Hussein interview

[Mylezylez]

Hello everyone.

Did anyone watch the Saddam Hussein interview last night? What did you think?

Are you more/less inclined to support a war? Did he confirm your beliefs (whatever they may be)?

Personally, I thought (keeping in mind of course what kind of leader he is) he was very articulate. And moreso now then before, I can find no logical reason for President Bush to shy away from a televised debate with Saddam.

Comments?

-Miles
________
EXTREME Q MANUAL (http://vaporizerinfo.com/)

[midgetbones]

???
________
Arizona medical marijuana dispensaries (http://arizona.dispensaries.org/)

[Skeptic]

He was articulate??? Articulate??? Do you speak Arabic? With a good translator, Jed Clampett could sound "articulate".

And, on the basis that Saddam is "articulate", our President should lower himself and our country so low as to "debate" this butcher?

Pogo was right: We have met the enemy and he is us.
________
magic flight launch box review (http://mflbvaporizer.com)

[Purple Haze]

The tyrant should first debate a member of the Iraqi opposition. No wait, that can't happen. There is no opposition. They are either dead, in prison or afraid to speak.

Let this Iraqi answer the "articulate" tyrant.(From a letter to the Christian Science Monitor - www.csmonitor.com/2003/02...coop.html)

"Since Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, started warning that a US invasion of Iraq would "open the gates of hell," the retort that has been flying around Iraqi exiles' websites is, "Good! We'd like to get out!"

It got me wondering: What if you antiwar protesters and politicians succeed in stopping a US-led war to change the regime in Baghdad? What then will you do?

Will you also demonstrate and demand "peaceful" actions to cure the abysmal human rights violations of the Iraqi people under the rule of Saddam Hussein?

Or, will you simply forget about us Iraqis once you discredit George W. Bush?

Will you demand that the United Nations send human rights inspectors to Iraq? Or are you only interested in weapons of "mass destruction" inspections, not of "mass torture" practices?

Will you also insist that such human rights inspectors be given time to discover Hussein's secret prisons and coercion as you do for the weapons inspectors? Or will you simply accept a "clean bill of health" if you can't find the thousands of buried corpses?

Will you pressure your own countries to host millions more Iraqi refugees (estimated now at 4 million) fleeing Hussein's brutality?Or will you prefer they stay in bondage?

Will you vigorously demand an international tribunal to indict Hussein's regime for crimes against humanity? Or will you simply dismiss him as "another" dictator of a "sovereign" country?

Will you question why Hussein builds lavish palaces while his people are suffering? Or will you simply blame it all on UN sanctions and US "hegemony?"

Will you decry the hypocritical oil and arms commerce of France, Germany, Russia, and China with the butcher of Baghdad? Or are you only against US interests in Iraqi oil?

Will you expose ethnic cleansing of native Iraqi non-Arabs (Kurds, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkomens), non-Sunni-Muslims (Shiite), and non-Muslims (Christians, Mandaens, Yezidis)? Or are these not equivalent to the cleansing of Bosnians and Kosovars?

Will you show concern about the brutal silencing of the "Iraqi street"? Or are you only worried about the orchestrated noises of "Arab and Islamist streets" outside Iraq?

Will you hear the cries of Iraqis executed in acid tanks in Baghdad? the Iraqi women raped in front of their husbands and fathers to extract confessions? Or of children tortured in front of their parents? Or of families billed for the bullets used to execute military "deserters" in front of their own homes?

No. I suspect that most of you will simply retire to your cappucino cafes to brainstorm the next hot topic to protest, and that you will simply forget about us Iraqis, once you succeed in discrediting President Bush.

Please, prove me wrong."

Hey Mylez, back to your triple Latte.

[Mylezylez]

Well,

I was more wondering what people thought of what Saddam said. I don't think you can infer much else from my post.

But really, in a civilized world, how can you justify NOT trying diplomacy in a situation like this. And don't claim that it's already been tried. Since this whole issue is boiling down to Bush vs. Saddam, how can anyone claim that getting those two to discuss the issues mutually is a bad idea?
________
Depakote Attorney (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/depakote/)

[midgetbones]

who Saddam Heussein is? Are you serious? Some people amaze me. Diplomacy with that man will have to come from the barrel of a gun.
________
Druze Advice (http://www.religionboard.org/druze/)

[Mylezylez]

Well then it's decided. We shall NEVER try to reason with such an evil man. He deserves to die, and any right-thinking American must decide that he is a liar, and not worth listening to at all. After all, when someone is labeled an enemy for 12 years, it's just plain anti-American to hear his side of the issues.

