Time for a regime change

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
You must be registered with the NY Times to read the story.
NY TIMES - How Many People Has Hussein Killed?

excerpts from the article.

Like other dictators who wrote bloody chapters in 20th-century history, Mr. Hussein was primed for violence by early childhood. Born into the murderous clan culture of a village that lived off piracy on the Tigris River, he was harshly beaten by a brutal stepfather. In 1959, at age 22, he made his start in politics as one of the gunmen who botched an attempt to assassinate Iraq's first military ruler, Abdel Karim Kassem.

Since then, Mr. Hussein's has been a tale of terror that scholars have compared to that of Stalin, whom the Iraqi leader is said to revere, even if his own brutalities have played out on a small scale. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, historians have concluded. Even on a proportional basis, his crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein's, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people.

Where the comparison seems closest is in the regime's mercilessly sadistic character. Iraq has its gulag of prisons, dungeons and torture chambers ? some of them acknowledged, like Abu Ghraib, and as many more disguised as hotels, sports centers and other innocent-sounding places. It has its overlapping secret-police agencies, and its culture of betrayal, with family members denouncing each other, and offices and factories becoming hives of perfidy.

"Enemies of the state" are eliminated, and their spouses, adult children and even cousins are often tortured and killed along with them.
Mr. Hussein even uses Stalinist maxims, including what an Iraqi defector identified as one of the dictator's favorites: "If there is a person, then there is a problem. If there is no person, then there is no problem."

There are rituals to make the end as terrible as possible, not only for the victims but for those who survive. After seizing power in July 1979, Mr. Hussein handed weapons to surviving members of the ruling elite, then joined them in personally executing 22 comrades who had dared to oppose his ascent.
The terror is self-compounding, with the state's power reinforced by stories that relatives of the victims pale to tell ? of fingernail-extracting, eye-gouging, genital-shocking and bucket-drowning. Secret police rape prisoners' wives and daughters to force confessions and denunciations. There are assassinations, in Iraq and abroad, and, ultimately, the gallows, the firing squads and the pistol shots to the head.

DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 ? surely a gross exaggeration ? but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country

Casualties from Iraq's gulag are harder to estimate. Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000. As long as Mr. Hussein remains in power, figures like these will be uncheckable, but the huge toll is palpable nonetheless.

In 1999, a complaint about prison overcrowding led to an instruction from the Iraqi leader for a "prison cleansing" drive. This resulted, according to human rights groups, in hundreds, and possibly thousands, of executions.

Using a satanic arithmetic, prison governors worked out how many prisoners would have to be hanged to bring the numbers down to stipulated levels, even taking into account the time remaining in the inmates' sentences. As 20 and 30 prisoners at a time were executed at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, warders trailed through cities like Baghdad, "selling" exemption from execution to shocked families, according to people in Iraq who said they had spoken to relatives of those involved. Bribes of money, furniture, cars and even property titles brought only temporary stays.



How Many People Has Hussein Killed?
(Page 2 of 2)



Mr. Hussein even uses Stalinist maxims, including what an Iraqi defector identified as one of the dictator's favorites: "If there is a person, then there is a problem. If there is no person, then there is no problem."

There are rituals to make the end as terrible as possible, not only for the victims but for those who survive. After seizing power in July 1979, Mr. Hussein handed weapons to surviving members of the ruling elite, then joined them in personally executing 22 comrades who had dared to oppose his ascent.

Advertisement




The terror is self-compounding, with the state's power reinforced by stories that relatives of the victims pale to tell ? of fingernail-extracting, eye-gouging, genital-shocking and bucket-drowning. Secret police rape prisoners' wives and daughters to force confessions and denunciations. There are assassinations, in Iraq and abroad, and, ultimately, the gallows, the firing squads and the pistol shots to the head.

DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 ? surely a gross exaggeration ? but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country.

