News

Is this the pot calling the kettle black ??

Discussion in 'Other Off Topic Forum' started by FLATOUTRACING, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. FLATOUTRACING

    FLATOUTRACING F1 Rookie

    Aug 20, 2001
    2,684
    East Coast
    Full Name:
    Jon K.
    Maybe the terrorists in Turkey could take out the Vatican while the are at it. Preferably when Hillary is there to visit the Pope!!!

    Read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324631.stm

    What one Cardinal said:

    "Seeing him like this, a man in his tragedy, despite all the heavy blame he bears, I had a sense of compassion for him," he told reporters.

    Blah, Blah,.......yeah you guys also had a helluva lot of compassion for all those damn bishop's molesting young boys. Enough passion to cover the whole damn thing up for the past 30 years.

    I have no respect anymore for the Pope or the Vatican. I guess it's ok to look the other way when your people are fondeling little boys genitals........

    ....but not ok to do a dental test on a tyrant that has slaughtered millions of of innocent victims.

    Too bad the Vatican didn't go through with their plan to have the Pope visit Saddam as a human shield before the war broke out.

    What a crock of sh*t.

    That's my rant for the week folks!

    Regards,

    Jon P. Kofod
    1995 F355 Challenge #23 (for sale)
    www.faltoutracing.net
     
  2. teak360

    teak360 F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 3, 2003
    9,156
    Boulder, CO
    Full Name:
    Scott

    I agree, John.
    He (both of them?) should be strung up by the balls. Maybe if Saddam's sons had pulled the Cardinal's sister off the street and raped her, then grabbed his brother to feed their big zoo cats for their own viewing pleasure he would have a f***ing clue.
     
  3. Slim

    Slim Formula 3

    Oct 11, 2001
    1,735
    Pacifica, CA, USA
    Full Name:
    richard
    It's obvious the monster will be punished. But what will the punishment be for the creators of the monster?
     
  4. teak360

    teak360 F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 3, 2003
    9,156
    Boulder, CO
    Full Name:
    Scott
    What about the devastation of Madagascar due to clear-cutting the forests? I know were in "Off Topic", but the threads aren't supposed to be.
    A very simple point was made about the response to Saddam's "inhumane" treatment at the hands of the U.S. military. We all knew it was coming, I didn't think the Vatican would provide the opening act. I hope you weren't trying to diminish Saddam's culpability.
     
  5. ty (360mode)

    ty (360mode) Formula Junior

    Sep 25, 2002
    807
    Houston
    Full Name:
    Tim
    he needs to STFU. has he ever stated in public his 'pity' for the families of those killed and tortured by saddam?? what an idiot.
     
  6. AJS328

    AJS328 F1 Veteran
    Owner

    Apr 23, 2003
    7,518
    New Jersey
    Full Name:
    Augustine Staino
    I was raised Roman Catholic, I went to Catholic High School and I even served as an altar boy for a few years (no, nothing happened). Despite this religious foundation I really don't take the Catholic Church seriously anymore. They are completely out of date with many of their policies and are famous for their ignorance and hypocrisy. This situation is no different. I think it might just be time for a "Vatican III." I'm sure some of you guys will know what I'm talking about.
     
  7. Slim

    Slim Formula 3

    Oct 11, 2001
    1,735
    Pacifica, CA, USA
    Full Name:
    richard
    Not trying to diminish his culpability. Just hoping that those in the U.S. government and industry that created him, paid him, trained his soldiers, supplied him, and greenlighted both his invasion of Iran and Kuwait also are punished.

    The current administration does not deny the history of backing Saddam. They can't because it is too well documented. They just hope to keep it out of the news for as long as possible. What will happen if Saddam spills the beans at his trial? Can he call the following people as witnesses? Carter, Secretary Haig, Rumsfeld (shaking hands with saddam: http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0303a/rummy2.jpg), Bush Sr. and other CIA men, Ambassador April Glaspie who told Saddam that the state department would not mind if saddam invaded Kuwait when he asked if he could do so to stop their slant drilling and the "state department" officials who told Glaspie to tell Saddam that.

    A missing Saddam was much better for keeping this story quiet than a captured Saddam. You'll see the u.s. pushing for trial in Iraq instead of the international courts because they know the Iraqis won't allow the sort of discussion the u.s. is afraid of and will have Saddam killed soon.