Is this accurate?
________
WASHINGTON MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY (http://washington.dispensaries.org/)

[Skeptic]

Reason as far as Saddam goes went out the window long ago, Miles. It is not that he's been labeled an enemy for 12 years, he invaded another, fairly defenseless, country and plundered it. Your beloved United Nations imposed the sanctions that exist to this day AND ordered him to disarm, declare his weapons and destroy them - and to have inspectors verify that destruction.

It is obvious to anyone but a 2 year old or a Frenchman that Saddam is just toying with the UN and anyone who will listen to his rhetoric. He won't allow inspectors, he will allow them. He won't declare any more weapons, he will declare them (but doesn't). He won't destroy the missles, he will destroy the missles.

It is a fact that this maniac had in his possession huge quantities of chemical and biological weapons (and components) and it is a fact that he has NOT accounted for their whereabouts today. If that is not enough to scare the beejesus out of you, then nothing will. He had the stuff, Miles, we know it, the UN knows it, everyone knows it. We don't know where the stuff is today, we don't know, the UN doesn't know, no one knows except Saddam.

What I can't understand is how people, after 12 years of this game, are not frightened to death that this maniac has tons of the stuff that will do to humans the same thing Raid does to insects. And that is just a pain fact, Miles. He has NOT accounted for the stuff. Not one ounce. Nuttin', nada, zippo, zilch.

I am happy that my president is not swayed by the fact that the French do not care if this stuff exists. I want my president to make sure that stuff never ever can reach an American citizen. The only way do ensure that is to go in there and destroy it and remove the one who has been producing and hiding it.

Your protest rally may have been a "peaceful experience", but enabling and emboldening Saddam will some day result in a much less peaceful experience for humanity.
________
Toyota Motor North America specifications (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Motor_North_America)

[Mylezylez]

I still think the jury's out about the "weapons of mass destruction" that Saddam has. It takes quite a lot of faith to believe the government's assertion that they exist without actually seeing any solid evidence.

Actually, this came to light recently. This article is about the Iraqi defector who was the star witness in the US's case against Iraq. It's pretty illuminating.

www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html

And lets not forget that the United States sold those chemical and bioweapons to Saddam (to help fight Iran), and then covered for him when he used them against the Kurds. This are quite well documented.

Plus, it's interesting that suddenly Saddam is a threat again. After all, the US military pretty much crushed Iraq.

But now, after 12 years of the UN AND the US holding sanctions, occasionally bombing, and generally breathing down Saddam's neck, he's suddenly the greatest threat the world has ever faced.

And lets not forget, that if the US invades Iraq without UN approval, it will be guilty of the same crime that Iraq was found guilty of 12 years ago, if we're speaking solely of legality.

I just fail to see how the world (let alone Iraq) will be a better place, if the US goes in and basically destroys a third-world country.

-"Myopic" Miles
________
Easyvape.net (http://vaporizerinfo.com/)

[Skeptic]

I did not mention "the government's assertion" Miles. It is your bleoved United Nations, through Hans Blix, who says Iraq has not accounted for massive quantities of nerve gas and biological weapons. Or do you not hear those portions of the news? It is known that Iraq had the stuff. It is NOT known where it is today. That's Blix speaking, not Bush.
________
buy easy vape vaporizer (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/easy-vape)

[midgetbones]

insane dictator at a time. We are not going there to take over the country or destroy it Miles, we are going over there to get rid of a terrorist and help them establish a fair and just government. And just because he is not the most awful threat to us right now does not mean we should just sit on our hands. If we waited for every freak to do something to us or this world before we tried to fix it ,we would be a very war torn country. You don't wait till you get hit to find a solution. You find a solution and make it happen before you get hit. Yes we sold Iraq many arms maybe even gave a few to help fight Iran. It is no secret that the countries we help today could be fighting us with our own funds in the future. That is the unfortunate risk in reality that we are willing to take to help this world. It is one that no other country has really made a big step in doing. Yeah I guess I am just another arrogant American.I call it pride. Better than leaning the other way.
________
Mercury Montclair (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mercury_Montclair)

[Mylezylez]

I think the Pentagon would disagree with you. Their plan is still to launch over 600 cruise missiles into Baghdad in 48 hours. Now, anyone who looks at a map (or aerial photos) of Baghdad will realize that it is a VERY large and densely populated city.