Casualties from Iraq's gulag are harder to estimate. Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000. As long as Mr. Hussein remains in power, figures like these will be uncheckable, but the huge toll is palpable nonetheless.

Just as in Stalin's Russia, the machinery of death is mostly invisible, except for the effects it works on those brushed by it ? in the loss of relatives and friends, and in the universal terror that others have of falling into the abyss. If anybody wants to know what terror looks like, its face is visible every day on every street of Iraq.

"Minders," the men who watch visiting reporters day and night, are supposedly drawn from among the regime's harder men. But even they break down, hands shaking, eyes brimming, voices desperate, when reporters ask ordinary Iraqis edgy questions about Mr. Hussein.

"You have killed me, and killed my family," one minder said after a photographer for The New York Times made unauthorized photographs of an exhibition of statues of the Iraqi dictator during a November visit to Baghdad's College of Fine Arts. In recent years, the inexorable nature of Iraq's horrors have been demonstrated by new campaigns bearing the special hallmark of Mr. Hussein. In 1999, a complaint about prison overcrowding led to an instruction from the Iraqi leader for a "prison cleansing" drive. This resulted, according to human rights groups, in hundreds, and possibly thousands, of executions.

Using a satanic arithmetic, prison governors worked out how many prisoners would have to be hanged to bring the numbers down to stipulated levels, even taking into account the time remaining in the inmates' sentences. As 20 and 30 prisoners at a time were executed at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, warders trailed through cities like Baghdad, "selling" exemption from execution to shocked families, according to people in Iraq who said they had spoken to relatives of those involved. Bribes of money, furniture, cars and even property titles brought only temporary stays.

MORE recently, according to Iraqis who fled to Jordan and other neighboring countries, scores of women have been executed under a new twist in a "return to faith" campaign proclaimed by Mr. Hussein. Aimed at bolstering his support across the Islamic world, the campaign led early on to a ban on drinking alcohol in public. Then, some time in the last two years, it widened to include the public killing of accused prostitutes.

Often, the executions have been carried out by the Fedayeen Saddam, a paramilitary group headed by Mr. Hussein's oldest son, 38-year-old Uday. These men, masked and clad in black, make the women kneel in busy city squares, along crowded sidewalks, or in neighborhood plots, then behead them with swords. The families of some victims have claimed they were innocent of any crime save that of criticizing Mr. Hussein.
___________


markuskidd
I think Saddam wins, well the Iraqi people lose. You know what I mean.

Wartime Propaganda...ie: biased. Is Saddam a bloodthirsty sob, yep. Is he the next Hitler...hardly.

 

markuskidd

Senior member
Sep 2, 2002
360
0
0
I especially appreciate the strategic omission of the role played by the United States in the war between Iraq and Iran.
 

Grey

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 1999
2,737
2
81
Yes, I understand the math it is shocking when you realize thousands were killed by American bombs. But the justification was/is three thousand US citizens dead on 9/11, how many more before we act?

You can't dispute that the terrorists did not have camps in Afghanistan and now have very little presence there. It seems that objective was achieved, the price was high. The situation is similar in Iraq, it is no secrety Saddam Hussein hates the US, what is to stop him from slipping a radical group some VX gas to kill more Americans in the ongoing terrorism jihad?
 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: markuskidd
I especially appreciate the strategic omission of the role played by the United States in the war between Iraq and Iran.

And that this was the period in which the US was providing Iraq with the means to create its weapons of mass distruction to us against the Iranians. Hence why the US knows that Iraq has WMD...they have the receipts.

 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: Grey
Yes, I understand the math it is shocking when you realize thousands were killed by American bombs. But the justification was/is three thousand US citizens dead on 9/11, how many more before we act?

You can't dispute that the terrorists did not have camps in Afghanistan and now have very little presence there.

The 9/11 Terrorists had cells in the US. So when does the bombing begin?

