It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

His Excellency Saddam Hussein, Urges Iraqis Not to Hate the People of the West

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think we just request for the President to be called "Mr. President".

Not His Excellency or anything else.


Indeed, as is the norm with the US, they seem to follow a completely different set of etiquette rules to everyone else. I noticed this whilst reading up on it earlier.

It may also be the case that informally, say in a meeting, Mr President will suffice. That is the case in other countries, for example, we would just say "Prime Minister" or "Sir". With the Queen, you may address her informally as "Ma'am".

But at formal functions, that is where etiquette is mostly concerned with. I would be surprised if US diplomats didn't follow normal etiquette and also refer to everyone by the correct title, as well as in the correct order.




posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Flyers out of all the people who have posted I think you are most deserving of a direct result. It’s when you said lies-untruths like this that you really got my attention…

Under that dictator Christians and Muslims suffered mass murders (hundreds of thousands of them) and had state sponsored mass rape, so no one was 'living together'. They are just being murdered together.

I just feel sorry that you now need to use made up facts to support your arguments. Of course it wouldn’t be the first time the anti Saddam lobby has done this…
members.iimetro.com.au...
But like all lies they are greatly counter productive to the free market of ideas, and therefore to progress itself. Read through this response and you’ll definitely see what I mean.

But first I want to counter some of your opinions…
Originally posted by Flyers Fan

Unless he dies, his followers will use him as an excuse to take hostages and to threaten to blow up things to gain his release.

I think both the Resistance and the Terrorist’s knew we would never release Saddam as long as we had him in our custody.

Ironically Flyers Fan the reality is that the predominant factor in causing terrorism against our troops is the fact that the majority of people in Iraq want us out of Iraq…
Even mainstream news research confirms this reality…
(Here’s some right wing-respected sources for you…)
22 October 2005: “Up to 65% of Iraqis support attacks against our troops”
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml
According to the populist party of America 82% of Iraqis want us out
www.populistamerica.com...
Even WorldPublicOpinion.org says its 7 in 10.
www.worldpublicopinion.org...
USA today said: 28th of April 2004: Only a third of Iraqis believe “occupation is doing more good than harm”. www.usatoday.com...


They suffered under him

Most people now understand that Iraqis enjoyed many benefits under Saddam in comparison to those benefits they have today. Today even the rubbish collection in Baghdad and most of Iraq has gone. Iraqis are fighting an internal war against Muslim fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism is winning; in part because it is aided by our democracy; or is it the fact 60% of Iraqis are Shiites and about the same number are impoverished fundamentalists?.
Either way Sunni and Shiite Iraqis were once well integrated into an orderly, peaceful but politically authoritarian society. The death toll of this authoritarian state is a fraction of the death toll caused by the sectarian violence; regretfully “liberated” during our 3 plus year occupation.
Because through political oppression through Saddam only killed 300,000 (even according to the highest ratings) www.moderateindependent.com...
Compare that with the 650,000 Iraqis killed since the liberation of their societies most vicious hatful elements.
Furthermore the 300,000 figure (spread well over 25-34 years) (depending on how you judge Saddam really controlled Iraq) is another 180,000 down if you take into account the violence against the Kurds. This is relevant to the context of the 1980’s when Iraq was fighting Iran and those within its borders who openly sided with them. Therefore it is not that relevant to what life was like under Saddam 2003 or even what it would have been like in 2007.

In my opinion Saddam was the right leader for this rather alien foreign country.
His son Uday was a bit of a nut case. There was a time Saddam was going to have him killed because his son had murdered a close friend (food taster). Personally I wish Saddam had, because a few more people would still have been alive today. However Uday also played a significant useful role within the government so this stance isn’t as straightforward as it may first seem.