And yet, our magical freedom bombs will kill ONLY "terrorists", and everyone else will be happy and in love with their new freedom.

The US military has stated that it will tke over 100k troops to occupy Iraq until stability is returned to the region. WHAT? The various tribes in the middle east have been in a constant state of conflict for over 70 years. So I certainly look forward to a long and protracted American military presence all over the middle east. YAY!
________
Vaporizer Information (http://johan-luis.tumblr.com/)

[Skeptic]

Who are you replying to, Miles? The Pentagon would disagree with whom? Who said bombs would only kill terrorists? Did I lose part of this thread?

Ok, we can agree on something - if there is a war with Iraq people, many of them civilians, will die. They will be added to the list of thousands of others who have died because of the actions of Saddam.

Now, let's get back to one of the reasons war may become necessary: do you agree, Miles, that Blix, the head UN inspector, has stated that Iraq has failed to account for huge quantities of nerve gas and biological agents? You consistently ignore the questions posed to you by posting horror story after horror story. Let's try to answer one, just one, question. I'll type it again, slowly:

Do you agree that Hans Blix, head UN inspector, has stated that Iraq has failed to account for huge quantities of nerve gas and biological agents?
________
roor bong (http://roorbongs.org)

[Mylezylez]

Well, whenever I think about Hans Blix, this article comes to mind.

www.smh.com.au/articles/2...20548.html

Where did Saddam get the bio agents?

Who covered for Saddam when he used the chemical agents on the Kurds?

And again, I must point to THIS article, which pretty much invalidates the US's principal source of information about Iraq's "WMD"s.

www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html

But even if Saddam has all these weapons, the United States has hundreds, if not thousands of times as many. And to date, the US is the only country to use a nuclear weapon.

Don't be angry, this is just my argument.

-Miles
________
PROBLEMS WITH NEXIUM (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/nexium/)

[Skeptic]

Miles, just answer the question. Do you agree Blix has made the statement or not?? It only requires a YES or NO. No articles, no explanations. Just Yes or No.
________
hot box vaporizers (http://hotboxvaporizers.com)

[Mylezylez]

Well, since I'm apparently being grilled on this issue, I believe Mr. Blix has stated that there are unaccounted for weapons in Iraq. That is all he said. If you read that article (you didn't), you would see that he is diametrically opposed to a war in Iraq (even moreso without the UN).

So in the two-valued logic system, yes he did say there were weapons unaccounted for. But from that single yes answer to the conclusion of war is someone else's agenda.

Just my view,
Miles
________
No2 vaporizer reviews (http://no2vaporizer.net)

[midgetbones]

Blix is a moron. . .With the rest of the UN.
________
VAPOR GENIE REVIEW (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/vapor-genie)

[Skeptic]

Your reply was close to answering the question, Miles. I guess I'll have to assume that you understand that nerve gas and biological agents were what Blix mentioned.

I did read the article, Miles, and I took it for what it is worth. Here are the parts of it that are pertinent:

"Dr Blix took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery."

Ok, he's entitled to his opinion, we are entitled to present our evidence. But that doesn't say anything about Iraq not accounting for nerve gas and biological agents.

"Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to other countries to prevent them from being interviewed."

Ok, he's not convinced. Nothing about the nerve gas or biological agents in this paragraph either.

"Nor had he any reason to believe, as President George Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists, or that his inspection agency had been penetrated by Iraqi agents and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad."

Ok, again, Blix disagrees with our evidence. I thought the intercepted conversation played at the UN put that one to rest, but Blix can differ. Again, though, no mention of nerve gas or biological agents.

"Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Dr Blix said. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."

Ok, again Blix doesn't see persuasive evidence of an al-Qaeda link. But, what's that he says in the last sentence? Hmm. In quotes, too. Blix' own words. Hmm. He's saying it doesn't matter if Iraq has links to al-Qaeda because "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."

I'm not as skilled as you a posting here, but i'll try to place a link to the 2/28/03 USA Today online www.usatoday.com/news/wor...rpts_x.htm which contains the following quotes from Blix:

"During the period of time covered by the present report, Iraq could have made greater efforts to find any remaining proscribed items or provide credible evidence showing the absence of such items. The results in terms of disarmament have been very limited so far.

It is hard to understand why a number of the measures, which are now being taken, could not have been initiated earlier. If they had been taken earlier, they might have borne fruit by now."

But it really isn't hard to understand why, is it Miles? Saddam is stalling for time and enjoying his time in the spotlight.
________
starcraft replays (http://screplays.com/replays)