aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Jews in Germany Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of The Java EE 7 Tutorial Volume 1 or Volume 2 this week in the Java EE forum
or jQuery UI in Action in the JavaScript forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Jews in Germany" Watch "Jews in Germany" New topic
Author

Jews in Germany

Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
So far, there have been official congratulations from Germany, France, Japan, even the U.N. Unofficial interviews of people as far flung as Yemen and Afghanistan laud the arrest. And the ones most vocal are the Iraqis themselves. Talking about Hussein's capture, Alan Zangana, the director of Kurdish Human Rights Watch in San Diego and an expatriated Kurd, had this to say:
"Nobody is going to be happy today like the Kurds," Zangana said. "He killed a lot of us."
There will be no massive "Free Saddam" protests. There will be no international outcry for his release. Except for a very few, very misguided souls, the world is quite single-voiced in pointing their finger at this man and saying: he is evil.
He was found in a cellar, and gave up without a fight like the coward he is. And his followers should recognize that fact. Most of Hussein's men are dead or captured. Bin Laden, if he's still alive, is hiding out in the mountains somewhere. This is the ultimate reward for acting contrary to basic human rights. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But eventually.
On to a free and pluralistic Iraq!
Joe
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
I guess it would be a bit early to start embedding stolpersteines in Iraqi pavements and sidewalks. They may need some time to reflect on the atrocities - some distance from the events.
Joe Pluta : On to a free and pluralistic Iraq
Surely, on to a free and plutalistic Iraq.
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
OK, so both "_a_ German government" and "_the_ German government" are ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation. The former leaves open the interpretation that there were several governments at that time, and the latter suggests that the present government was involved.
I'm just uncomfortable with the whole idea of these plaques; but I'm not sure exactly why. I mean, are we going to start seeing plaques all over Moscow for every family that was sent to their deaths in Siberia? On every third house in Cambodia? On every shack that once housed a black man who was lynched? How about outside every home in England where a pensioner forbidden to keep a gun for defense was killed by a burglar?
Where is all this going to end?
As long as Germans always withhold their support or friendship from people who spread hate-Jew lies and propaganda and such, I'm satsified. I see no benefit in hitting them over the head with the Holocaust in every generation to try to make them feel eternal shame. The only reason the Holocaust was perpetrated by Nazis and not by any of the other many evil ideologies haunting Europe is that Germans are by nature organized, methodical, systematic and thorough. So when they got it into their heads to kill all the Jews, they were simply more effective. (When the Cossacks tried it, they frequently got distracted upon discovering the first Jew's liquor cabinet.)
Steve Wink
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 13, 2002
Posts: 223
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
all over Moscow for every family that was sent to their deaths in Siberia? On every third house in Cambodia? On every shack that once housed a black man who was lynched? How about outside every home in England where a pensioner forbidden to keep a gun for defense was killed by a burglar?

You're right, not arming our old folk is entirely analogous to the killing fields, the holocaust or Stalins purges...
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
I'm just uncomfortable with the whole idea of these plaques; but I'm not sure exactly why. I mean, are we going to start seeing plaques all over Moscow for every family that was sent to their deaths in Siberia? On every third house in Cambodia? On every shack that once housed a black man who was lynched?
Yes to all of the above. As to when will we stop putting up plaques like these... when we stop needing to.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
The only reason the Holocaust was perpetrated by Nazis and not by any of the other many evil ideologies haunting Europe is that Germans are by nature organized, methodical, systematic and thorough.
I think this shows a complete lack of understanding of the Nazis or of the remainder of Europe.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Where is all this going to end?

It depends I think, in each case, whether the event in question is seen as an aberration of one culture's expression or an epitome.
I see no benefit in hitting them over the head with the Holocaust in every generation to try to make them feel eternal shame.

