NationStates Jolt Archive

Human life is not as precious as human freedom. We all know this. However, in our efforts to free ourselves from our fellows we have no right to make species become extinct. Conventional war does not typically make wildlife extinct. Nuclear war definitely does.

Of course, all of this is spectacularly irrelevant as there would have been no risk of nuclear war had we toppled Saddam in 1973 instead of 2003, since he was our ally. The USSR would not have intervened as we liberated the people of one of our allies.

At any rate, all you've done is demonstrate that the world isn't as black and white as your original claim, pre-goalpost moving. One might even say that your statement that there are no shades of grey had some shades of grey.

It depends. Every time we used our military for a regime change it worked well. I do not know the success rates for clandestine CIA stuff because it is secret.

We did a good job with our military in Iraq (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/), Afghanistan (http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/4887), Japan (http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm), Vichy France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France), Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany_since_1945), Grenada (http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/GD/crime.html), Panama (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pm.html), and others I am sure.

fixed

Yep. I think a lot of moderate Democrats would be attracted to a fiscally conservative and socially liberal party unshackled from the religious wackos.
That's the kind of Republican party I'm hoping for also.
It killed people for no reason. That's seen as wrong by most unbiased sources.
No reason, hah. Of course there are reasons, you just don't agree with them. Revenge, spreading democracy, creating another ally, Israeli defense, oil, destroying totalitarianism in Iraq . . . all these are hypothetical reasons. Some of them are actual reasons for the war in Iraq, while others are not. Still, to say "no reason" is, well, childish and ridiculous.
Fair enough, but I do hope it frees me not to consider anything he says and to hope that one day I might have his face under my boot.

(Note to self: Buy pair of boots. Or one boot.)
I've said it before, you are alot more similar to those Latin-American dictatorships you 'claim' to oppose. Last time I said it you freaked out, but perhaps you need to look in a mirror more often and see what you truley are.

Stomping on the faces of those with different political opinions than yourself and denying their status as a human being is common amongst the totalitarian regimes you 'supposedly' hate and (leftist and rightist) low class thugs. You and Pinochet would probably have been buddy-buddy back in the days, except he atleast had a more advanced and correct understanding of economics and had more friends.
No, I won't listen to anything he has to say. He does not deserve status as a human being.
You don't care about Iraqis. You care about using their issue as a soapbox for you to stand on to preach your bullshit. It's the same thing many Arab nations do when hijacking the Palestinian cause. As for your denying someone's status of humanity, let me tell you something that will make you very unhappy. The culture of totalitarianism and dictatorship, of human rights abuses and murder has not died in Latin-America as long as you live and continue to perpetuate that kind of thinking. How uncivilized of you. :wink:

Look, I am not deliberately obtuse. I beleive that there is such a thing as human rights and that it is wicked to violate human rights. It is a strict moral stand that I have.

So, then, I assume you agree that G W Bush should be tried as a war criminal, along with members of the highest echelons of our military?

But what about the endangered species that would be killed in a nuclear war? The only thing worse than totalitarianism from my perspective is causing a species to become extinct. Human rights is a great thing but we cannot allow our own species' problem to intrude upon the right of another species to survive.

What about genocide? That's allowing biodiversity to be destroyed, isn't it?

Is genocide worse than totalitarianism?

I have to point out - we're causing extinctions with astounding regularity WITHOUT nuclear war. Is that more 'important' than overthrowing tyrants?

So, then, I assume you agree that G W Bush should be tried as a war criminal, along with members of the highest echelons of our military?

Of course not, Dear Leader actually preserved human rights by outsourcing it to other nations!

Regardless of whether Saddam was always black or went from white to black or from gray to black, once nukes are off the table Saddam was as black as the field of a quarantine flag.

Why?

Saddam (allegedly) had chemical and or biological weapons, which are potentially far MORE potent agencies of extinction than limited nuclear aggression.

By your logic - he was more dangerous when we attacked, than the danger we avoided by NOT attacking him during the Cold War.

I answered your question. There is no good or evil when nuclear war is an option. The avoidance of a nuclear war that would destroy the world trumps any discussion of good and evil


Then you were in error when you said you'd rather have a free world filled with graves?


...and therefoe twists moral questions.


Then the moral absolutes you cited are less 'absolute' than you suggested.


Once the nuclear war factor is removed, morality can often have black and white answers.


Why? Nuclear war isn't the only Mass Destruction war on our collective table. Nor even the most potentially harmful to the ecosphere.


However, if I am put on the spot and have to answer the question, "Should the USA have liberated the Iraqis earlier, even during the cold war? We should have.

So - does that mean it was always black and white, even during the Cold War.... or does that mean it's no grayer now than it was then?

Because your mind reading skills are weak.

*freezes Gall solid*

"pfff mind reading"

Wow. This really challenges my belief that torture is always bad. As much as I hate to admit it, even torture (and I am really against torture!!!) is justified if it interferes with biodiversity. I feel rather tortured myself by admitting this. But what is the suffering of a man compared to the extinction of a species?

So, why are we attacking Saddam, then?

Sure - he was responsible for deaths and stuff, but he fucking loved pandas.

There are shades of gray in moral dilemnas however most of the time things are pretty black and white because most decisions that we face do not involve nukes and extinction.

While you are reading this, somewhere, our species, is causing extinction of another.

By the time you reply, it will be yet one more.

Your 'black and white except extinction' scenario is a joke.

Human life is not as precious as human freedom. We all know this.

No we don't. It's a bullshit statement.

Of course not, Dear Leader actually preserved human rights by outsourcing it to other nations!

Kinda like carbon credits, maybe?

