Treason Bill

[Blues Fairy 0]

The term Stability is usually used in a positive context (economic prosperity, rule of law, reasonable social welfare, smooth functioning of govt. structures etc). I just don't see how anyone can apply that to a totalitarian regime like Saddam's or Kim's or whoever else's. Misapplying the concept of stability to a repressive regime implies that the said regime is/was in some ways more desirable for the country than what comes/came after. Which is an absolutely insane thing to say.

Edited December 21, 2008 by Blues Fairy

[Blues Fairy 0]

The term "stability" isn't a positive or negative. It is just "stability." That's not a moral judgment, it's just stating the facts.

No matter how much we like or dislike Putin, he's here to stay. But, if we learned anything from Saddam Hussein, it was that even a totalitarian regime is better for the stability of a country than being invaded by a foreign power and "democratized."

Are you very sure the above was said in a neutral, non-judgemental way?

[sara..... 371]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

[Ban Hammer 14,468]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

better is subjective i suppose. no rape rooms, no worrying about saddam killing off your entire family, no worries about saddam's sons raping your daughters or wife, no ears being cut off in the military.

[sara..... 371]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

better is subjective i suppose. no rape rooms, no worrying about saddam killing off your entire family, no worries about saddam's sons raping your daughters or wife, no ears being cut off in the military.

no that worry is not there. just now the worry of the very people we are suppose to be protecting worry abut us going into their homes and raping their wifes and daughters, or pulling them off the street when they go to market, and lets not forget the wonderful kids we send over there that killed off the girls family raped her and killed her off to and tried to hide it by burning everything, she was i believe 14, we have killed off more of their people than saddam every did and when he did kill them off with chemicals where did he get them from? US the good old USA

our men were sent to a country that they had no clue about culture or religion. i agree that is no fault of theirs, but what was done in the name of liberation is our fault.

what we did was prolly make more terrorist because of our own actions than there was to begin with, every family member that lost someone because of our actions are now or enemy.

look charles most the time i really enjoy what u post and laugh and have a good time with it. but what we did to Iraq in MY own opinion is worse than what saddam did and he was one of the Worst excuses of a human. I simply meant when i first posted that the people had a system better than what they have now, the women and children can not freely walk about, for that matter neither can the men. we are suppose to be protecting them liberating them what have we done to liberate them that makes us better than saddam?

and it is only my opinion i think on the iraq matter there will always be difference of opinions.

[Ban Hammer 14,468]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

better is subjective i suppose. no rape rooms, no worrying about saddam killing off your entire family, no worries about saddam's sons raping your daughters or wife, no ears being cut off in the military.

no that worry is not there. just now the worry of the very people we are suppose to be protecting worry abut us going into their homes and raping their wifes and daughters, or pulling them off the street when they go to market, and lets not forget the wonderful kids we send over there that killed off the girls family raped her and killed her off to and tried to hide it by burning everything, she was i believe 14, we have killed off more of their people than saddam every did and when he did kill them off with chemicals where did he get them from? US the good old USA

our men were sent to a country that they had no clue about culture or religion. i agree that is no fault of theirs, but what was done in the name of liberation is our fault.

what we did was prolly make more terrorist because of our own actions than there was to begin with, every family member that lost someone because of our actions are now or enemy.

look charles most the time i really enjoy what u post and laugh and have a good time with it. but what we did to Iraq in MY own opinion is worse than what saddam did and he was one of the Worst excuses of a human. I simply meant when i first posted that the people had a system better than what they have now, the women and children can not freely walk about, for that matter neither can the men. we are suppose to be protecting them liberating them what have we done to liberate them that makes us better than saddam?

and it is only my opinion i think on the iraq matter there will always be difference of opinions.

i think one major difference between saddam's rule and our occupation is the rape topic - whereas under saddam it was condoned (done by saddam's son and others in power) and while it happens during the us occupation, it's not condoned and the perpetrators are punished.

while the usa did provide some material for chemical weapons, it was not nearly as much as other countries:

The know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained by Saddam's regime from foreign firms.[12] By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie Ltd.) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[13]

link

[sara..... 371]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

better is subjective i suppose. no rape rooms, no worrying about saddam killing off your entire family, no worries about saddam's sons raping your daughters or wife, no ears being cut off in the military.

no that worry is not there. just now the worry of the very people we are suppose to be protecting worry abut us going into their homes and raping their wifes and daughters, or pulling them off the street when they go to market, and lets not forget the wonderful kids we send over there that killed off the girls family raped her and killed her off to and tried to hide it by burning everything, she was i believe 14, we have killed off more of their people than saddam every did and when he did kill them off with chemicals where did he get them from? US the good old USA

our men were sent to a country that they had no clue about culture or religion. i agree that is no fault of theirs, but what was done in the name of liberation is our fault.