The oft-quoted number is six million people killed in the name of racial purity, social cleansing, and certain military objectives. You can expect the story of the Holocaust to be told and re-told and re-told for as long as it takes the memory of one people seeking to virtually eliminate another to fade. Mind you, we're not talking about devastating armed conflict -- we're talking about the systematic dispossession, interning, and execution of millions. It's incomprehensible to me.

The only reason the Holocaust was perpetrated by Nazis and not by any of the other many evil ideologies haunting Europe is that Germans are by nature organized, methodical, systematic and thorough. So when they got it into their heads to kill all the Jews, they were simply more effective.

The implication of this statement is that Nazi Germany was simply the best at doing what so many others have wanted to do. I can't imagine who isn't offended directly or indirectly by such an idea.
[ December 15, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
... plaques all over Moscow for every family that was sent to their deaths in Siberia? On every third house in Cambodia? On every shack that once housed a black man who was lynched? How about outside every home in England where a pensioner forbidden to keep a gun for defense was killed by a burglar?
Steve Wink: You're right, not arming our old folk is entirely analogous to the killing fields, the holocaust or Stalins purges...

Well, obviously you wouldn't need as many plaques for the victims of gun control! That's why I asked, "How far would we go with this?"
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
What exactly were the ethical arguments for NOT deposing Hussein? I'll try to come up with the top five:

Unethical is misguiding his own people.
Unethical is attacking to a country without having any valid reason.
Unethical is attacking a country to spread business.
Unethical is making "war on terror" to "war of liberalisation".
Unethical is first supporting a man and then accuse him for the same.
AW as yesterday Mr. Bush said, US is more secure now after free Iraq. Only some people with high intellectual level could understand, why US is more secure if Iraq people are free.
And yes, Mr. Bush again fails to answer the question about WMD in Iraq.
Oh but, when media will know that WMD was not the reason but to liberate the Iraq was reason for war.
AW me and my friends decided to watch "Bush live news conference" over Nutty Professor(HBO).
AW I am taking some rest now.
CUL


"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Unethical is misguiding his own people.
I'd agree to misleading his own people, sure. Even some talk-show hardliners are conceding that.
Unethical is attacking to a country without having any valid reason.
Ohhhh, my. You're way off the beam there. The US position was excruciatingly plain. The reasons were plenty valid. What people like me protested against was the idea that military invasion "now" was appropriate. But no valid reason? That's nonsense.
Unethical is attacking a country to spread business.
Going to war to advance one's interests is the oldest reason for warfare that there is.
Unethical is making "war on terror" to "war of liberalisation".
I think you mean "liberation." The term is scope creep and it was precisely the thing the first President Bush warned against. Which just goes to show you a village chief will condemn for his people that which is ok for his son.
Unethical is first supporting a man and then accuse him for the same.
No, friend, even if it's true, that's just politics. Nasty game!
AW as yesterday Mr. Bush said, US is more secure now after free Iraq. Only some people with high intellectual level could understand, why US is more secure if Iraq people are free.
Hey come on. Stealth WMD's, elite Republican Guard, fifth largest army in the world, missiles that can cause devastation as far away as the Khyber Pass, and the overpowering morale of a people who haven't eaten well since 1989. All you have to do is blink, and next thing you know they're eating something, wearing shoes, getting proper medical care and then it's anybody's globe.
And yes, Mr. Bush again fails to answer the question about WMD in Iraq.
Oh but, when media will know that WMD was not the reason but to liberate the Iraq was reason for war.

It's not so much failing to answer on WMDs as refusing to acknowledge the question anymore. Why would he? It's a no-win question.
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
JP: What were the ethical reasons for NOT deposing Hussein?
RS: Unethical is misguiding his own people.
Assuming you're talking about Bush, and assuming you mean he misled some other Americans, because I was not misled at any point, this doesn't answer the question: what were the ethical reasons for NOT deposing Hussein?
It would be nice if someone today actually read something I posted and responded to the question I asked, rather than making up alternate meanings for my words. You folks are worse than Clinton.
Joe
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
what were the ethical reasons for NOT deposing Hussein?

