this is obvious. if you want to maintain that hollywood and LA aren't far left, be my guest.No, not at all, I think it quite likely that left-wing tendencies are a great benefit to any aspiring actor. Perhaps, to echo Rod Liddle in a Guardian opinion piece a while ago, it's "something to do with the collaborative process of film acting; the shared performance and, maybe, the necessity to, temporarily perhaps, subjugate the ego and empathise with the subject. If it is not too pretentious an extrapolation, it's the communitarian demands of acting that are best suited to those of a vaguely socialistic ideology."

The lousiest Hollywood actors make good Republicans, though. Would you oppose the Ascent of Arnie to the Oval Office, if the proposed amendment to allow him there gets through? While Ronnie only had Bedtime for Bonzo in his arsenal, a president regurgitating lines from the Terminator is quite another matter.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: You silly man, by "people are dying" I was referring to civilians who did nothing to put themselves in a position of danger. The Armed Services can take care of themselves and, moral derelicts or saints, they are by no means defenceless.
again, focus on the irrelevant. you used hyperbole to suggest i should show some decorum. i used similar hyperbole to suggest that 'the shoe fits' you as well. the merits of the relative statements themselves wasn't at issue - it was your pompous hyperbole.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: No, not at all, I think it quite likely that left-wing tendencies are a great benefit to any aspiring actor. Perhaps, to echo Rod Liddle in a Guardian opinion piece a while ago, it's "something to do with the collaborative process of film acting; the shared performance and, maybe, the necessity to, temporarily perhaps, subjugate the ego and empathise with the subject. If it is not too pretentious an extrapolation, it's the communitarian demands of acting that are best suited to those of a vaguely socialistic ideology."


mmm, yes. the ego of the leftwing and it's fascination with itself, to the point of being as unseemly as public masturbation, is certainly not at issue.



The lousiest Hollywood actors make good Republicans, though.
ibid. such a ridiculous statement.





Would you oppose the Ascent of Arnie to the Oval Office, if the proposed amendment to allow him there gets through?
i don't know if i would or not. the likelyhood the amendment would ever go through is vanishingly small, i've no expectation that it will. however, if it did, it would most certainly be many years from now - the amendment process is a purposefully slow system, because of the tremendous ramifications of any changes. because of that, i've no idea what my opinion of mr. schwarzenegger might be at that time. at the moment, he's doing an excellent job of cleaning up the mess left by the entrenched, corrupt democrats here in california. it's an uphill battle though. i'm sure, because he is a centrist republican, you likely view him - from you far left ivory tower as a jack-booted thug. pragmatists know he's doing the right thing with the state's budget and policies.





While Ronnie only had Bedtime for Bonzo in his arsenal, a president regurgitating lines from the Terminator is quite another matter.
it is. its relevance to policy matters is questionable however.

[anastrophe]

flopstock wrote: Sorry to butt in on your conversation, but could one of you two please point me to :



Originally Posted by spot

People who sign up to the armed forces are moral derelicts, in my opinion.



Want to be sure i give it the benefit of the entire context of the post.



thanks

diane
this was in the 'bad things happen in war' thread. specific posts of note:



http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... ostcount=4



and later his (rather milquetoast) withdrawal of the statement:



http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=53

[abbey]

anastrophe wrote: and later his (rather milquetoast) withdrawal of the statement:Dunno why, but i always think of Spot as being a woman!

No disrespect Spot.

[spot]

abbey wrote: Dunno why, but i always think of Spot as being a woman!

No disrespect Spot.It's a subliminal consequence of anastrophe saying "yes dear" and calling me "love", I imagine. Nobody in the Garden fora has asked me what I am. All of them that I phone or webcam know, of course.