That'd explain why we really invaded Iraq - we needed Saddam's torture-quota.

Kinda like carbon credits, maybe?

That'd explain why we really invaded Iraq - we needed Saddam's torture-quota.

lol they misunderestimated the value of the afgani ones

Snip.

Ignoring how disturbing it is that you feel the need to antagonize me in just about every thread you see me post, Limbaugh wanted to cause literal riots. Y'know, those parties in which people beat up one another, sometimes to the death. As for "democracy", what do you care? You like Pinochet. You should be complimenting me for sharing your worldview.

1- There CAN still be an opposition. But Republicans don't need to be able, in practice, to grasp the reins of power.

Do you know how stupid you sound with comments like these? Guess what? The Republicans will come back in 2010 if the Democrats are not careful and I would enjoy watching you rant and rave about it. You really do not like governments and you would not care if the US folded up shop though I bet your pocket book would.

2- Well, at least Iraq wouldn't be re-re-invaded.

:rolleyes:

No we don't. It's a bullshit statement.

I would kill to defend my freedom! Seems like many people felt the sameway throughout history.

BTW: Rush challenged Obama to a three hour debate on his show! Obama should take him up on it! Even I would listen to Rush to hear this debate.

Do you know how stupid you sound with comments like these? Guess what? The Republicans will come back in 2010 if the Democrats are not careful and I would enjoy watching you rant and rave about it. You really do not like governments and you would not care if the US folded up shop though I bet your pocket book would.



:rolleyes:
If the republicans come back in 2010 with Limbaugh as their talking head I personally will up and leave the first world . . .I know this nice little plot In Africa I can buy for about ten bucks . . .

I would kill to defend my freedom! Seems like many people felt the sameway throughout history.

How about die?

If the republicans come back in 2010 with Limbaugh as their talking head I personally will up and leave the first world . . .I know this nice little plot In Africa I can buy for about ten bucks . . .

You want help packing?

Do you know how stupid you sound with comments like these? Guess what? The Republicans will come back in 2010 if the Democrats are not careful and I would enjoy watching you rant and rave about it. You really do not like governments and you would not care if the US folded up shop though I bet your pocket book would.



:rolleyes:

This is NOT ABOUT the US. The party most likely to make the US fold up shop is called the GOP anyways. And yes, I would care. I'm an ENGLISH-PORTUGUESE TRANSLATOR. If the US has no business, neither have I. This is another reason why I don't want to see GOP get their paws on power in America ever again. Wasn't one war and the near destruction of your economy enough?

"You really do not like governments" - Do you have any way at all to prove that particular bit of bullshit?

How about die?

And I would die to defend my freedom from tyranny!

You want help packing?

Thanks for the offer but I think I'm good . . .anyway the odds seem pretty long. He's got about 11% approval.

BTW: Rush challenged Obama to a three hour debate on his show! Obama should take him up on it! Even I would listen to Rush to hear this debate.

A debate on Limbaugh's turf, on Limbaugh's terms, with a hostile audience. Yeah, THAT looks honest.

Good old GOP way to solve things. Challenge the opponent's citizenship, cheat, wheedle, interfere, get slanted debates...

Pathetic.

And I would die to defend my freedom from tyranny!

you wouldn't happen to live in the states would you?

A debate on Limbaugh's turf, on Limbaugh's terms, with a hostile audience. Yeah, THAT looks honest.

Good old GOP way to solve things. Challenge the opponent's citizenship, cheat, wheedle, interfere, get slanted debates...

Pathetic.

It is on the radio. not like the audience is there to throw things at you.

This is NOT ABOUT the US.

Actually it is since the Republican Party is a party in the US. As such...

The party most likely to make the US fold up shop is called the GOP anyways.

Do yourself a favor and just be quiet. The more you talk, your credibility goes down for it shows that you do not care for honest debate!

And yes, I would care. I'm an ENGLISH-PORTUGUESE TRANSLATOR

How nice for you. Did you have to shout? I guess you did because your ears have cotton in them which prevents you from listening.

If the US has no business, neither have I.

Then hope and pray that OBama cuts out the Business Tax Hike!

This is another reason why I don't want to see GOP get their paws on power in America ever again. Wasn't one war and the near destruction of your economy enough?

Shall I tell you now that LBJs war in Vietnam killed a shit load more people? Oh wait...he's a democrat so I guess you would turn a blind eye to that.

"You really do not like governments" - Do you have any way at all to prove that particular bit of bullshit?

Do you have proof that I am actually here?

(also he was pretty much docile . . .had been since bush senior kicked him out of kuwait).

Tell that to the Kurds.
The Kurds will explain to you that after Bush Senior's war, they set up a quasi-independent state in the north, protected by the NATO "no-fly-zone" patrols.

A debate on Limbaugh's turf, on Limbaugh's terms, with a hostile audience. Yeah, THAT looks honest.

Good old GOP way to solve things. Challenge the opponent's citizenship, cheat, wheedle, interfere, get slanted debates...

Pathetic.

More proof that you are an idiot. He wants an honest three hour debate about his policies. If you call that pathetic then you are a sad little man who really knows nothing at all.

you wouldn't happen to live in the states would you?

YOu don't read location tags do you?

OH and Obama brought this on himself by engaging Limbaugh! So Obama actually started this now let us see if he has the balls to actually follow this through considering Bush offered to pay for everything including sending his plane for him so that Obama does not have to waste taxpayer dollars.

Shall I tell you now that LBJs war in Vietnam killed a shit load more people? Oh wait...he's a democrat so I guess you would turn a blind eye to that.

About the rest of your post, I disagree with the notion that more deregulation and less taxes will get the US out of the situation at which more deregulation and less taxes made the US arrive.