Saddam did build some really nice palaces during his days in power. But not one palace was even completed during Sanctions. And had even all the money from the oil for food programme gone to Iraqi people they would only have had 300 dollars each. The fact some money was taken is in my opinion completely justified because it prevented the regime from disintegrating which like its removal has, would have led to the kind of Iraqi society we have today, and therefore far more death. Anyway I don’t like the idea of pro-Iranian government no matter how many Iraqi people may look up to it.

By getting rid of his WMD’s Saddam did we what we wanted. We should have lifted sanctions (accept perhaps bar those which would legalise military equipment sales). And if we had Iraq would not be a military threat, because its military would still be outdated, and its society would not be in uncontrolled, unreasonable and unpredictable state of bloody civil war (with and against Muslim fundamentalism).

Iraq was once close to becoming a fully westernised place to live in. A bad place to do the wrong kinds politics, but a decent place to visit, do trade with, or live in (if you can). The whole stupid war could have been avoided, and our populace, economy and politics-progress would be better of for it.

I hope for George Bush’s sake that: the camera just lies, the psychic hallucinates (when they tell the truth) and so too does the human brain, and any other things which testify there is indeed an afterlife.

CHRISTIANS

Side Note
What I laugh at is how many (so called) American Christians voted for him because he opposed stem cell research. Isn’t this just another bold political path George Bush chose to take at the expense of human life?
(Not least to mention the animals held hostage in our Labourites by our demands to solve human diseases). I’ll support experimenting on few skin cells. After all they couldn’t even naturally outside of the human body). Stem cells never feel pain, but Iraqis do, and so do contradictions caused by costly religious beliefs. It’s funny that under Bush this is happening in America through one way and in Iraq through another.

Also…
Here is how Iraq used to have 1.4 million Christians in the 1980’s
english.aljazeera.net...
Today Iraq’s Christian form less than 3% of the population… www.cia.gov...
That’s because the population has shrunk by half since the occupation
www.thenewamerican.com...
www.compassdirect.org...
www.accessmylibrary.com...
www.catholic.org...

According to the last link Iraq’s Christian population was 1.2 million in 2003. Today it’s about 450,000 according to some of others. It’s a far cry from when Saddam ruled Iraq and his excellent English speaking, top foreign minister was a Catholic Christian
news.bbc.co.uk...

I think George Bush has been a bad ambassador for that secret organisation called Skull and Cross bones. He’s so bad I almost reckon we should restrict people from organisations like these. But then I don’t know them, and so I guess, I can’t judge them.

But hay just imagine what it must be like to be the current president of the United Stases? I reckon it would be like hell, because you would know that if there is a hell you would be going to it. And if there isn’t a hell your life is meaningless. This I suppose would be the most reassuring belief.
I guess its not just Bush; there are others like Rumsfeld, and some other extraordinary moral criminals who (unlike some of those in Texas) actually deserve the electric chair.

Still
At least you are unwittingly or otherwise siding with the Bush Regime and those who oppose Saddam Hussein like Osama Bin Laden, the Iranian President (not to mention his Craziness “Ayatollah Nuclear”) the Iraqi Shiites who suffered so much under Saddam, and suffer today too; but at least are now free to build a Muslim Fundamentalist state democratically. Intellectually I look forward to seeing the fruits of your anti Saddam, somewhat Ba’thist lobbying paying of at the next Iraqi elections. But politically and emotionally I oppose it all the way. Why don’t you join me?



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Most people now understand that Iraqis enjoyed many benefits under Saddam in comparison to those benefits they have today.


Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight ..... benefits. I'll PASS on those 'benefits'.

www.foxnews.com...
- www.pbs.org...
- www.npr.org...
- www.moreorless.au.com...
- www.state.gov...
- www.usaid.gov...
- www.cnn.com...
- www.9neesan.com... (disturbing pictures)
- news.bbc.co.uk...
- www.blackfive.net...
- www.foxnews.com...
- sportsillustrated.cnn.com...


Sunni and Shiite Iraqis were once well integrated into an orderly, peaceful but politically authoritarian society.