what we did was prolly make more terrorist because of our own actions than there was to begin with, every family member that lost someone because of our actions are now or enemy.

look charles most the time i really enjoy what u post and laugh and have a good time with it. but what we did to Iraq in MY own opinion is worse than what saddam did and he was one of the Worst excuses of a human. I simply meant when i first posted that the people had a system better than what they have now, the women and children can not freely walk about, for that matter neither can the men. we are suppose to be protecting them liberating them what have we done to liberate them that makes us better than saddam?

and it is only my opinion i think on the iraq matter there will always be difference of opinions.

i think one major difference between saddam's rule and our occupation is the rape topic - whereas under saddam it was condoned (done by saddam's son and others in power) and while it happens during the us occupation, it's not condoned and the perpetrators are punished.

while the usa did provide some material for chemical weapons, it was not nearly as much as other countries:

The know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained by Saddam's regime from foreign firms.[12] By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie Ltd.) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[13]

link

and on this i agree with u 100 percent

[akdiver 3]

The Patriot Act and others, while deplorable in their own right, weren't motivated by a paranoid desire keep this government in power.

You're kidding, right??

If people went around spouting off the very same words used by the nation's "founding fathers" and began to ferment serious dissent and got people to raise up arms against a government that needed to be dissolved, you just see how fast the government squashes such a movement.

Hell, read the questions on many of the immigration forms. Pay particular attention to ones like, "Have you ever advocated (either directly or indirectly) the overthrow of any government by force or violence?" - and yet, that's exactly how this country was founded.

You bet your ### the government will do anything it can to keep itself in power.

[Brad and Vika 129]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

better is subjective i suppose. no rape rooms, no worrying about saddam killing off your entire family, no worries about saddam's sons raping your daughters or wife, no ears being cut off in the military.

no that worry is not there. just now the worry of the very people we are suppose to be protecting worry abut us going into their homes and raping their wifes and daughters, or pulling them off the street when they go to market, and lets not forget the wonderful kids we send over there that killed off the girls family raped her and killed her off to and tried to hide it by burning everything, she was i believe 14, we have killed off more of their people than saddam every did and when he did kill them off with chemicals where did he get them from? US the good old USA

our men were sent to a country that they had no clue about culture or religion. i agree that is no fault of theirs, but what was done in the name of liberation is our fault.

what we did was prolly make more terrorist because of our own actions than there was to begin with, every family member that lost someone because of our actions are now or enemy.

look charles most the time i really enjoy what u post and laugh and have a good time with it. but what we did to Iraq in MY own opinion is worse than what saddam did and he was one of the Worst excuses of a human. I simply meant when i first posted that the people had a system better than what they have now, the women and children can not freely walk about, for that matter neither can the men. we are suppose to be protecting them liberating them what have we done to liberate them that makes us better than saddam?

and it is only my opinion i think on the iraq matter there will always be difference of opinions.

This goes directly to the stability issue last raised by Blues Fairy. How many Iraquis were beheaded, or otherwise executed after we invaded and "stabilized" the country? Thousands apparently. This did not happen during Saddam's regime, therefore it was more "stable"

[slim 1,533]

The term Stability is usually used in a positive context (economic prosperity, rule of law, reasonable social welfare, smooth functioning of govt. structures etc). I just don't see how anyone can apply that to a totalitarian regime like Saddam's or Kim's or whoever else's. Misapplying the concept of stability to a repressive regime implies that the said regime is/was in some ways more desirable for the country than what comes/came after. Which is an absolutely insane thing to say.

I'm glad you brought up Kim as well.

Under Kim (and Saddam) there is ZERO threat to anyone outside their borders, and that's what we call stability. As you said, it is more desirable than having a "free government" that is, in essence, a quagmire where anti-U.S. and anti-Western sentiment can openly develop and thrive, eventually pulling in numerous other countries from the region and alienating us on the world stage.

North Korea is a perfcect example of this (as was Iraq during Saddam) because under Kim North Koreans are confined within their borders and forced to live in a manner that doesn't disrupt the outside world.

And for the record, stability has never, ever had anything to do with happy things like economic prosperity and rule of law. Who do you think allowed Saddam to take power in power in the first place?