About LBJ, screw Vietnam, he presided over the coup here. If I could take a shit on his grave, I would.

YOu don't read location tags do you?

NEVER! . . . .sorry

more importantly if your all about freedom (willing to die for it etc.) Why aren't you out there protesting Guantanamo, illegal wiretapping and deportation of american citizens to countries supporting terrorism .. . I mean those are all curtailments of freedom right?

I would kill to defend my freedom!


Ah, so you prefer someone ELSE's death, to YOUR loss of freedom.

Yeah...


Seems like many people felt the sameway throughout history.

Lots of people have thought rape was alright, too.

More proof that you are an idiot. He wants an honest three hour debate about his policies. If you call that pathetic then you are a sad little man who really knows nothing at all.

Prove that to me. Limbaugh wants the debate on HIS SHOW.

BTW: Rush challenged Obama to a three hour debate on his show! Obama should take him up on it! Even I would listen to Rush to hear this debate.

Why would you want the president to take that much time out of his obviously busy schedule, to talk to some militant prick who wants America to burn?

Isn't that a little... anti-American... of you?

um . . . . actually ya kinda organized the coup that put him in power . . .
Utterly untrue. The Baath Party was virulently anti-West, although they hated the British more than the US. Their initial (short-lived) coup was against the royal family chosen by the British; their second (successful) coup against a regime aligned by treaty with the US against the Soviet bloc. At first we regarded them as "Soviet puppets" but it turned out Saddam was too self-centered to be ideologically loyal to the USSR or anyone else.

Prove that to me. Limbaugh wants the debate on HIS SHOW.

they could easily simulcast it on another station and agree on debate format and talking points before hand. In fact i would consider it standard procedure in a case like this. I don't think he would do his normal call session because any good public speaker can talk average joe schmoe calling in, into a corner.

And I would die to defend my freedom from tyranny!

You're a liar.

The Bush regime directly contravened at least four specific amendments of the Constitution, including habeus corpus. Not only did I not see you even fighting them, I don't see you 'dying' to defend your 'freedom from tyranny', either.

they could easily simulcast it on another station and agree on debate format and talking points before hand. In fact i would consider it standard procedure in a case like this. I don't think he would do his normal call session because any good public speaker can talk average joe schmoe calling in, into a corner.

Limbaugh still wants, initially, the debate on HIS turf.

More proof that you are an idiot.
He wants an honest three hour debate about his policies. If you call that pathetic then you are a sad little man who really knows nothing at all.

This is practically all flame, and devoid of content.

You might want to watch that - considering this thread has been Marked by the Hand of Mod once already.

OH and Obama brought this on himself by engaging Limbaugh!

When?

Was that before or after Limbaugh hoped Obama would fail? Before or after Limbaugh tried to cause RIOTING in the DNC?

Utterly untrue. The Baath Party was virulently anti-West, although they hated the British more than the US. Their initial (short-lived) coup was against the royal family chosen by the British; their second (successful) coup against a regime aligned by treaty with the US against the Soviet bloc. At first we regarded them as "Soviet puppets" but it turned out Saddam was too self-centered to be ideologically loyal to the USSR or anyone else.
Um but the CIA was funding the Ba-ath party from the start as far as I can remeber . . .lemme go find a source for that

Limbaugh still wants, initially, the debate on HIS turf.

If the format is agreed to that's irrelevant, if the audience has no participation.

The Debates when broadcast on fox news was no more on McCain's turf then when it was broadcast on CNN being Obama's turf. The time and place is only the medium the debate is taking place in.

This is practically all flame, and devoid of content.

You might want to watch that - considering this thread has been Marked by the Hand of Mod once already.

I am considering whether or not to call the mods on it as we speak.

If the format is agreed to that's irrelevant, if the audience has no participation.

The Debates when broadcast on fox news was no more on McCain's turf then when it was broadcast on CNN being Obama's turf. The time and place is only the medium the debate is taking place in.

Then someone else would moderate the debate?

Then someone else would moderate the debate?

of course. its not a debate if one of the parties in the debate is moderating.

3- Wiki "Operation Chaos".

I assume you mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Operation_Chaos which meantions nothing you're insinuating.

I assume you mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Operation_Chaos which meantions nothing you're insinuating.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5177

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjwE-kJpyts

I am considering whether or not to call the mods on it as we speak.

I'm hoping that politely pointing out the error of his ways will nip that little escalation in the bud, and let the debate continue without the hot-heads.

You do. You know how to push my buttons. As a patritoic American who values human rights

Except when they're the human rights of waterboarded prisoners that we're holding illegally . . .

Um but the CIA was funding the Ba-ath party from the start as far as I can remeber . . .lemme go find a source for that
This is not just false, this is anti-truth. You have the sides exactly reversed, as if you were claiming that Pinochet was funded by the KGB.

It's not arresting them, it's reducing them to due insignificance.

He was talking about the Civil War.

The worst thing about it is - Saddam was a monster we created. Look at his early political career, and plot his politics against the treatment he received from outside (especially the US).

And that's the problem with US foreign policy, in a nutshell. It's a clusterfuck of heavy handed mismanagement, and a catalogue of unforeseen consequence. The liberation of Iraq has been just one later chapter of this story, in a long and colourful book.

Unforeseen? Husein was not the first time that exact same thing happened. How many times can we repeat similar actions and still call the consequences unforeseen?