Who has given right to take ethical actions again any un/ethical ruler of any country ??
World police ??
Then it comes to the same thing.
AW Joe, was it about liberating people or Saddam ??
May I talk about pakistan ?? I think if it is about liberation/freedom/democracy then a dictator is also their
Sorry sorry .... yes, Bush is working on it.[I am told this thing earlier.]
Saddam should be hanged till death by his people with the help of US.
I am agree with you.
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
Saddam should be hanged till death by his people with the help of US. I am agree with you.
You're not agreeing with me, since I never said anything like this. Please stop quoting me until you can do it correctly.
You still have not answered my question, and until you do so, I'm not going to respond any more. This seems to be the only way to get an actual answer, and failing that, it at least lowers the bandwidth.
Joe
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Ohhhh, my. You're way off the beam there. The US position was excruciatingly plain. The reasons were plenty valid. What people like me protested against was the idea that military invasion "now" was appropriate. But no valid reason? That's nonsense.
I said it long back. This war could have been avoided at all and still US would have got victory.
But only victory, no business.
Going to war to advance one's interests is the oldest reason for warfare that there is.
Can you bear the heat of J & J Co. ??
I think you mean "liberation."
you are right.
Which just goes to show you a village chief will condemn for his people that which is ok for his son.
Do these people know that US support country, which does not have democracy and even support OBL and was the one of the country to give recognisation to Taliban??
But they dont have anything worth, thats true.
No, friend, even if it's true, that's just politics. Nasty game!
No comments.

Hey come on. Stealth WMD's, elite Republican Guard, fifth largest army in the world, missiles that can cause devastation as far away as the Khyber Pass
Do you really think Iraq/Saddam was threat to "US" ?? or he could have attacked US ?
No, I cant sing a song of relationship of Saddam with terrorist organisations. AW whole world knows who funded these terrorist organisation and to which country these 9/11 terrorist belong.
Ironically Iraq's name is not in the list.

It's not so much failing to answer on WMDs as refusing to acknowledge the question anymore. Why would he? It's a no-win question.
you will be burnt by the fire of J & J.
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
You still have not answered my question,
Joe

Originally posted by R K Singh:

Who has given right to take ethical actions again any un/ethical ruler of any country ??


I hope that you want answer to following question:
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
this doesn't answer the question: what were the ethical reasons for NOT deposing Hussein?
Joe

Answer I have given. But still I am repeating.
Who has given right to take ethical actions again any un/ethical ruler of any country ??
AW Joe, was it about bringing democracy or removing Saddam ?? or both ??
If both, then it was right action as in this whole world there is only one "Saddam" who rules a country which had no democracy.
Else there are lot of other countries whom US supports and they do not have democracy. True, they dont have Saddam there and second they are not worth to spend a single penny.
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
Answer I have given. But still I am repeating. Who has given right to take ethical actions again any un/ethical ruler of any country ??
This is not an answer, it is a question. Responding to a question with a question is not answering the original question. You use this technique all the time, and it is highly unproductive. Please, answer the question posed with a simple declarative statement.
And even if you were making a statement such as "No country has the ethical right to depose the leader of any other country, and thus we should have left Hussein in power no matter what he did", that argument is indefensible. It would mean that the Allies (and particularly America) had no reason to stop Hitler.
So, I will pose the question once more: what were the ethical reasons for NOT deposing Hussein?
Again, in case I wasn't clear, I am not looking for another question from you, I am looking for a declarative statement as to why you believe we should have left Hussein in power. That's the only type of statement I will respond to.
Joe
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
This is not an answer, it is a question.
Sometimes question is answer.
You use this technique all the time, and it is highly unproductive.
I dont think I do. If you want you can prove me wrong by provind 3-4 links that I have answered question as another question. [ball is in your court.]
Please, answer the question posed with a simple declarative statement.
Answer remain same.
No country has right to take un/ethical actions against any un/ethical ruler of any country.
Do you want Arabs to invade US to teach a lesson about their ethical sense?
Obviously they will capture US till US people learn how to wear clothes properly.