You call those links the result of an orderly and peaceful society?



through political oppression through Saddam only killed 300,000 (even according to the highest ratings)


"ONLY killed 300,00" ???? ONLY???? Oh .. and the 'highest ratings' have it at 2 million.


Compare that with the 650,000 Iraqis killed since the liberation ..


Flat out wrong. The coalition hasn't even come close to killing 650,000 in three years.


In my opinion Saddam was the right leader for this rather alien foreign country.


God help you.


His son Uday was a bit of a nut case.

Gee.. ya' think?


There was a time Saddam was going to have him killed


Yes .. part of that peaceful and orderly utopia that you claim was life under Saddam. The freak was going to murder his own son. But hey .. why the heck not .. he murdered his sons-in-law as well. Not to mention up to 2 million other Iraqis. Nice and peaceful and orderly ...


Personally I wish Saddam had, because a few more people would still have been alive today.


So you wish the father would have murdered the son in order to maintain the 'peaceful and orderly' Iraq?


Uday also played a significant useful role within the government


Yes. A significant and useful role in the mass terrorizing, murdering and raping of Iraqis. Definately.


The fact some money was taken is in my opinion completely.. justified ..


You say that Saddam was justified in stealing billions from the Iraqis, which resulted in the deaths of Iraqis, to pay off the UN security council in order to continue his deathly rule?

All I can say to your 'logic' is ...
and ... I'll pray for you.

Nothing else to say .... bu-bye


[edit on 1/8/2007 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Firstly nobody is accusing the coalition of killing 650,000 Iraqis. The vast majority is caused by Iraqis fighting Iraqis and this what I meant by “the situation we have liberated”. It’s this situation which is killing Iraqis faster than Saddam did…
www.moderateindependent.com...


the 'highest ratings' have it at 2 million.

The highest figures do not accuse Saddam of killing 2 million people through political oppression (well unless you invent it). They accuse him of killing 2 million in total.
See this link; it accuses him of killing 2 million but only between 180 and 340 through political oppression over his entire rule…
www.moreorless.au.com...
Well over a million of this alleged two million were lost because of the Iran Iraq War (which Iran caused by arming the Kurds and bribing their leaders) (so that negotiations with Saddam which would of them autonomy and fair share of Iraq’s oil failed back in the early 1970’s (I think its 73 or 4 to be precise).
It was this bribing which caused Saddam to take back the land he had just given to Iran 6 months before the war in order to try to sue for peace.

And given about 750,000 of those deaths are Iranian, let’s not forget they are the enemy. Or at least they are my enemy because unlike you do stick up for the human rights of people who are indoctrinated, and indoctrinate others to hate us, and westernisation as whole.

If your “friend” Iran had not been bribing and arming the Kurds the Anfal campaign would never have happened. If you’re “friend” Iran had not been doing this at a time when the Iraqi state was fighting for its very survival then the brutality of the campaign could have been moderated because the resources would have been their to do it. All Kurdish right stuff is expensive when you’re fighting for your national survival, and had England suffered a group like the Welsh armed by and fighting for the enemy during a world two situation then we too may have used all methods and means at our disposal.
And it was because America (in my stupidly) supplied weapons to both sides (in order to prevent Saddam conquering Iran and therefore maybe becoming too powerful) that the death toll in the Iran-Iraq war was so high anyway.

I don’t care how many links you give to the suffering of Muslim Fundamentalist, pro Iranians, and enemies of Western civilisation. The only thing which makes my heart sympathetic is decent Iraqis who just want to live civilised lives (that’s regardless of each others religious beliefs). Given that 650,000 of these people have already been killed by the violence we have liberated….
1. www.washingtonpost.com...
2. www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/10/11/uiraq.xml
3. www.guardian.co.uk...

And given that even the highest ranking authoritative sources only allege 180 to 340 thousand deaths (through political oppression) it is consequently Saddam’s management of Iraq; and not our own, or our Shiite dominated democracies management of Iraq which has my applause.