Ignoring
I wouldn't expect anything else from you.
Limbaugh wanted to cause literal riots. Y'know, those parties in which people beat up one another, sometimes to the death.
Now you are not only anti-democratic but a liar. You have already stated that you don't give a shit about internal America and don't care if Americans are killed and a civil war wages, yet you care soooo much when Rush calls for a riot. :rolleyes:

I'd say it would more likely be a short and bloody war, followed by a further loss of personal liberties and a perpetual low grade insurgency. But hey, as long as our guys won...

3- Your internal struggles are none of my concern.


Either you have multiple personalities (read mentral problems) or you use that Rush comment simply as a soapbox to spew your bile.
As for "democracy", what do you care? You like Pinochet. You should be complimenting me for sharing your worldview.
Finally! You admit that you share my [alleged] worldview!:wink:

He was talking about the Civil War.

If Republicans started a civil war over a democratic process, they'd really be:

1- The ones at fault.

2- Hypocrites.

The worst thing about it is - Saddam was a monster we created.
No, he's a monster that the Soviet Union created.
Look at his early political career
His early career was entirely devoted to destroying the British presence in the Middle East. Britain was our ally.

If Republicans started a civil war over a democratic process, they'd really be:



hey the democrats got to start the last one it is only fair the republicans get to start one.

Unforeseen? Husein was not the first time that exact same thing happened. How many times can we repeat similar actions and still call the consequences unforeseen?


Squeezing a smurf.

*Pop!*

"It's head popped off! Fuck, that was unexpected."



Squeezing a second smurf.

*Pop!*

"That one's head popped off, too! Fuck, that was unexpected."



Reaching for a third smurf...

Finally! You admit that you share my [alleged] worldview!:wink:

That's what this is about? A Not so different (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotSoDifferent) speech by you? Get lost.

There ARE quite a few differences between us, mainly in purpose.

Besides, yes, Limbaugh called for riots. Or you'll deny the reality even of the YouTube link?

No, he's a monster that the Soviet Union created.


No, he isn't (wasn't).


His early career was entirely devoted to destroying the British presence in the Middle East.


No, it wasn't.


Britain was our ally.

And... irrelevent. Awesome.

That's what this is about?
The only thing this is about is this:

Limbaugh wanted to cause literal riots. Y'know, those parties in which people beat up one another, sometimes to the death.
Now you are not only anti-democratic but a liar. You have already stated that you don't give a shit about internal America and don't care if Americans are killed and a civil war wages, yet you care soooo much when Rush calls for a riot. :rolleyes:

I'd say it would more likely be a short and bloody war, followed by a further loss of personal liberties and a perpetual low grade insurgency. But hey, as long as our guys won...

3- Your internal struggles are none of my concern.


Either you have multiple personalities (read mentral problems) or you use that Rush comment simply as a soapbox to spew your bile. Take your pick, but atleast be honest.

The only thing this is about is this:


Now you are not only anti-democratic but a liar. You have already stated that you don't give a shit about internal America and don't care if Americans are killed and a civil war wages, yet you care soooo much when Rush calls for a riot. :rolleyes:

Either you have multiple personalities (read mentral problems) or you use that Rush comment simply as a soapbox to spew your bile.

Because I'm making a point about the kind of person Limbaugh is. Now that I explained it to you in terms I really hope you can somehow find it in your precious little mind to understand, will you stick to a point you can actually defend?

Because I'm making a point about the kind of person Limbaugh is. Now that I explained it to you in terms I really hope you can somehow find it in your precious little mind to understand, will you stick to a point you can actually defend?

The kind of person who doesn't care if a riot or civil war breaks out when it meets his political ends? A person like yourself that you so graciously helped to define with this post earlier in this thread:

I'd say it would more likely be a short and bloody war, followed by a further loss of personal liberties and a perpetual low grade insurgency. But hey, as long as our guys won...

3- Your internal struggles are none of my concern.

What point am I failing to defend?

The kind of person who doesn't care if a riot or civil war breaks out when it meets his political ends? A person like yourself that you so graciously helped to define with this post earlier in this thread:





What point am I failing to defend?

Limbaugh tried and hoped to CAUSE one. I didn't try, nor did I hope.

Limbaugh tried and hoped to CAUSE one. I didn't try, nor did I hope.
And here is where you try to worm yourself out of it.

The Romulan Republic stated that certain actions that you supported against group A could result in a civil war.

You stated you doubted it given the Presiden't control of the military.

The Romulan Republic then said that it would probably be, in fact, a short yet very bloody uprising.

You stated that you didn't care at all if they died. Or in your words, "your internal politics are none of my concern."

Do you deny that?

P.S. You are losing it by the post. The easiest way out is honesty.

No, he isn't (wasn't).
Yes he was.
No, it wasn't.
Yes it was.
And... irrelevent. Awesome.
Our alliance with the British was irrelevant to our Iraq policy??? Is this seriously what you are claiming???
I don't know what bizarre version of Iraqi history you have been fed, but here are the basic facts: Britain CREATED Iraq. The Iraqi monarchy was a PUPPET REGIME of the British (one of the kings, Ghazi, was anti-British, because he'd been sent to a British school and treated badly-- so the Brits destroyed him). Saddam Hussein's father was killed in a 1941 coup attempting to oust the British (funded by Germany, of course). The Baath movement which he joined when he grew older was the most extreme of the factions fighting against continued British rule: Communist in philosophy, and aligned with the Eastern bloc. The Baath were on the fringe when anti-British rebels succeeded in ousting and killing off the royal family, but took control as events spiralled in the direction of greater extremism.

Hussein was particularly hostile not only to Britain, but to Israel, hanging a large number of Iraqi Jews as "Zionist spies" as part of his campaign to parlay his "security minister" post into the #1 position in the Baathist regime. The US regarded him as an enemy until 1980, when he invaded Iran at a time when Iran was still holding our embassy staff hostage: the enemy of an enemy is a friend.