[Ban Hammer 14,468]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

better is subjective i suppose. no rape rooms, no worrying about saddam killing off your entire family, no worries about saddam's sons raping your daughters or wife, no ears being cut off in the military.

no that worry is not there. just now the worry of the very people we are suppose to be protecting worry abut us going into their homes and raping their wifes and daughters, or pulling them off the street when they go to market, and lets not forget the wonderful kids we send over there that killed off the girls family raped her and killed her off to and tried to hide it by burning everything, she was i believe 14, we have killed off more of their people than saddam every did and when he did kill them off with chemicals where did he get them from? US the good old USA

our men were sent to a country that they had no clue about culture or religion. i agree that is no fault of theirs, but what was done in the name of liberation is our fault.

what we did was prolly make more terrorist because of our own actions than there was to begin with, every family member that lost someone because of our actions are now or enemy.

look charles most the time i really enjoy what u post and laugh and have a good time with it. but what we did to Iraq in MY own opinion is worse than what saddam did and he was one of the Worst excuses of a human. I simply meant when i first posted that the people had a system better than what they have now, the women and children can not freely walk about, for that matter neither can the men. we are suppose to be protecting them liberating them what have we done to liberate them that makes us better than saddam?

and it is only my opinion i think on the iraq matter there will always be difference of opinions.

This goes directly to the stability issue last raised by Blues Fairy. How many Iraquis were beheaded, or otherwise executed after we invaded and "stabilized" the country? Thousands apparently. This did not happen during Saddam's regime, therefore it was more "stable"

while i'm not sure whether saddam killed more by bullet/execution than a bunch of hoodlums did by beheading, nor am i certain why the death count via this or that is the unit of measure as to whether that was correct or this was wrong, i'm certain of one thing - iraqis do have more political freedoms than they did under saddam.

point in fact - had gwb visited iraq under saddam and this guy threw a shoe at gwb, the shoe thrower wouldn't be among the living right now, along with quite a few of his family members.

[sara..... 371]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

sorry charles have not checked this thread in a while. no it is not forgivable, its a cold hard fact, alot of our guys that went in to liberate iraq didnt do much better and that also is not forgivable, the point i was trying to make is we have not made their life any better but worse. the iraq people expected it from saddam but we were suppose to be better than that.

better is subjective i suppose. no rape rooms, no worrying about saddam killing off your entire family, no worries about saddam's sons raping your daughters or wife, no ears being cut off in the military.

no that worry is not there. just now the worry of the very people we are suppose to be protecting worry abut us going into their homes and raping their wifes and daughters, or pulling them off the street when they go to market, and lets not forget the wonderful kids we send over there that killed off the girls family raped her and killed her off to and tried to hide it by burning everything, she was i believe 14, we have killed off more of their people than saddam every did and when he did kill them off with chemicals where did he get them from? US the good old USA

our men were sent to a country that they had no clue about culture or religion. i agree that is no fault of theirs, but what was done in the name of liberation is our fault.

what we did was prolly make more terrorist because of our own actions than there was to begin with, every family member that lost someone because of our actions are now or enemy.

look charles most the time i really enjoy what u post and laugh and have a good time with it. but what we did to Iraq in MY own opinion is worse than what saddam did and he was one of the Worst excuses of a human. I simply meant when i first posted that the people had a system better than what they have now, the women and children can not freely walk about, for that matter neither can the men. we are suppose to be protecting them liberating them what have we done to liberate them that makes us better than saddam?

and it is only my opinion i think on the iraq matter there will always be difference of opinions.

This goes directly to the stability issue last raised by Blues Fairy. How many Iraquis were beheaded, or otherwise executed after we invaded and "stabilized" the country? Thousands apparently. This did not happen during Saddam's regime, therefore it was more "stable"

while i'm not sure whether saddam killed more by bullet/execution than a bunch of hoodlums did by beheading, nor am i certain why the death count via this or that is the unit of measure as to whether that was correct or this was wrong, i'm certain of one thing - iraqis do have more political freedoms than they did under saddam.

point in fact - had gwb visited iraq under saddam and this guy threw a shoe at gwb, the shoe thrower wouldn't be among the living right now, along with quite a few of his family members.

the same can be said for saudi, and pakistan

[slim 1,533]

I still don't see how any of that benefits us more than the situation in 2002.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

As with any broadly defined law, it all depends on how it is interpreted by the government. What we should all be concerned about is, if this is just the next step into consolidation of power by Putin. Unfortunately, this proposed legislation has many ways of turning any democratic positions upside down. Only time will tell, but as we have seen, Putin is not planning on retiring from public office any time soon. This has all the possibilities of returning to a totalitarian regime.

Has the possiblities of returning to a totaltarion regime?

News Flash for you....Tsar Putin and Co. are a and have been a totaltarion regime. Russians love their dictators, and Tsar Putin is right down that alley. I don't want to explain the typical Russian mindset on here...I would get banned for sure, but we are talking about a people who just recently voted Stalin #3 for "Greatest Russian of all Time".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2163481.ece

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8122800263.html

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/ar...es_whitewashed/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Russia

[Blues Fairy 0]

people who just recently voted Stalin #3 for "Greatest Russian of all Time".

Actually the poll question was to choose "the most influential figure in Russian history". If we consider Stalin's impact (not greatness as you quote above), he could well qualify for a place in the rating.