To see references to the 92% literacy, 93% free healthcare access and once approaching first world economy Iraq once had see my 2nd reply to this above top secret link….
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Basically my stance makes sense because even if one tolerates the concept of an unfriendly government in the name of human rights; the fact is it simply isn’t delivering.
How can a stupid democracy deliver in Iraq when by definition it has representative of the people? How can it deliver when most people will vote for the local (protecting) militia when they agree with it, and stay away from the polls (if they don’t decapitated-or even disembowelled) when they don’t. Fear rules Iraq always, always will do until we have another period of stability that will (eventually) make the Iraqi people fit for democracy.


The freak was going to murder his own son. But hey .. why the heck not .. he murdered his sons-in-law as well..


What Flyers Fan? Your sticking up for the human rights of Uday, now are you? Ur I think that’s when people really say…

God help you.


Oh and God help you again because your sticking up for those criminal sons in law.
They were traitors and thieves and all killers of people anyway. Difference was that in the end they served no higher purposes (such as Iraqi stability); just self enrichment.
Got to tell you if I had people like that in my family I would ether murder them (if I was a dictator and they prominent in my government) or (as a civilian) I would give them to the police (who “hopefully” might kill them in their cells).
But it doesn’t surprise me that you’re so concerned about the rights of evil people that you’ll disagree with me that Saddam should of killed Uday, and was also right to kill Hussein Kamel and Saddam Kamel.
And when I was referring to Uday’s significant roles in the regime it was things like how he headed Iraq’s major daily newspaper, had much control over propaganda (to keep backward people under control of course) and had many influences in the Ba’th party. There’s nothing significant about the crimes he committed other than the fact Saddam disapproved of nearly all of them; and that is primarily why he wanted to get rid of Uday (on more than one occasion too). The best thing Saddam did to Uday (apart from putting him in prison) was setting fire to his prized cars in front of him. See Saddam had character.

Finally Saddam was completely justified in taking as much money as he needed from the oil for food programme because I’ve already stated (and hopefully shown) the violence without his regime is far greater than the violence caused by the regime. (Plus the fact Saddam had cooperated, therefore making the sanctions wrong practically as well as morally anyway).
Furthermore it was the WMD disarmament which I believe made the invasion pragmatic (on paper) and therefore ultimately cost Saddam his life. Because he could have let the Iraqi people starve as much as he liked; knowing the prospect of biological weapons in terrorist hands would prevent any invasion).


In my mind anyone not killed because of political oppression is irrelevant (because besides being mostly Iranian) they have no baring on the kind of government needed for future of Iraq (so be it if military equipment sales would need to be controlled).

The other alleged 1.7 million were killed with weapons originally supplied by the West; for the simple reason the deaths of the alleged 1.7 million (more often than not) suited us. And that is just one more advantage to having the right kind of government in Iraq. Long live the West is what I say; long live the Ba’thist who promises to spread it in place of those (far more murderous) religious extremists.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by marcopolo
What good was killing another man ever going to do? he should be locked away in a prison.


If he is locked away in jail, people would still live in fear. There would be a strong chance of Saddam escaping. Also, if he was still alive in jail it would give his supporters hope, and drive to fight on and kill others.

Saddam had to go, for good.

-- Boat

PS: Saddam enjoyed killing and raping people!!!!



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
WOW!!!1

Talk about a warped vision of past and current events...
Shaded loosely in the veneer of authored intellect....

I guess the ability to "see" anything in the way that you want and not how it really is, could be a handy trait. Unrealistic, but handy I suppose.

Semper



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Indeed, as is the norm with the US, they seem to follow a completely different set of etiquette rules to everyone else. I noticed this whilst reading up on it earlier.


If you want to refer to George W. Bush as "his Excellency" then go right ahead, it's just something we don't do.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join