And here is where you try to worm yourself out of it.

The Romulan Republic stated that certain actions that you supported against group A could result in a civil war.

You stated you doubted it given the Presiden't control of the military.

The Romulan Republic then said that it would probably be, in fact, a short yet very bloody uprising.

You stated that you didn't care at all if they died. Or in your words, "your internal politics are none of my concern."

Do you deny that?

P.S. You are losing it by the post. The easiest way out is honesty.

So, let me get this straight.

I point out a hope that a political party I hate gets democratically cast aside. I point out that I don't care about the end result, especially because said end result would be solely the blame of said political party.

And you, the guy that actually lauds the violent overthrow of DEMOCRATIC governments, screw the consequences for the people of the nations, come here and try to chastise me?

TAI, I hate you. I really do. But it doesn't seem to come close to the love/hate/whatever you feel for me to feel the need to come here and bother me. Did you know one of the same posters you quote used YOU as a negative example?

This is not just false, this is anti-truth. You have the sides exactly reversed, as if you were claiming that Pinochet was funded by the KGB.

really? huh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Party
http://www.google.ca/search?q=CIA+sadam+Hussein&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iraq
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Baath+party+funding+CIA&btnG=Search&meta=

Yes he was.


I'd hoped you had more than that.

Actually, to be honest.... that's not strictly true. I'd hoped you'd OFFER something more. We both know that there wasn't anything.

Yes it was.


And that.

Although, again, the best you could have managed, maybe... would have been to quibble about what 'early career' means, I suppose.

Our alliance with the British was irrelevant to our Iraq policy

Or, alternatively, something I actually said.

I think you might have gotten your facts wrong Tmutarakhan . . .how exactly are you gonna answer this one I wonder . . .

I think you might have gotten your facts wrong Tmutarakhan . . .how exactly are you gonna answer this one I wonder . . .

To be fair, a vague accusation deserves a vague rebuttle.

really? huh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Party
http://www.google.ca/search?q=CIA+sadam+Hussein&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iraq
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Baath+party+funding+CIA&btnG=Search&meta=
There is really only one source here for the claims in your links:
An April 10, 2003, UPI story by Richard Sale, citing anonymous U.S. intelligence sources, claimed that Saddam Hussein, while working as an agent of the CIA, took part in the failed assassination attempt of October 7, 1959. The article cites only anonymous sources, yet its claims have been repeated in dozens of news articles.

But Contemporary documents (http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/iraq/Palestinian%20Communists%20Suspected%20in%20Qasim%20Attempt%2014%20Oct%201959.htm) from the intelligence agencies which have since been declassified give instead the more usual picture, of nobody knowing exactly what is going on but it is all "commies" fighting with other "commies".
Although, again, the best you could have managed, maybe... would have been to quibble about what 'early career' means, I suppose.
From childhood until 1980. What did YOU mean by "early"?

To be fair, a vague accusation deserves a vague rebuttle.

lol true my accusation came earlier though . . .that was more of a relatively pointless add-on

There is really only one source here for the claims in your links:
An April 10, 2003, UPI story by Richard Sale, citing anonymous U.S. intelligence sources, claimed that Saddam Hussein, while working as an agent of the CIA, took part in the failed assassination attempt of October 7, 1959. The article cites only anonymous sources, yet its claims have been repeated in dozens of news articles.

But Contemporary documents (http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/iraq/Palestinian%20Communists%20Suspected%20in%20Qasim%20Attempt%2014%20Oct%201959.htm) from the intelligence agencies which have since been declassified give instead the more usual picture, of nobody knowing exactly what is going on but it is all "commies" fighting with other "commies".


Ok for starters I have more than one source there . . .in fact I have multiple sources I suggest you look back through there. Though many of them may have a similar base there has been more than one report out of the CIA that they we're involved in putting the Ba'ath party in place. Next, your "source" is . . .sketchy at best. The issues are as follows, 1 there's no way of finding out whether the document is legit or not prove to me that it is. 2) its from the BRITISH intelligence service. The assassination attempt would have been run by Americans . . . why in the hells would the british know anything about it (don't pull the whole "they were our allies" bit again. Truly clandestine Ops aren't usually co-ordinated between nations.). 3) Le Quesne (the name mentioned) was not an active british MI6 operative at the time so who, exactly is meant to have written the secret classified document. Last, (but not least) a successful Coup would be classified WAY above secret.

if you want a real Source check out
http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs.asp
Funnily enough IRAQ is mentioned in a 1987 report in a section titled "Diminishing state support" the rest of the section is blacked out.

And I would die to defend my freedom from tyranny!

So would most people. Espescailly people with children or who want to have children. If you do not believe that freedom is more important than life the education system has failed.

So would most people. Espescailly people with children or who want to have children. If you do not believe that freedom is more important than life the education system has failed.

No matter how much conservatives wish it were the case, the role of education is not brainwashing.

No matter how much conservatives wish it were the case, the role of education is not brainwashing.

We leave that to the church....

in death there is no freedom . . .in fact death is the end of ALL freedoms. One cannot do anything (on account of being dead) so your statement is self-contradictory. . . dying for freedom is like Gorging yourself to get thin or going underwater (without breathing apparatus) to breath more easily.

NEVER! . . . .sorry

more importantly if your all about freedom (willing to die for it etc.) Why aren't you out there protesting Guantanamo, illegal wiretapping and deportation of american citizens to countries supporting terrorism .. . I mean those are all curtailments of freedom right?

1) I honestly do not care about criminals who are not Americans

2) I was against illegal wiretapping and deporting americans to terroristic countries!

