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.

 

Saddam vs. Dubya: Who's the Better Dictator?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eddie999


The statement, 'When you a ruler, it is better to be cruel than weak' was originally concieved by Machiavelli in his most famous work, 'The Prince'


You can find the actual quote here: www.fordham.edu... It is in chapter XVII

[edit on 2-7-2004 by iceofspades]

[edit on 2-7-2004 by iceofspades]




posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spectator




No WMDs?

story.news.yahoo.com.../afp/20040701/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_rumsfeld_weapons_040701212424&e=3


WASHINGTON (AFP) - Polish troops recently discovered more than a dozen warheads containing mustard or sarin gas in Iraq (news - web sites), US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a radio interview released.


I hate to disappoint you, but that's left over crap that we and other western countries supplied him back in the 80's.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKidSaddam was a real hard-a$$, for sure; but I agree, he was an effective hard-a$$. And the mid-east was actually more stable with him contained.


Why do people want the region stabilized? A goal of the invasion was to destabilize the region, which could allow us to plant the seed of democracy in there. Destabilizing the region helped reduce the government-funded terrorism that made 9/11 possible. Destabilization keeps the terrorists on the defensive instead of attacking the homeland.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I can't help but reminded of the old saying..."The trains ran on time in Nazi Germany".

So, now I suppose just because Hitler had millions of loyal followers, he shouldn't have been removed from power?

This old re-tread of a topic is looking as tired as a one-legged man at a butt-kicking contest........



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spectator


Why do people want the region stabilized? A goal of the invasion was to destabilize the region, which could allow us to plant the seed of democracy in there. Destabilizing the region helped reduce the government-funded terrorism that made 9/11 possible. Destabilization keeps the terrorists on the defensive instead of attacking the homeland.


Don't know much about Mesopotamia, do ya?



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
This old re-tread of a topic is looking as tired as a one-legged man at a butt-kicking contest........


I disagree Pyros, we are discussing 'real time' events.
Sanc'.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   
So East Coast...

You are saying "as lond as the trains run on time?"



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eddie999
It is true that Saddam was a tyrant but that does not make him a bad leader.
...........................
Absurd statement? Thats the first time I've ever heard the work of Machiavelli called absurd.


Eddie, by your avatar I can see why you praise "Stalin" or any other dictator.... but yes, it is an absurd statement, a good leader doesn't have to be a dictator, and because these dictators might have kept their people under their rule successfully for a long time doesn't mean they were good leaders. They were despots, and that was all they were....

-----edited to erase the word "good" beside despot.......they don't mix------


[edit on 2-7-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

I hate to disappoint you, but that's left over crap that we and other western countries supplied him back in the 80's.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]


Actually, I hate to disappoint you eck, but that stuff was given to them by the Russians....wonder why you mostly see terrorists with AK47s and not with M16s?.......

Well, the Chinese, North Koreans and a bunch of other despots also have helped terrorists on obtaining any kinds of weapons. Who is the major exporter of illegal weapons to the US and the world Eck? do you even know?





[edit on 2-7-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Actually, I hate to disappoint you eck, but that stuff was given to them by the Russians....wonder why you mostly see terrorists with AK47s and not with M16s?.......

Isn't it obvious. The CIA stole these weapons from Russia and gave them to the terrorists, right ECK?



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   
www.vexen.co.uk...

Now people are doing thesis on America hating.

I am seriously asking this...

Is America hated because of its "success?" America is the most powerful country the world has ever known in its history. Is that what it comes down to? "I am jelous of your power and that means you cannot do anything right because I can not fight against your influence that I do not have?"

All of you in these threads who think America/George Bush/ the military is bad/evil are you just jelous?

I hate to tell you but Bush is not evil. He did not lie to get a pipeline put through Afghanistan. Abu Grahib was an abberation and the beheading of innocents is the reality and the two are not morally equivilent.

Let the anger and denial begin.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I truly feel that people hate America and Bush because it's "cool" to have that opinion and share it with people. I see all the theories about the ties to the Saudi's and our pasts support to Al Quaida, but I relly think it all boils down to Hollywood and the media's agenda to bash Bush. If the majority of Hollywood hates Bush, then it must be the cool thing to do. I mean, name a cool celebrity that is running around bashing Kerry and praising Bush all over the place. Hard to do. But all you have to do is watch a little tv to see all the "cool" hollywood moguls and thier leftist views and there ya go.

Bottom line, it aint "cool" to be pro Bush. If you think I'm wrong, try and find a pro Bush, or pro American, or any patriotic thread that was started on ATS and see how quickly it was bashed bashed.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spectator

On March 19, 2003, U.S. forces began military operations in Iraq. Addressing the nation about the purpose of the war on the day the bombing began, President Bush stated: The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. One year later, many doubts have been raised regarding the Administrations assertions about the threat posed by Iraq.


No WMDs?

story.news.yahoo.com.../afp/20040701/wl_mideast_afp/us_iraq_rumsfeld_weapons_040701212424&e=3


WASHINGTON (AFP) - Polish troops recently discovered more than a dozen warheads containing mustard or sarin gas in Iraq (news - web sites), US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a radio interview released.


I guess we're being unilateral with the help of Poland, right?