It would mean that the Allies (and particularly America) had no reason to stop Hitler.
Again you are wrong.
Situation is different here.
In case of Hitler, other nation asked help. Right ??
Why there were no/very less opposition of IW-1 ?? Just think about it.
OK. I give you the reason. That war was very much ethical as Kuwait asked for help from international community and international community decided that it was wrong and Saddam should be stoped. Saddam was stoped under UN force.
what were the ethical reasons for NOT deposing Hussein?
The ethical reason is that one should not poke his nose in others matter.

I am not looking for another question from you, I am looking for a declarative statement as to why you believe we should have left Hussein in power.
I hope, I have said it in very clear manner.
Now I have question for you and I hope you will answer.
Who has given right to any other country to decide whether Saddam should rule or not in his "own" country?
AW before we peocede further first decide it was "war of liberation" OR "war on terror" ??
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Who has given right to take ethical actions again any un/ethical ruler of any country ??
The UN did.
The world is rid of a dangerous, possibly psychotic, ruler. He supported terrorism in the Middle East. He used WMDs against civilians. Good riddance.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The UN did.

You are right.
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by R K Singh:

No country has right to take un/ethical actions against any un/ethical ruler of any country.
Do you want Arabs to invade US to teach a lesson about their ethical sense?
Obviously they will capture US till US people learn how to wear clothes properly.

What do you call 9-11 other than that, RK?


SCJP1.4, SCWCD
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:

What do you call 9-11 other than that, RK?

But what was Iraq fault in 9-11 ??
Do you really believe that Iraq was involved in 9-11 ??
When Afghanistan was attacked, did you hear so much fuss ??
Yes, there was, but those were people who think that in war, there will be no civilian casualty. They were not questioning the ligitimacy of war.
I dont know whether you know it or not, in Iraq people and women had more freedom than any other nation in that region.
I read this thing long before 9-11.
[ December 16, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by R K Singh:

But what was Iraq fault in 9-11 ??
Do you really believe that Iraq was involved in 9-11 ??

There is quite a bit of evidence of collaberation between Al-Queda and Saddam Husayn. It's not been conclusively proven and had the Coalition not invaded there would be no possibility of the truth coming out.
In another sense it was largely about Husayn and his defiance of a toothless UN. A UN incapable and unwilling to enforce it's own resolutions. Under Clinton the US was tied to the UN and was widely percieved in the Arab world as being equally toothless and unwilling to protect our national interests. This widespread contempt was a fundamental cause of the attacks upon US ships and embassies culminating in the 9-11 disasters.

Originally posted by R K Singh:

When Afghanistan was attacked, did you hear so much fuss ??
Yes, there was, but those were people who think that in war, there will be no civilian casualty. They were not questioning the ligitimacy of war.

France didn't have 50 billion euros at stake in Afghanistan. But yes, there was plenty of fuss.
Originally posted by R K Singh:

I dont know whether you know it or not, in Iraq people and women had more freedom than any other nation in that region.
I read this thing long before 9-11.

I'm sure you did. I heard such things about Stalin's USSR also. Doesn't make it true though. I suppose it depends on how you define 'the region' and 'freedom'. I doubt Iraq had more freedom than the Gulf States did, than Kuwait did. More freedom than India?
When a government has to kill a million people to keep the lid on that is a compelling indication that all is not right.
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
The ethical reason is that one should not poke his nose in others matter.
So, in your mind, the rest of the world should have done nothing as Hussein slaughtered his own people. That was exactly the sort of attitude that allowed the Holocaust to be perpetrated. But at least now I know where you stand on the issue.
Joe
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Godwin's Law rears its ugly head once again.
Spooky how that works.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:
There is quite a bit of evidence of collaberation between Al-Queda and Saddam Husayn.