Prove that to me. Limbaugh wants the debate on HIS SHOW.

He's willing to fly Obama down. Put him up in a 5 star restaraunt and pay for whatever Obama wants so that he does not have to waste tax payer money. Now you prove that he does not want an honest debate with Obama!

He's willing to fly Obama down. Put him up in a 5 star restaraunt and pay for whatever Obama wants so that he does not have to waste tax payer money. Now you prove that he does not want an honest debate with Obama!

Real easy. Listen to Limbaugh. He doesnt have honest debates. He screams loudly.

He's willing to fly Obama down. Put him up in a 5 star restaraunt and pay for whatever Obama wants so that he does not have to waste tax payer money. Now you prove that he does not want an honest debate with Obama!

yeah, an honest debate, with a man that's been known to cut the mic off on people who disagree with him.

Yeah, right.

yeah, an honest debate, with a man that's been known to cut the mic off on people who disagree with him.

Yeah, right.

Nu-uh!

He's willing to fly Obama down. Put him up in a 5 star restaraunt and pay for whatever Obama wants so that he does not have to waste tax payer money. Now you prove that he does not want an honest debate with Obama!

Real easy. Listen to Limbaugh. He doesnt have honest debates. He screams loudly.

Could you imagine Rush in a proper debate against Obama in a setting like during the Presidential debates?

Sarah Palin would stand a better chance. :p

yeah, an honest debate, with a man that's been known to cut the mic off on people who disagree with him.

Yeah, right.

If you have someone else moderate it and make sure he has no access to a cut off button it could be done.

My issue would be do i want my president to waste a day prepping for a debate with a washed up fat ass while he is on tax payer dollars?

Limbaugh still wants, initially, the debate on HIS turf.

And he's willing to foot the bill to do this!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030409/content/01125106.member.html

But I have an idea. If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn't President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies. Now, his people in this Politico story, it's on the record. They're claiming they wanted me all along. They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let's have the debate! I am offering President Obama to come on this program -- without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards -- to debate me on the issues. Let's talk about free markets versus government control. Let's talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business.

Let's talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics. Let's talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let's talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let's talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders. Let's talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations. Let's talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama. Let's talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia. Let's talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil. Let's talk about your stock market. By the way, Mr. President, I want to help. Yesterday you said you looked at the stock market as no different than a tracking poll that goes up and down.

Just come on this program. Let's have a little debate. You tell me how wrong I am and you can convince the rest of the Americans that don't agree with you how wrong we all are. You're a smart guy, Mr. President. You don't need these hacks to front for you. You've debated the best! You've debated Hillary Clinton. You've debated John Edwards. You've debated Joe Biden. You've debated Dennis Kucinich. You've debated the best out there. You are one of the most gifted public speakers of our age. I would think, Mr. President, you would jump at this opportunity. Don't send lightweights like Begala and Carville to do your bidding -- and forget about the ballerina, Emanuel. He's got things to do in his office. These people, compared to you, Mr. President, are rhetorical chum.

YOu can read the rest of it on the link.

And he's willing to foot the bill to do this!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030409/content/01125106.member.html





YOu can read the rest of it on the link.

And the minute Obama started to inevitably crush him, hed cut Obama's mick and claim victory. And Lumbaugh's idiot listeners would declare his victory from the rooftops.

Ignoring whats really going on.

Like they usually do.

If you have someone else moderate it and make sure he has no access to a cut off button it could be done.

My issue would be do i want my president to waste a day prepping for a debate with a washed up fat ass while he is on tax payer dollars?

An excellent question. Could be entertaining to watch. Considering the level of preparation Barack Obama would engage in and the breadth and depth of knowledge he is both already familiarized and would continue to familiarize himself with while Rush would probably trim his nosehairs so they don't wave in the breeze during the debate.

I delight in the fact that the man with the pulse of the Republican Party is a college dropout. He failed ballroom dancing. :p

And he's willing to foot the bill to do this!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030409/content/01125106.member.html

YOu can read the rest of it on the link.

Rush Limbaugh wants Obama on his turf, he admits as much, where he has been known to cut the mike on those he disagrees with so he can yell as much as he wants.

If Rush Limbaugh wanted an honest debate, he would arrange for neutral ground to have a debate, not his studio where he has control over who can speak and when.

But Rush Limbaugh is not predisposed to honesty. Rush Limbaugh is predisposed to criminality, treason and lies so long as it makes him money.

My issue would be do i want my president to waste a day prepping for a debate with a washed up fat ass while he is on tax payer dollars?

Especially when my President has rather more important tasks to accomplish than skewering an idiotic talking whale.

Like fixing the economy, solving the energy crisis, restoring science, ending one war and winning another war, and otherwise undoing the disaster that was the Bush Administration.

EDIT: If Rush wants to debate President Obama, Rush can seek and get the Republican nomination for President in 2012. Until that happens, this is just the irrelevant blathering of an attention-seeking blowhard.

You can read the rest of it on the link.The president doesn't have time to waste on Limbaugh. He'd rather do the most effective thing of all, ignore him, and get on with the business of helping the country during a time of trouble.

Especially when my President has rather more important tasks to accomplish than skewering an idiotic talking whale.


Maybe he could sell him to Japanese whalers. You know, to help earn some revenue...

:p

Real easy. Listen to Limbaugh. He doesnt have honest debates. He screams loudly.

HAHA!! Excuse me while I go off laughing my ass off. Considering that Limbaugh is constantly misquoted...

HAHA!! Excuse me while I go off laughing my ass off. Considering that Limbaugh is constantly misquoted...

really? ok, find me....three occasions where he was quotes as saying words he did not say.

