I wasn't talking about installing Saddam being wrong. I know my stuff too. I was simply saying that the entire post was a big rehash of every Moore speech ever given. I also never said anything that would group me as a conspiracy theorist (unless I typed something in ivisible ink, I guess...*shrugs*)
do me a favor close your eyes and imagine a random person sitting at a computer. he blindly supports everything that involves that person. his religion, his countries goverment. but never takes a minute to read a book or learn hardly anything about another religion. and never reads a article or watches news from another source but the place they live. then concludes that he is right about everything. well open your eyes this country is full of them. and for that matter other places are as well. so many people never take the time to learn other people or region's viewpoints. and i think that goes hand in hand with people saying on here that it doesnt matter what other countries think. lets attack the entire middle east starting next with Iran. lets attack them to the point where we have a great military society and have so much security that we are then safe. to be honest though you cant stop now. that region of the world hates us so much now that the snowball cant be stopped, and not sure what we could do to stop it from getting worse.
Dubya's inaugural speech sounds liberal, even Wilsonesque, in some respects. Then he says that there won't be any policy shifts on the day after. Pretty words for the history book that some future Liberals might even quote on a BBS. Sounds like another Reagan to me.
Why is it always assumed that if you don't happen to loathe Bush, you are "blindly supporting" every single thing he does? Does it ever occur to anyone on this bbs that maybe, just maybe, a lot of people voted for Bush because they happen to agree with more of Bush's agenda than they did with Kerry's? That doesn't mean they agree with all of it or that they are "blindly supporting" everything he does. Again, why is it assumed that if you don't agree with something, you're just ignorant about it? Are we not allowed to disagree with things we know about? It's ironic to me that the very people who preach tolerance and open-mindedness are the same people who write off differing opinions as ignorant or close-minded.
halfbreed i have never seen Micheal Moores documentary on 9/11.... though i have heard some of the things he did bring up....sadly most of his **** is what everybody already knew in the Eastern world...he said nothing new...therefore i did'nt waist my time watching it..... how quick to make judgements.......i guess that movie was made to educate some ignorant folks who like to live in a box...though from what i heard a lot of moore's **** was bull**** as well....the truth is always somewhere in the middle...Micheal Moore made that movie as an ANTI BUSH campaign..there are many documentaries that are far more informative....i only take info from those who have experienced or have factual information....most people in this board are ignorant and driven by nationalistic views….just like during the cold war …anyone who would have a hint of communist views was considered a traitor…..things don’t change....now the catch phrase is your a terrorist or anti-maerican.
Polls don't mean squat because people express their opinions without any commitment or responsiblilty. Sure the big bad boorish US of A takes all the energy and spews corporate pollution, but we lead in innovation, investment and individuality. The worlds masses would be colonial subjects, oppressed closed societies or mired in fuedal agrarianism with no beacon of hope without us. Self-examination with the consideration of other's opinions is healthy but it's not the ultimate determination of our self worth. We decide that for ourselves. Thanks for weighing in though.
mr. drummer i understand what you are saying. but i think what you got out of my "rant" is a little wrong. which is understandable considering what my signature is. but i what i meant was the person or two that said it doesnt matter what the world thinks about the U.S. and we dont need them or there viewpoint which i think is just wrong.
Envision the world as if the revolution against King George had failed and tell how the colonial/fuedal/agrarian cycle would have been broken. What democracies would have evolved? Who would have promoted the ideals of the individual? Their may have still been a socialist revolution though probably none that was not corrupted by an elite ruling class or dictator. The French revolution may have still given the world a democratic ideal. Don't get me wrong, the US certainly has had it's share of wrongheaded adventurism, exploitation and discrimination but we do maintain the idea of freedom equality and self-determination and are the leaders in promoting it on this backward-ass planet. And without that it would most likely devolve into a world of tinhorn dictators, warloards, and self annointed kings.