Dear friend
Both of us have almost same source of information. But some how, I dont know why, I fail to see collaberation between Al-Qaieda and Saddam Hussain.
Might be, I am really anti-Bush/US.
A UN incapable and unwilling to enforce it's own resolutions.
UN was doing its job.
AW it would be again old ranting which can be found in any older thread.
This widespread contempt was a fundamental cause of the attacks upon US ships and embassies culminating in the 9-11 disasters.
You believe that there is link betn OBL and SH so you can support this war in the name of 9-11. But please not in the name of liberation of Iraqi people.
When a government has to kill a million people to keep the lid on that is a compelling indication that all is not right.
Some kill other nation people and some kill their own people to keep runing Govt.
AW if you believe in Mr. Bush's word that US is more secure now after free Iraq then I have nothing to say.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
So, in your mind, the rest of the world should have done nothing as Hussein slaughtered his own people.

So you think "US and coalition" is rest of the world ???
You are talking like Mr. Bush, we have support of 60 country, does not it make it international support ??? [its a different story that no one bother to ask which 60 country and why they are supporting. For 42 countries I gave reason once and deleted that post also.]
And long back I have given a example, how things to be dealt in such situation when you want to do something for public.
That was exactly the sort of attitude that allowed the Holocaust to be perpetrated.
And you can see with the support of US what is happening there. And again it seems that rest of world does not support US even on that stand also.
Oh sorry I forgot, rest of world means US.
But at least now I know where you stand on the issue.
Just a reminder, US and coalition is not rest of the world. And now I can think of what is your stand.
AW I asked you one question and as usual you did not reply.
When one expects a reply then he should also try to give the reply.
AW I am again repeating my question:
AW before we peocede further first decide it was "war of liberation" OR "war on terror" ??
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
AW before we peocede further first decide it was "war of liberation" OR "war on terror"
It's both.
Joe
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
May I know "your" rest of world means what ??
Al Newman
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 716
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
The ethical reason is that one should not poke his nose in others matter.
So, in your mind, the rest of the world should have done nothing as Hussein slaughtered his own people. That was exactly the sort of attitude that allowed the Holocaust to be perpetrated. But at least now I know where you stand on the issue.

One more thing. Apparently it's unethical for the US to poke it's nose into Iraqi affairs. How is it more ethical for you or the Indian government to poke it's nose into US affairs?
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
May I know "your" rest of world means what ??
It means "the rest of the world". The fact that some countries chose not to engage in the actual work of deposing Hussein doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been done.
Joe
Steven Broadbent
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 400
number of pensioners killed because they were not allowed to have a gun to defend themselves is very small. We don't have the right to bear arms here, nor do many people want it.


"....bigmouth strikes again, and I've got no right to take my place with the human race...."<p>SCJP 1.4
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
It means "the rest of the world". The fact that some countries chose not to engage in the actual work of deposing Hussein doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been done.

Following are from the country who supported war.
Final approval for the bill did not come without a fight. The voting was delayed for hours by stalling tactics from the opposition parties, including an unsuccessful motion of no confidence in Mr. Koizumi on grounds that deploying troops to Iraq would violate Japan's Constitution.
Yelling and scrambling opposition lawmakers surrounded the committee chairman dealing with the Iraq motion but were unable to stop the passage of the bill by the committee and a later plenary session.

=======
Polls suggest that the deployment is opposed by more than half of the public. Support has eroded as US casualty figures have grown. Newspapers carry anxious front-page reports about the continued attacks and deaths in Iraq.
Just look around yourself, you will find enough evidence that, most of the people/countries did not like the idea of attacking Iraq without sufficient reasons/proof.
AW it seems that your rest of world means who supports you.
bye.

By Alfred:
How is it more ethical for you or the Indian government to poke it's nose into US affairs?