[edit on 7/2/2004 by Spectator]


Sadly, Spectator, this information will not help the Bush administration's position on the Iraq war, primarily because:

1. Those people who rely on the news and official documentation to prove their points against the war in Iraq, will suddenly develop deep suspicions regarding the news and official revelation that the WMDs actually DO/have/and did exist. They will say it was false news, trumped up by zionists or coerced by the Bush administration or planted by US forces to cover their backside. You simply can't argue with this type of mentality. The same news sources they legitimatize by quoting them to uphold their viewpoints, they will, at the drop of a hat, suddenly declare null and void, should those news sources indicate anything they don't already firmly believe.

What you should do, if you're truly interested is, find a particularly outspoken member, track the WMD issues he/she has debated and the news/information sources he/she uses as proof, then find the same news/information source revealing that the WMDs do exist. Then type up both quotes, list the news source, the link source, and call the person on the carpet. If they dodge out and say the WMDs were falsified/concocted/planted, you will have your proof that these type of people aren't interested in the truth but only what news fits their viewpoint (no matter if it is even a viewpoint based on information that was later proven to be in error by THE SAME NEWS SOURCE). That, my friend, should be a clear indicator that you need to find something else to do with your time.

2. You're fighting human nature - you can't win this battle.

3. More than anything, the evidence of WMD in Iraq, has laid to rest the incorrect assumption the Democratic Party has been forwarding as a primary weapon against the re-election of Bush - i.e. that Bush is just a greedy, war mongerer, that Saddam was not a threat, that there were never any WMDs in Iraq, that it was all about money and power. Their only salvation at this point is to accuse the media of lying about it OR to accuse the Bush Administration/Bush War Machine of planting the WMDs. The other possibility is, they will find some new Bush issue to harp on and try to fade the WMD issue into the background, as now, it has become a glaring hole.

[edit on 2-7-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Undomiel, sadly, I understand exactly what you mean.

The funniest thing is seeing someone keep shifting the points of their arguments as to why the Bush administration is Satan incarnate. First, it's the unilateral war that will result in guerilla warfare and the Middle Eastern Vietnam. Unofrtunately, while N. Vietnam was supported by the Communist powers, Iraq had no such luck, and the US steamrolled into Baghdad. Then people whine that it was unilateral. Except that 32 other countries are involved in the coalition. Then they say that life was better under Saddam. Except that we have hundreds of thousands of mass graves. When does it end.

I guess it's just important to provide balance. Loony Left. Reich Right. It's important to get both sides squabbling.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Same thing happened with the beheading videos. It's amazing to me how far some people will go to support their favorite candidate. A goodly portion of the news about the War on Terror is hearsay and conjecture, either for it or against it. As a matter of fact, the general public and the media knows ZIP (as in zero, zilch, nada, nothing) about what is and has been transpiring, primarily because it's top secret and sensitive. How do they go about explicitly proving they are doing the right thing, if in proving it, they have to reveal top secret/classified/sensitive information that would not only hurt the effort but perhaps result in even more deaths than the War on Terror itself? The truth is, we (the general public) know diddly squat, and those who dislike the War on Terror (for whatever reason) take advantage of that fact and manipulate what little information there is available to fit their own agenda. It's no small surprise to me that we still haven't been clued in to why the US was so adamant that Saddam was a threat, as safe revelation of information is most likely severly limited at best - the keyword here being "safe". This is why propaganda is so prevalent in war time situations - there's always somebody out there with an agenda that sees the opportunity to feed that agenda in the absence of proof to the contrary.



[edit on 2-7-2004 by Undomiel]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 02:57 PM
link   
We all know the Second Amendment of the Constitution garantees all individuals to bear arms, while democrats, like Clinton, liberals and some others have been working on banning the Second Amendment, imagine who has been working for your right to bear arms?

"WASHINGTON A footnote in a Supreme Court filing written by the Bush administration's top lawyer marks a full reversal of the government's 40-year-old policy on gun ownership and lends weight to the interpretation that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms."

Excerpted from.
www.foxnews.com...

Humm...lets see, under which party would it be easier to have a dictator.....
under the current administration which has been working on the right of people to bear arms? or..... those who keep trying to find a way to ban weapons and call the Constitution as radical and the Bill of Rights as radical?

Lets see what are some of the quotes from democrats about Saddam and wmd.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


Excerpted from.
www.davidstuff.com...

There are a lot more from the above link. So which is it? Was Bush also lying and decieving everyone when he was not president in 1998?


Oh and Eck, to anwser your question on who would be a better dictator....look to the democrats...they seem to be working on it.


[edit on 2-7-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Of course its worse - pardon me, but - you idiots. Of course its worse. We just finished bomb the sh*t outta it, what would you think? You think it is gonna be perfect right after we just completed a war campaign against it!?

This is the way the U.S. works. Going to war means: Bombing the sh*t outta it, then rebuilding. We just handed it back over. And you are saying the judicial system is bad, the electricity is bad, etc etc. Of course! It is WAR! Things get bombed, this is what happens.

Give it six - eight months and see how better/worse off Iraq is.

-wD



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
ECK.... Can you find anything else to do other than bash Bush with your nonsense ? You accuse Bush for failing to prevent a terrorist attack then complain about going after them. I see why you would favor a person like john kerry. Well in case you havent noticed, there ability to conduct terror operations against us has been severely diminissed, Thanks to Bush and Company.

Contrary to what you think you know, saddam supported terror groups and had links to bin laden and yes saddam had WMD.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
WeBDeviL

Outstanding !!!!!!!!! Very well put.




posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
You know what the GAO alsot reported along with that ECK

That more kids were immunized than prior to the war, and that more children were going to school.

Nice of you to overlook that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join