 

Damage

Senior member
Dec 3, 2001
491
0
0
Originally posted by: markuskidd
I have provided some evidence of both the high number of casualties and the seeming non-committment to "going out of its way to avoid civilian casualities." I am looking forward to his response, though I wonder if everyone I linked is too biased :D


Thanks for the links... I agree with others that number is probably not 4K though.. I'll need more time to read the rest of the sites, but they are pushing an agenda. So I would have to agree they are biased (yes, I know we ALL are), however I did respect the fact that they referenced some of the information from the (largely, but not always) "legitimate" press.

What you seem to have proven is that innocents were killed, but I haven't seen that this is an intentional action on the U.S.'s behalf. The opinion pages of the sites would lead you to believe so, with little or no substance. I am making no attempts to demonize anyone, my view is that Saddam is in material breach of the UN agreements. The burden of proof is on him to provide evidence that the weapons are destroyed (ie, the VX gas, mustard gas, etc..) and that proof has not been provided.

 

markuskidd

Senior member
Sep 2, 2002
360
0
0
Originally posted by: Grey
Yes, I understand the math it is shocking when you realize thousands were killed by American bombs. But the justification was/is three thousand US citizens dead on 9/11, how many more before we act?

You can't dispute that the terrorists did not have camps in Afghanistan and now have very little presence there. It seems that objective was achieved, the price was high. The situation is similar in Iraq, it is no secrety Saddam Hussein hates the US, what is to stop him from slipping a radical group some VX gas to kill more Americans in the ongoing terrorism jihad?

When I realize that we have quite possibly killed the same number or maybe even more innocent Afghani civilians than were killed in the terrorist attack, and that is a lot more than shocking. The point is not that we shouldn't act, but that the way we're acting SUCKS BIG TIME! Blowing the sh!t out of everything is not the answer. The answer is using our influence in the UN not to exempt us from international treaties that do useful things like establish the international court system, hold our allies accountable for human rights violations, etc. but to lead the UN to assertively (and forcefully, if necessary) impose its resolutions when nations are in non-compliance. But the fact that WE are in non-compliance completely erodes *everyone's* faith in our good intentions. We loose credibility AND we have managed to kill off a bunch of civilians.
 

Damage

Senior member
Dec 3, 2001
491
0
0
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Grey
Yes, I understand the math it is shocking when you realize thousands were killed by American bombs. But the justification was/is three thousand US citizens dead on 9/11, how many more before we act?

You can't dispute that the terrorists did not have camps in Afghanistan and now have very little presence there.

The 9/11 Terrorists had cells in the US. So when does the bombing begin?

The INS cleanup is making progress however slowly it may be. Profiling is needed, but is not politically correct. Which I find incredible, we are "feel-good"ing ourselves to death, litterally..

Bombs are not the only answer to terrorists, if it was I guess both Canada and Mexico would be smoking for letting them through the borders? (j/k)
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Originally posted by: Grey
Yes, I understand the math it is shocking when you realize thousands were killed by American bombs. But the justification was/is three thousand US citizens dead on 9/11, how many more before we act?

You can't dispute that the terrorists did not have camps in Afghanistan and now have very little presence there. It seems that objective was achieved, the price was high. The situation is similar in Iraq, it is no secrety Saddam Hussein hates the US, what is to stop him from slipping a radical group some VX gas to kill more Americans in the ongoing terrorism jihad?

When I realize that we have quite possibly killed the same number or maybe even more innocent Afghani civilians than were killed in the terrorist attack, and that is a lot more than shocking. The point is not that we shouldn't act, but that the way we're acting SUCKS BIG TIME! Blowing the sh!t out of everything is not the answer. The answer is using our influence in the UN not to exempt us from international treaties that do useful things like establish the international court system, hold our allies accountable for human rights violations, etc. but to lead the UN to assertively (and forcefully, if necessary) impose its resolutions when nations are in non-compliance. But the fact that WE are in non-compliance completely erodes *everyone's* faith in our good intentions. We loose credibility AND we have managed to kill off a bunch of civilians.

wow its a good thing that all those UN resolutions did nothing against the taliban... they didn't want outside contact anyay
 

markuskidd

Senior member
Sep 2, 2002
360
0
0
The INS cleanup is making progress however slowly it may be. Profiling is needed, but is not politically correct. Which I find incredible, we are "feel-good"ing ourselves to death, litterally..