And the minute Obama started to inevitably crush him, hed cut Obama's mick and claim victory. And Lumbaugh's idiot listeners would declare his victory from the rooftops.

Ignoring whats really going on.

Like they usually do.

And I was expecting a childish response like this.

The president doesn't have time to waste on Limbaugh. He'd rather do the most effective thing of all, ignore him, and get on with the business of helping the country during a time of trouble.

To bad his administration keeps m aking him the center of attention especially after the new ad they've been running misquoting him!

To bad his administration keeps m aking him the center of attention especially after the new ad they've been running misquoting him!http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry

And it'd be pretty hard to not be the center of attention if you're the president of the United States.

And I was expecting a childish response like this.

Whats childish about it? Are you denying that Rush cuts the mic of people who disagree with him?


Because youd either be lying or delusional. Or both. Like Rush.

really? ok, find me....three occasions where he was quotes as saying words he did not say.

Id like to see this too.

HAHA!! Excuse me while I go off laughing my ass off. Considering that Limbaugh is constantly misquoted...

Well it is hard to pickup the exact words he uses as he screams his lungs out (literally and lung replacement therapy aint cheap) .

really? ok, find me....three occasions where he was quotes as saying words he did not say.

How about wanting Obama to fail first of all! If his policies are like FDR (and that is what it is looking like) of course he wants it to fail. Hell I would want it to fail too!

How about wanting Obama to fail first of all! If his policies are like FDR (and that is what it is looking like) of course he wants it to fail. Hell I would want it to fail too!

So...its not a misquote, its saying exactly what Rush said?

How about wanting Obama to fail first of all! If his policies are like FDR (and that is what it is looking like) of course he wants it to fail. Hell I would want it to fail too!

so, he DID say that then? So reporting that he said it wouldn't be misquoting him?

So that in no way is an example of what you claimed then? Just making sure.

How about wanting Obama to fail first of all! If his policies are like FDR (and that is what it is looking like) of course he wants it to fail. Hell I would want it to fail too!FDR bought pigs...and dug ditches on the side of the road.

...Has Obama done that? :confused:

Whats childish about it? Are you denying that Rush cuts the mic of people who disagree with him?

Are you denying that he's opening the mic to President Obama to prove to him and to the millions of people?

How about wanting Obama to fail first of all! If his policies are like FDR (and that is what it is looking like) of course he wants it to fail. Hell I would want it to fail too!

Wait you WOULDN't want the guy who ended the great depression in charge of your economy during a depression??? Um . . . .wha????

FDR bought pigs...and dug ditches on the side of the road.

...Has Obama done that? :confused:

FDR's economic policies failed to end the depression but infact caused the 1937 recession which was during the Depression.

Are you denying that he's opening the mic to President Obama to prove to him and to the millions of people?

Im saying the minute he starts to inevitably lose, he'll cut the mic.

I have history to back me up. You have your crush on a drug addict to back your opinion up.
FDR's economic policies failed to end the depression but infact caused the 1937 recession which was during the Depression.

Yeah, no.

How about wanting Obama to fail first of all! If his policies are like FDR (and that is what it is looking like) of course he wants it to fail. Hell I would want it to fail too!

...what? Are you saying he didn't say he wanted Obama to fail, and then agreeing with him about things he "didn't say?" What the fuck are you talking about?

Especially when my President has rather more important tasks to accomplish than skewering an idiotic talking whale.

Like fixing the economy, solving the energy crisis, restoring science, ending one war and winning another war, and otherwise undoing the disaster that was the Bush Administration.

EDIT: If Rush wants to debate President Obama, Rush can seek and get the Republican nomination for President in 2012. Until that happens, this is just the irrelevant blathering of an attention-seeking blowhard.

I may not agree with his policies but i do agree he has better things to do then talk to Mr. Limbaugh.

Wait you WOULDN't want the guy who ended the great depression in charge of your economy during a depression??? Um . . . .wha????

Uh...FDR did not end the Depression DaWoad. World War II brought us out of that economic disaster!

FDR's economic policies failed to end the depression but infact caused the 1937 recession which was during the Depression....Right.

I'm failing to see the Obama = FDR thing.

Uh...FDR did not end the Depression DaWoad. World War II brought us out of that economic disaster!If i'm not mistaken, FDR was president during most of WWII. :rolleyes:

He's the one that lead us during the majority of WWII. WWII, by your own admission, got us out of the Great Depression. Voila, FDR played a major part in ending the Great Depression.

Im saying the minute he starts to inevitably lose, he'll cut the mic.

Prove he'll do that to Obama since Obama has never been on his show! Oh wait...we're talking about the President of the United States here. Rush would be a Class-A idiot to do that. Besides that, prove he'll lose!

If i'm not mistaken, FDR was president during most of WWII. :rolleyes:

He's the one that lead us during the majority of WWII. WWII, by your own admission, got us out of the Great Depression. Voila, FDR played a major part in ending the Great Depression.



And there isnt evidence that FDR's plan wouldnt have gotten us out of the depression.

Arguing with Busheviks man...

Jeez, why would you hope any President fails? That just spells disaster for all of us.

Prove he'll do that to Obama since Obama has never been on his show!
History.

Oh wait...we're talking about the President of the United States here. Rush would be a Class-A idiot to do that.

Totally in character.

Besides that, prove he'll lose!

Are you fucking serious? Were you in a coma for the last year?

...Right.

I'm failing to see the Obama = FDR thing.

That's because you have not been following the news.

Prove he'll do that to Obama since Obama has never been on his show! Oh wait...we're talking about the President of the United States here. Rush would be a Class-A idiot to do that. Besides that, prove he'll lose!