I didn't. It looks like this poll did. But IIRC, some of the polls of Poles (sorry!) were still positive but getting worse for the US.
We like to talk democracy, but I seriously doubt that we can define ourselves as leaders with our past errors that destroyed democracies or our current substantial support of non-Democracies (when it suits our purposes). And without us, there will still be Gandhis and Mandelas in this world.
Ahem..."Only three countries - India, Poland and the Philippines - out of 21 polled believed the world was now safer." Spent a couple of weeks in Eastern Europe over the holidays, mostly in Poland. They're ready to get their troops out of Iraq, as are most Americans, but are incredibly supportive of the Iraq mission as a whole, WMD or no. Democracy, and the spreading of it, are, shockingly, a big deal to the Eastern Euros.
Originally posted by Buck Turgidson Ahem..."Only three countries - India, Poland and the Philippines - out of 21 polled believed the world was now safer." ... Oops! Thats what I get for looking at the graphs. ... Democracy, and the spreading of it, are, shockingly, a big deal to the Eastern Euros. No doubt.
I would like to examine the documentation that you used. Jimmy Carter was the U.S President in 1979 and I don't recall Donald Rumsfeld having a position in the Carter Administration. <hr color=green> <center><b>Global Security</b></center> <a HREF=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/saddam.htm">Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti</a> <i>.........By 1968 close family and tribal ties bound the Baath's ruling clique. Most notable in this regard was the emergence of Tikritis -- Sunni Arabs from the northwest town of Tikrit -- related to Ahmad Hasan al Bakr. Three of the five members of the Baath's Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) were Tikritis; two, Bakr and Hammad Shihab, were related to each other. The cabinet posts of president, prime minister, and defense minister went to Tikritis. Saddam Hussein [Husayn], a key leader behind the scenes, also was a Tikriti and a relative of Bakr. Less than two months after the formation of the Bakr government in 1968, a coalition of pro-Nasser elements, Arif supporters, and conservatives from the military attempted another coup. This event provided the rationale for numerous purges directed by Bakr and Saddam Husayn. Saddam Hussein was a consummate party politician whose formative experiences were in organizing clandestine opposition activity. He was adept at outmaneuvering -- and at times ruthlessly eliminating -- political opponents. Although Bakr was the older and more prestigious of the two, by 1969 Saddam Hussein clearly had become the moving force behind the party. He personally directed Baathist attempts to settle the Kurdish question and he organized the party's institutional structure. Hussein was put into control of the internal security apparatus, and within a decade, he had created a police state within Iraq that was so oppressive that it has often received criticism from moderate Arab states. Between 1968 and 1973, through a series of sham trials, executions, assassinations, and intimidations, the party ruthlessly eliminated any group or person suspected of challenging Baath rule. Despite Baath attempts to institutionalize its rule, real power remained in the hands of a narrowly based elite, united by close family and tribal ties. By 1977 the most powerful men in the Baath thus were all somehow related to the triumvirate of Saddam Hussein, Bakr, and General Adnan Khayr Allah Talfah, Saddam Hussein's brother-in-law who became minister of defense in 1978. All were members of the party, the RCC, and the cabinet, and all were members of the Talfah family of Tikrit, headed by Khayr Allah Talfah. Khayr Allah Talfah was Saddam Hussein's uncle and guardian, Adnan Khayr Allah's father, and Bakr's cousin. Saddam Hussein was married to Adnan Khayr Allah's sister and Adnan Khayr Allah was married to Bakr's daughter. Increasingly, the most sensitive military posts were going to the Tikritis. Beginning in the mid-1970s, Bakr was beset by illness and by a series of family tragedies. He increasingly turned over power to Saddam Husayn. By 1977 the party bureaus, the intelligence mechanisms, and even ministers who, according to the Provisional Constitution, should have reported to Bakr, reported to Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein, meanwhile, was less inclined to share power, and he viewed the cabinet and the RCC as rubber stamps. On July 16, 1979, President Bakr resigned, and Saddam Hussein officially replaced him as president of the republic, secretary general of the Baath Party Regional Command, chairman of the RCC, and commander in chief of the armed forces. On July 17, 1979, he was promoted to the rank of Field Marshal.......