Bombs are not the only answer to terrorists, if it was I guess both Canada and Mexico would be smoking for letting them through the borders? (j/k)

The reality is that religious extremism flourishes in the environments the United States has either actively encouraged or at least allowed to exist unmolested. Despite the veneer that we do not want to intervene in the business of other nations, the US has pushed here and there for decades in order to establish policies and political leaders that are advantageous to our foreign political and business interests. Saddam is himself the pinnacle of this foreign policy (which sadly continues today and is evident in Afghanistan) wherein we, in the interest of having someone "take care of" Iran have created a far greater threat to our own security. The problem is therefore not only in that we have backed *ourselves* into this corner, but that our leaders refuse to acknowledge the emerging pattern. There are ways to make money, keep our allies, and provide for the security of our citizens WITHOUT getting involved with foreign dictators and leading to foreign nationals finding (sometimes legitimate!) rationales for their brooding anger at the United States.
 

Damage

Senior member
Dec 3, 2001
491
0
0
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Originally posted by: Grey
Yes, I understand the math it is shocking when you realize thousands were killed by American bombs. But the justification was/is three thousand US citizens dead on 9/11, how many more before we act?

You can't dispute that the terrorists did not have camps in Afghanistan and now have very little presence there. It seems that objective was achieved, the price was high. The situation is similar in Iraq, it is no secrety Saddam Hussein hates the US, what is to stop him from slipping a radical group some VX gas to kill more Americans in the ongoing terrorism jihad?

When I realize that we have quite possibly killed the same number or maybe even more innocent Afghani civilians than were killed in the terrorist attack, and that is a lot more than shocking. The point is not that we shouldn't act, but that the way we're acting SUCKS BIG TIME! Blowing the sh!t out of everything is not the answer. The answer is using our influence in the UN not to exempt us from international treaties that do useful things like establish the international court system, hold our allies accountable for human rights violations, etc. but to lead the UN to assertively (and forcefully, if necessary) impose its resolutions when nations are in non-compliance. But the fact that WE are in non-compliance completely erodes *everyone's* faith in our good intentions. We loose credibility AND we have managed to kill off a bunch of civilians.

Saddam iqnores the UN for 11 years, and suggest the UN resolve this? No insult, but that seems naive. The U.S. is trying to lead assertively as you suggest, but is being labeled a war-monger for it. The fact is the UN lacks the courage of it's conviction which will lead it to become irrelevant other than as a media showcase shortly.
 

markuskidd

Senior member
Sep 2, 2002
360
0
0
Originally posted by: Damage
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Originally posted by: Grey
Yes, I understand the math it is shocking when you realize thousands were killed by American bombs. But the justification was/is three thousand US citizens dead on 9/11, how many more before we act?

You can't dispute that the terrorists did not have camps in Afghanistan and now have very little presence there. It seems that objective was achieved, the price was high. The situation is similar in Iraq, it is no secrety Saddam Hussein hates the US, what is to stop him from slipping a radical group some VX gas to kill more Americans in the ongoing terrorism jihad?

When I realize that we have quite possibly killed the same number or maybe even more innocent Afghani civilians than were killed in the terrorist attack, and that is a lot more than shocking. The point is not that we shouldn't act, but that the way we're acting SUCKS BIG TIME! Blowing the sh!t out of everything is not the answer. The answer is using our influence in the UN not to exempt us from international treaties that do useful things like establish the international court system, hold our allies accountable for human rights violations, etc. but to lead the UN to assertively (and forcefully, if necessary) impose its resolutions when nations are in non-compliance. But the fact that WE are in non-compliance completely erodes *everyone's* faith in our good intentions. We loose credibility AND we have managed to kill off a bunch of civilians.