In a proper debate? Let me ask you this: What the fuck does he know?

And there isnt evidence that FDR's plan wouldnt have gotten us out of the depression. We'll never know, WWII shocked the economy out of it.

Arguing with Busheviks man...It's like beating your head against a glass wall.

Jeez, why would you hope any President fails? That just spells disaster for all of us.

Tell that to the Anti-Bush freaks!

That's because you have not been following the news.

Words fail...

Uh...FDR did not end the Depression DaWoad. World War II brought us out of that economic disaster!

lmfao

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg

Rush would be a Class-A idiot to do that.

Well...yeah.

Besides that, prove he'll lose!

Prove? Can't PROVE anything definitively. We can however make assumptions. And we can assume, that in a formal, structured debate, a harvard educated lawyer, and one of america's great orators would mop the fucking floor with someone who has demonstrated no particular skill in the art what so ever.

Prove he'll do that to Obama since Obama has never been on his show! Oh wait...we're talking about the President of the United States here. Rush would be a Class-A idiot to do that. Besides that, prove he'll lose!

This still begs the question of why the President of the United States should even humor a self-proclaimed incendiary ENTERTAINER?

Should he debate Tom Cruise too?

Tell that to the Anti-Bush freaks!

This is the part where you find a public figure, or anyone on NSG, or anyone for that matter, saying "I want Bush to fail."


And this is the part where I dont hold my breath.

That's because you have not been following the news."Obama is just like FDR!"
"...Well, what makes him like FDR?"
"...Well, he's a Democrat and he's trying to help the economy, like FDR."
"...Right, that makes him totally like FDR. ...Right."

We'll never know, WWII shocked the economy out of it.

Correct but if 8 years of FDR economics failed to bring us out ofa depression but instead caused a recession inside ofa depression, don't you think we needed a different approach?

It's like beating your head against a glass wall.

Nowthere I can agree

This still begs the question of why the President of the United States should even humor a self-proclaimed incendiary ENTERTAINER?

Should he debate Tom Cruise too?

well he could just because i doubt Limbaugh would ever agree to reasonable terms and Obama could claim a political victory.

This still begs the question of why the President of the United States should even humor a self-proclaimed incendiary ENTERTAINER?

Should he debate Tom Cruise too?

APOLOGIZE TO RUSH!


This is the part where you say you were thinking one thing but said another.

In a proper debate? Let me ask you this: What the fuck does he know?

You know? You used to be funny! I usually enjoy your posts but this really shows you got nothing.

YOu know? I really do not have to defend Limbaugh! He can defend himself and I hope Obama takes him up on this offer though we all know the coward won't!

WIth that, I'm off to bed because I have a long day ahead of me tomorrow.

You know? You used to be funny! I usually enjoy your posts but this really shows you got nothing.

He has nothing? Really? Youve been on here cheerleading for a drug addicted, under aged prostitute loving idiot and when its pointed out that a Harvard Law educated lawyer, and someone who is regarded as being one of the greatest public speakers in American would kick said over weight drug addicts uninformed ass you say they have nothing?

Correct but if 8 years of FDR economics failed to bring us out ofa depression but instead caused a recession inside ofa depression, don't you think we needed a different approach?If eight years of an incredible struggle against arguably the worst economic "disaster" in the history of the US doesn't yield results, I find no reason to blame on man for them. Even if that one man is the president.

YOu know? I really do not have to defend Limbaugh! He can defend himself and I hope Obama takes him up on this offer though we all know the coward won't!

WIth that, I'm off to bed because I have a long day ahead of me tomorrow.

And after saying nothing of substance, not providing evidence for any of his claims, the Bushevik runs off with his tail between his legs.

1)I don't think anyone in their right mind would hope that a President would FAIL in helping get us out of an economic crisis and two wars.

2)Bush never had to do that and I didn't have to wish that he'd fail, he did it on his own. And even if he hadn't I would know enough about how the world works to realize that most of the big decisions he made would effect me whether indirectly or directly.

Funny is Rush Limbaugh debating Barack Obama. It'd be almost as funny as me fighting Chuck Norris. And at the end, both Rush and I would be curled up in the fetal position begging for death. :p

Funny is thinking Rush would do anything but yell and then cut Obama's mic after being verbally throttled.

You know? You used to be funny! I usually enjoy your posts but this really shows you got nothing.

Funny is Rush Limbaugh debating Barack Obama. It'd be almost as funny as me fighting Chuck Norris. And at the end, both Rush and I would be curled up in the fetal position begging for death. :p

Edit: Though Rush probably has the edge on Ballroom Dancing. I mean sure he flunked it, but at least he took it. I don't think Harvard even teaches ballroom dancing. :p

TAI, I hate you. I really do. But it doesn't seem to come close to the love/hate/whatever you feel for me to feel the need to come here and bother me. Did you know one of the same posters you quote used YOU as a negative example?

Either you have multiple personalities (read mentral problems) or you use that Rush comment simply as a soapbox to spew your bile. Take your pick, but atleast be honest.

More proof that you are an idiot. He wants an honest three hour debate about his policies. If you call that pathetic then you are a sad little man who really knows nothing at all.

*sigh*

Put each other on ignore. Stick to the topic. Argue the post, not the poster.

AND ALL THE USUAL STUFF THAT I GET SICK OF SAYING OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO THE SAME PEOPLE.

Cut. It. Out. Now.

EDIT: Actually, you'll have to, because I'm closing the thread. It could have been a discussion, but since even the OP has devoted himself throughout to trolling and baiting, I don't see why it should continue.