</i> <hr color=green> <center><b>Wikipedia</b></center> <a HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein">Saddam Hussein</a> <i>.......Succession In 1979 President al-Bakr began to make treaties with Syria, also under Ba'athist leadership, that would lead to unification between the two countries. Syrian President Hafez al-Assad would become deputy leader in a union, and this would drive Saddam to obscurity. Before this could happen, however, the ailing al-Bakr resigned on July 16, 1979. Saddam formally assumed the presidency. Shortly afterwards, he convened an assembly of Ba'ath party leaders on July 22, 1979. During the assembly, which he ordered videotaped, Saddam claimed to have found spies and conspirators within the Ba'ath Party and read out the names of members who he thought could oppose him. These members were labeled "disloyal" and were removed from the room one by one to face a firing squad. After the list was read, Saddam congratulated those still seated in the room for their past and future loyalty........</i> <hr color=green> <center><b>CNN</b></center> <a HREF="http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.vote/">Saddam gets perfect poll result</a> <i>.....Ibrahim, vice-chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council, said all 11,445,638 Iraqis eligible to vote had done so and every single one of them answered "Yes" to another seven-year term for Saddam, 65, who was appointed president in 1979.......</i> <hr color=green> <center><b>BBC</b></center> <a HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/decision_makers_and_diplomacy/216328.stm">Saddam Hussein - his rise to power </a> <i>......The path to power The Iraqi president was born in a village just outside Takrit in April 1937. In his teenage years, Saddam immersed himself in the anti-British and anti-Western atmosphere of the day. At college in Baghdad he joined the Baath party and in 1956 he took part in an abortive coup attempt. After the overthrow of the monarchy two years later Saddam connived in a plot to kill the prime minister, Abdel-Karim Qassem. But the conspiracy was discovered, and Saddam fled the country. In 1963, with the Baath party in control in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein returned home and began jostling for a position of influence. During this period he married his cousin Sajida. They later had two sons and three daughters. But within months, the Baath party had been overthrown and Saddam was jailed, remaining there until the party returned to power in a coup in July 1968. Showing ruthless determination that was to become a hallmark of his leadership, Saddam gained a position on the ruling Revolutionary Command Council. For years he was the power behind the ailing figure of the president, Ahmed Hassan Bakr. In 1979, Saddam achieved his ambition of becoming head of state. The new president started as he intended to go on - putting to death dozens of his rivals......</i> <hr color=green> <center><b>Allrefer</b></center> <a HREF="http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/iraq/iraq19.html">THE EMERGENCE OF SADDAM HUSAYN, 1968-79</a> <i>.....Beginning in the mid-1970s, Bakr was beset by illness and by a series of family tragedies. He increasingly turned over power to Saddam Husayn. By 1977 the party bureaus, the intelligence mechanisms, and even ministers who, according to the Provisional Constitution, should have reported to Bakr, reported to Saddam Husayn. Saddam Husayn, meanwhile, was less inclined to share power, and he viewed the cabinet and the RCC as rubber stamps. On July 16, 1979, President Bakr resigned, and Saddam Husayn officially replaced him as president of the republic, secretary general of the Baath Party Regional Command, chairman of the RCC, and commander in chief of the armed forces........</i> <hr color=green> <center><b>Washinton Post</b></center> <a HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/saddam.htm">Saddam Hussein: Life and Times</a> <i>....1979 BECOMES PRESIDENT Hussein becomes President Stages coup to oust Iraqi president Gen. Ahmed Hassan Bakr, a distant relative who aided Saddam Hussein's political rise. Bakr is placed under house arrest. Saddam Hussein becomes president, and elevates many close family members to power.....</i> <hr color=green>