Saddam iqnores the UN for 11 years, and suggest the UN resolve this? No insult, but that seems naive. The U.S. is trying to lead assertively as you suggest, but is being labeled a war-monger for it. The fact is the UN lacks the courage of it's conviction which will lead it to become irrelevant other than as a media showcase shortly.


The US is labeled a war-monger because we continually thumb our noses at them (for more than 11 years) and only come to them when we want to blow something up.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
I have yet see proof that Iraq has disarmed.
I have yet to see that Iraq is cooperating.
I have yet to see that Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors(yes we have oil interest).
We have proof that Iraq supports terrorists.
We know Senior al queda have been in Baghdad.
We know getting rid of Saddam with free a country.
We know Saddam has killed thousands(some reports put it close to a million)
We know the world is better place without Saddam.

Conclusion: KILL KILL KILL

Or do nothing and continue to let Saddam KILL KILL KILL.

Ironic, as your list does not list evidence of Saddam's excessive KILL-KILL-KILLing as something we have. The US has killed approximately 4,000 civilians this year in its military campaigns. Where does Saddam stand in relation to that?

Yes civilians got killed in Afganistan and that is unfortunate. And the number was much lower than 4000. The difference is the US goes out of its way to avoid civlian casualties, the same cannot be said of Iraq.

I don't buy it.

Which part do you not bye?

That the numbers were less than 4000

or

That the US goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties?

I don't *buy* any of it.

Clearly, providing [you and your fellow chickhawks with any "proof" will be dismissed outright as "biased".

Kindly STFU.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: markuskidd
US vs. UN on Weapons Treaties -- Sounds eerily similar to our situation with Iraq vs. UN
Many mentioned we did not sign, we left the abm according to its protocol. And to top it off the USSR no longer existed. Clinton opted out of the landmine treaty because of NK. The senate rejected kyoto 99-0. This is far from bush being unilateral. But nice try.


Why the US Lost its Human Rights Committee Seat


I dont have a problem with a the losing the seat, but to to elect on of the worst human right violaters to the seats is pure nonsense.

Bush Wasn't the First to Only Use the UN When It Fits His Mood

duh. Many countries have, we are not alone.

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
hagbard
Wartime Propaganda...ie: biased. Is Saddam a bloodthirsty sob, yep. Is he the next Hitler...hardly.

Are you saying the facts in the story are wrong?

Did you even read the story?

It doesn't look as if you did since in the story Saddam is compared to his hero Stalin, not Hitler.

Let me know what date you think the wartime propaganda would have started. I'm willing to bet that I can find references to Saddam's brutality before that date.
 

markuskidd

Senior member
Sep 2, 2002
360
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
US vs. UN on Weapons Treaties -- Sounds eerily similar to our situation with Iraq vs. UN
Many mentioned we did not sign, we left the abm according to its protocol. And to top it off the USSR no longer existed. Clinton opted out of the landmine treaty because of NK. The senate rejected kyoto 99-0. This is far from bush being unilateral. But nice try.

I never ever said or implied it was about Bush being unilateral. It is about the United States being unilateral. Open your eyes to my point and at least refute me based on what I'm saying rather than your own assumptions.

duh. Many countries have, we are not alone.

I'm sure some have, but which ones? If you could provide a list, you might be able to substantiate your 'duh."
 

markuskidd

Senior member
Sep 2, 2002
360
0
0
Let me know what date you think the wartime propaganda would have started. I'm willing to bet that I can find references to Saddam's brutality before that date.