First I worte a comic reply.
Then I wrote a serious reply.
And on second thought I found that I am not clear what are you trying to say.
AW thanks for your thoughts.
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
AW it seems that your rest of world means who supports you.
No, it means "the rest of the world".
I said "So, in your mind, the rest of the world should have done nothing as Hussein slaughtered his own people."
Therefore, "the rest of the world" means everybody besides Iraq.
So I will rephrase the question:
Do you believe all countries outside of Iraq should have done nothing while Hussein murdered his own people?
Just answer that simple question, Ravish.
Joe
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Do you believe all countries outside of Iraq should have done nothing while Hussein murdered his own people?

If something had to be done then it should have been done at the time when these crimes were being committed.
I would not like to get punished for stealing Rs. 10/- from my father's pocket today.
You can always say that stealing is different from killing people.
But if you sit down for a moment and think.
Dont you think it was only propaganda to make people senti by saying that SH killed his own people. [they always try not to mention time.]
It was done in late 80s. If that time nothing was done that it is not to good to attack/punish now.
AW atleast not in the name of "war on terror".
And as you said that you think that this war was both(on terror and liberation).
There are lot of other countries which needs to be liberated and have more visible and clear link with terrorist (specially with Al-Qaueda and other Islamic fanatic groups.)
But helping those countries and picking the country which has nothing to do with Al-Qaueda and attacking on it is beyond my intelligence.
If you see from where I am sitting, I find that US people where misguided and someone took advantage of their sentiments. [Obviously in long run it will help US only, in terms of monetary and market] But US is not a country who should do this for money. US is seen as an Ideal country to live.
OR I remember a story in which a rich man become theif to maintain his wealth. In the end of story, he was not feeling guilty but he was saying that he did not want to lose the power and respect he got because of his wealth and as per him stealing was better than declaring bankruptcy.
AW I might be wrong. But as I said earlier, if US feels more secure just by removing SH [again which is beyond my small mind] then well n good.
And I have noticed this thing that pro-war people dont talk about WMD, they avoid to talk about link between SH and terrorist org.
They like to talk more about liberalisation of Iraq or removing a tyrant.
And when they talk this, I have only one question, who has given other country to decide how his country should be run. Whehere that country should have monarchy or communism or democracy ??
I dont think I will give this right to anyone else. I would like to run my home as I want.
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
If something had to be done then it should have been done at the time when these crimes were being committed.
This torture, rape and murder was occurring right up until the day we invaded, Ravish.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/trilby/
http://homepage.eircom.net/~yahussain/iraqtorture/iraqtorture.html#english

I would like to run my home as I want.
In a civilized world, if you are committing torture and rape, even in your own house, you are arrested and put on trial.
Joe
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by R K Singh:
And as you said that you think that this war was both(on terror and liberation). There are lot of other countries which needs to be liberated and have more visible and clear link with terrorist (specially with Al-Qaueda and other Islamic fanatic groups.)

Few countries had a clearer link to terrorist groups that Iraq. Saddam was an open supporter of terrorism in the Middle East.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
R.K
It is a known fact that he had WMD. I am asking you where they went? If you say he destroyed them, please provide the proof.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I would like to run my home as I want.
In a civilized world, if you are committing torture and rape, even in your own house, you are arrested and put on trial.

You are right.
OK let us go step by step.
If I commit a crime in my home still you dont have right to kill me or punish me. You have right to inform respective authority, in this case Police.
You can call police and let them decide what they want to do with me.
PS: BTW "civilsed" word is very vague term. But I would postpone this discussion for sometime later.
I saw the links, they are like any other 'hate' site.
[ December 17, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
You have right to inform respective authority, in this case Police.
If you are trying to say that the UN is the World Police, that argument won't work. Germany and France specifically stated they would stop the UN from doing anything, and Police who won't arrest anyone are not Police.
Since there are no World Police, we stepped in before thousands more were brutalized, raped, tortured and killed.
Joe
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
I saw the links, they are like any other 'hate' site.
Are you saying the crimes those websites list did not occur? That makes you the only one, because everybody else on this forum believes those things occurred. Since you are the only person saying that vicious crimes were not being committed in Iraq right until the time we invaded, you must supply the proof.
Joe
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Jews in Germany