I would like to examine the documentation that you used. <hr color=green> <a HREF="http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html">Donald Rumsfeld</a> <i>........In August 1974, he was called back to Washington, DC, to serve as Chairman of the transition to the Presidency of Gerald R. Ford. He then became Chief of Staff of the White House and a member of the President's Cabinet (1974-1975). He served as the 13th U.S. Secretary of Defense, the youngest in the country's history (1975-1977). From 1977 to 1985 he served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company. The successful turnaround there earned him awards as the Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry from the Wall Street Transcript (1980) and Financial World (1981). From 1985 to 1990 he was in private business..............</i> <hr color=green> <center><b>CBS</b></center> <a HREF="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/08/iraq/main548282.shtml">Profile: Saddam Hussein</a> <i>........The Baath party returned to power in 1968, after fighting during which, Saddam claims, he rode the first tank that breached the ruling party's compound. He emerged as a top enforcer, purging elements deemed disloyal to the Baathist cause. On July 16, 1979, Saddam replaced Bakr as president — a post he has held since.........</a> <hr color=green> <center><b>Infoplease</b></center> <a HREF="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779964.html">Saddam Hussein</a> <i>.......He escaped from prison and continued his underground activities, playing a significant role in the 1968 revolution that brought the Ba'ath party in to lasting power. As vice president, Hussein wielded considerable power in the government noted for political repression and human rights violations. He also led efforts to modernize the country and develop its weak economy and oil resources. When President Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr resigned in 1979, citing poor health, Hussein became president. Within a month, rivals in the Ba'ath party, accused of plotting a coup, were executed.......</a> <hr color=green> <center><b>Time</b></center> <a HREF="http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101030331-435906,00.html">Inside Saddam's Head (Mar. 31, 2003)</a> <i>.......During nearly 24 years in power, Iraq's strongman never seemed to believe he might face a moment like this...........</i> <hr color=green> <center><b>Telegraph</b></center> <a HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/18/wisad18.xml&site=5"> He dreamed of glory but dealt out only despair</a> <i>.......In 1975, he visited France and Jacques Chirac, then prime minister, took him on a tour of Provence. M Chirac went on to sell Saddam a nuclear reactor for £2 billion and signed a Nuclear Co-operation Treaty. This agreement bound Paris to help Saddam's nuclear programme and also excluded "all persons of Jewish origin" from participating, whether in France or Iraq. M Chirac insisted that the nuclear reactor and technical help were for civilian purposes. Saddam was more honest. "The agreement with France is the first concrete step toward production of the Arab atomic bomb," he said. While seeking arms abroad, Saddam ruthlessly undermined his political rivals at home. By the mid-70s, he had become de facto ruler of Iraq. In July 1979, Saddam was confident enough to insist that al-Bakr retire and hand over the presidency. He celebrated his success by calling a meeting of the Ba'athist leadership, announcing a wholly fictitious "Syrian plot" and having 66 colleagues led out and shot. The chilling video of the meeting was later shown on Iraqi television. With this round of bloodletting, Saddam began his presidency as he meant to continue. His lavishly equipped military machine was ready for use and he launched it against the old Persian foe, neighbouring Iran, in September 1980........</i>
Heh, posted in the wrong thread. Right now we're top dog. The next 50 years is harder to imagine as our workforce diminishes and entitlements consume large chunks of the GDP. If we continue current trends, the world will slowly wean off American dependence. Though even if our prosperity wanes, I don't believe Americans will ever give a damn what other countries think.
Saddam was an "ally" when Rumsfeld met him. We sold Iraq the very WMDs we later purported to invade him over. My point was that I personally knew (in the 80s) that Saddam had been supported by the US, and there is still plenty of speculation that we helped to get him put into power. I never said that Saddam took power in the 80s (though my wording was a bit unclear if you are not reading critically), I said that I knew that we had helped him to take it and that I was aware of this fact in the 80s.
