Author Topic: One in three French backs Saddam  (Read 365 times)

Agua

  • Guest
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2003, 04:18:02 PM »
it's strange that bush wages war on a man who has been supported by  the us government for more than two decades.

the hypocrisy is just becoming sad.

That's not true and doesn't make sense.

what's wrong with my comment? rumsfeld himself visited saddam a couple of times.
 

Twentytwofifty

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 4924
  • Karma: 306
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2003, 04:31:27 PM »
what's wrong with my comment?

1. The US government has not supported Saddam for the last two decades.

2. "the hypocrisy is just becoming sad" <---- Doesn't make sense.

rumsfeld himself visited saddam a couple of times.

And your point is...

 

Agua

  • Guest
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2003, 04:40:07 PM »
1. The US government has not supported Saddam for the last two decades.

do you remember what happened after the first war in iraq? when george bush failed to support a possible revolution in iraq and thereby brought saddam back into the game? That's indirect support.

2. "the hypocrisy is just becoming sad" <---- Doesn't make sense.

this shit was aimed at engel-rock, who said that anti-americanism was just becoming sad.




And your point is...

rumsfeld visited saddam to provide him with weapons for iraq's war against iran. I think this can be called support as well.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2003, 04:41:11 PM by Agua »
 

Twentytwofifty

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 4924
  • Karma: 306
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2003, 05:45:55 PM »
do you remember what happened after the first war in iraq? when george bush failed to support a possible revolution in iraq and thereby brought saddam back into the game? That's indirect support.

That's a stretch.  I would never say that the US government has supported Saddam since before the first gulf war.

this shit was aimed at engel-rock, who said that anti-americanism was just becoming sad.

Okay, I thought that you thought that the US were hypocrites for supporting Saddam then going to war with him.

rumsfeld visited saddam to provide him with weapons for iraq's war against iran. I think this can be called support as well.

War with Iran?  It's the year 2003 now.
 

KING VerbalAssaulta

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Karma: -169
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2003, 05:51:41 PM »
This shouldnt come as a surprise to yall. Besides the US, and Britain, the majority of the world sees this war for the imperialsitic aggression that it is. Naturally, when the strongest army in the world is invading a third world nation, people will be gunning for the under dog. This is natural.
and since when did TECH become the voice ot the rest of the world  ::)....by the way lol at rapquakes link  ;D
 

King Tech Quadafi

  • His Royal Highness
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7297
  • Karma: -221
  • i think you betta recognize...
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2003, 06:50:54 PM »
u would be surprised at how many people would agree with my views re: american foreign policy.
"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

- Lewis Carroll
 

TheSheriff

  • Guest
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2003, 09:16:00 AM »
This shouldnt come as a surprise to yall. Besides the US, and Britain, the majority of the world sees this war for the imperialsitic aggression that it is. Naturally, when the strongest army in the world is invading a third world nation, people will be gunning for the under dog. This is natural.

Yeah, obviously whenever a war happens, everyone wants the smaller nation to win, and anyone who wants the bigger nation to win is brainwashed.
 

TheSheriff

  • Guest
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2003, 09:17:50 AM »
will it? can u honestly tell me it will? gunpoint democracy doesnt work. You cannot force democracy in a country that has never had the institutions for it.
Is Afghanistan free and democratic?What have yall done there? I mean, seriously, besides killing thousands of people, bombing weddings and killing the odd goat.

I expected more of you. Iraq was a democracy, until the first Baathist coup; Afghanistan is now, again, as it was under the King, a democracy. There are elections. Yes, there may still be warlords, but in every poor country, there are those who will exploit desperation.
 

King Tech Quadafi

  • His Royal Highness
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7297
  • Karma: -221
  • i think you betta recognize...
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2003, 02:35:37 PM »
1. I never insinuated what u said in the last post

2. On contraire, mon ami. Iraq was ruled by King Farouk and that country;s system of govt was anything but a democracy. Under King Zahir Shah, Afghanistan WAS NOT a democracy, It was ruled by a series of King appointed prime minsters which acted like despots. See: Mohamed Daoud Khan.

"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

- Lewis Carroll
 

TheSheriff

  • Guest
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2003, 02:52:18 PM »
1. I never insinuated what u said in the last post

2. On contraire, mon ami. Iraq was ruled by King Farouk and that country;s system of govt was anything but a democracy. Under King Zahir Shah, Afghanistan WAS NOT a democracy, It was ruled by a series of King appointed prime minsters which acted like despots. See: Mohamed Daoud Khan.



1. You said it was "natural" to support the underdog.

2. At independence, Iraq was an "enforced" democracy; whether this went British puppets were installed, isn't the point. There were certain standards of governmental behaviour. I do accept Farouk rather abolished that idea, I messed up before-but there was a relatively free press (as opposed to now-there was even a satirical journal, albiet one terrorized by paramilitaries), and a powerless but free equivalent of the Dushka.

With Shah, a Prime Minister does not define a democracy; see Cuba, or Tzarist Russia.
 

TheSheriff

  • Guest
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2003, 03:57:32 PM »
Agua posted in this topic, then deleted his post...Spiffing
 

King Tech Quadafi

  • His Royal Highness
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7297
  • Karma: -221
  • i think you betta recognize...
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2003, 06:52:14 PM »
"1. You said it was "natural" to support the underdog."

yes i did, but i did not call people who supported america brainwashed.
"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

- Lewis Carroll
 

Agua

  • Guest
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2003, 07:10:20 PM »
Agua posted in this topic, then deleted his post...Spiffing

yep, i deleted it. it seemed senseless to me to post in this thread since i started threads about truth and propaganda.
 

Agua

  • Guest
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #28 on: April 03, 2003, 07:15:45 PM »
btw, i do think that peeps who support the us are brainwashed. the whole mess could have been solved in 1991 but dubya's pops decided not to help the iraqi people. instead he just looked at them being slaughtered.
 

TheSheriff

  • Guest
Re:One in three French backs Saddam
« Reply #29 on: April 04, 2003, 08:12:46 AM »
btw, i do think that peeps who support the us are brainwashed. the whole mess could have been solved in 1991 but dubya's pops decided not to help the iraqi people. instead he just looked at them being slaughtered.

How are those two points related?