Much earlier and you'll probably run into wartime propaganda about how great the US thinks he is since he's such a good helper :D
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
I have yet see proof that Iraq has disarmed.
I have yet to see that Iraq is cooperating.
I have yet to see that Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors(yes we have oil interest).
We have proof that Iraq supports terrorists.
We know Senior al queda have been in Baghdad.
We know getting rid of Saddam with free a country.
We know Saddam has killed thousands(some reports put it close to a million)
We know the world is better place without Saddam.

Conclusion: KILL KILL KILL

Or do nothing and continue to let Saddam KILL KILL KILL.

Ironic, as your list does not list evidence of Saddam's excessive KILL-KILL-KILLing as something we have. The US has killed approximately 4,000 civilians this year in its military campaigns. Where does Saddam stand in relation to that?

Yes civilians got killed in Afganistan and that is unfortunate. And the number was much lower than 4000. The difference is the US goes out of its way to avoid civlian casualties, the same cannot be said of Iraq.

I don't buy it.

Which part do you not bye?

That the numbers were less than 4000

or

That the US goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties?

I don't *buy* any of it.

Clearly, providing [you and your fellow chickhawks with any "proof" will be dismissed outright as "biased".

Kindly STFU.

:confused:
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: markuskidd
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: markuskidd
US vs. UN on Weapons Treaties -- Sounds eerily similar to our situation with Iraq vs. UN
Many mentioned we did not sign, we left the abm according to its protocol. And to top it off the USSR no longer existed. Clinton opted out of the landmine treaty because of NK. The senate rejected kyoto 99-0. This is far from bush being unilateral. But nice try.

I never ever said or implied it was about Bush being unilateral. It is about the United States being unilateral. Open your eyes to my point and at least refute me based on what I'm saying rather than your own
assumptions.


Look at the title of the document. Bushunilateral, just clearing that point up.


duh. Many countries have, we are not alone.

I'm sure some have, but which ones? If you could provide a list, you might be able to substantiate your 'duh."

Any of the security council countries that have veto power.
 

markuskidd

Senior member
Sep 2, 2002
360
0
0
I never ever said or implied it was about Bush being unilateral. It is about the United States being unilateral. Open your eyes to my point and at least refute me based on what I'm saying rather than your own
assumptions.


Look at the title of the document. Bushunilateral, just clearing that point up.

I've looked at it; it says "U.S. Foreign Policy Turns Unilateralist." Now if you disagree with my conclusions (note: not the article's conclusions; I cited that because it documents somethings that *do* factor into the points I've been making in this thread), I'd love to hear about it.

duh. Many countries have, we are not alone.

I'm sure some have, but which ones? If you could provide a list, you might be able to substantiate your 'duh."

Any of the security council countries that have veto power.

I know that the Soviet Union didn't pay some dues in 1963 due to the Suez crisis, and that the Ukraine's government is essentially going bankrupt so they're having trouble right now, but why don't you document some of these claims?
 

markuskidd

Senior member
Sep 2, 2002
360
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: ElFenix

what does that have to do with anything?

Seems to be quite on topic for an America bashing thread.

Why don't you address some of my posts instead? Or are you going to continue bashing America?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: markuskidd
I never ever said or implied it was about Bush being unilateral. It is about the United States being unilateral. Open your eyes to my point and at least refute me based on what I'm saying rather than your own
assumptions.


Look at the title of the document. Bushunilateral, just clearing that point up.

I've looked at it; it says "U.S. Foreign Policy Turns Unilateralist." Now if you disagree with my conclusions (note: not the article's conclusions; I cited that because it documents somethings that *do* factor into the points I've been making in this thread), I'd love to hear about it.

duh. Many countries have, we are not alone.

I'm sure some have, but which ones? If you could provide a list, you might be able to substantiate your 'duh."

Any of the security council countries that have veto power.

I know that the Soviet Union didn't pay some dues in 1963 due to the Suez crisis, and that the Ukraine's government is essentially going bankrupt so they're having trouble right now, but why don't you document some of these claims?

Yup, your right, what was I thinking. The US is only country capable of disagreeing with the UN
rolleye.gif