    Yes, Saddam is an evil man for what he has done. But so are those who hired him to do it.

    -Slim
     
  8. teak360

    teak360 F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Nov 3, 2003
    9,156
    Boulder, CO
    Full Name:
    Scott

    I find it hard to believe Jimmy Carter would be a supporter of Saddam's genocidal, homicidal and sadistic actions. Regarding the photo; Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands is hardly an indictment of Rumsfeld. I'll bet plenty of people shook Jeffrey Dahmers hand, but they didn't provide him with young men to eat.
    I'm not saying the U.S. government and its minions are choir boys, there are crimes and corruption in every major institution. From the Vatican to the U.N. I also believe that sometimes is it is OK to force someone's hand, or provide them with an unfair advantage, for the greater good.
     
  9. Slim

    Slim Formula 3

    Oct 11, 2001
    1,735
    Pacifica, CA, USA
    Full Name:
    richard
    Before becoming Nobel Peace Prize winner Carter, the old Carter encouraged Iraq to invade Iran. Sure, this was the days of hostages but...apparently Carter gave a green light to Saddam to invade Iran. The message was conveyed through Saudi prince Fahd. All of this is in Alexander Haig's infamous "talking points" document.

    The point of the photo is that Rumsfeld has denied ever being part of it but the photo proves otherwise. He was sent by Reagan as a special envoy. When Iran appeared to be beating Iraq in 1982, Reagan and his advisers decided to secretly supply Saddam's military, including permitting shipments of dual-use technology that Iraq then used to build chemical and biological weapons. Tactical military assistance also was provided, including satellite photos of the battlefield.

    Vice-president Bush also most likely urged Saddam to step up his air campaign against Iraq. A move designed to increase the Iranians need of U.S. made Hawk anti-aircraft missle parts, which of course led to the arms for hostages Irangate situation.

    Etc. Etc...

    -Slim
     
  10. Nibblesworth

    Nibblesworth Formula 3
    BANNED

    Nov 29, 2002
    1,756
    Southern California
    Full Name:
    BillyBoy
    Slim - continue to duck, dodge, and belittle. Fine. Your stupid point isn't even worth arguing against. I'll let you sit in your dark room and brood over our "evil" government, because you and your rediculously stupid points mean nothing to anyone except ineffectual turds like you.

    Second, I'll bet this stupid priest has no compassion for the citizens of Sodom and Gemorrah.
     
  11. Tspringer

    Tspringer F1 Veteran

    Apr 11, 2002
    6,155
    Slim said:

    "greenlighted both his invasion of Iran and Kuwait "

    Please provide some proof of this. Specifically, I would like proof that the invasion of Iran was "green lighted" by the US Govt. and the US Govt. gave permission to Saddam to invade Kuwait.

    You spout this nonsense as fact..... well, can you back up your words with any facts? I doubt it. Democrat/liberal whackos are not about the facts. They are about cut and paste spouting of hatred.

    Im no Bush supporter, but Im not blind. The US didnt supply supplies and military support to Saddam during the 1970s and early 1980s because we though he was a nice guy and agreed with his ideology. We used him. WE used him as a pawn in a bigger war against Soviet expansion. Remember that? It also worked. Sure there was some blowback that we have had to fight. Oh well, thats how it goes.

    The biggest hindsight mistake I see is the basic weakening of the CIA in the mid 1970s and the quiet ending to the sanction of any "extreme" measures against "bad" foreign nationals. The best situation would have been the assassination of Saddam immediatly after the Iran/Iraq war.

    I point to almost all of the main US foreign policies problems over the past 12 years as the result in a general breakdown in intelligence capabilities. The CIA does not operate as it once did.

    Terry
     
  12. Slim

    Slim Formula 3

    Oct 11, 2001
    1,735
    Pacifica, CA, USA
    Full Name:
    richard
    This isn't exactly new "news". It's been reported even by mainstream multi-national news organizations like Newsweek. A lot came out in the Iran-Contra era. I'm sure if you put "Haig talking points" into google, you'll even find the exact document about the Iran green light. I doubt you are going to be impressed by any of the websites hosting this document since they are a bunch of wacko conspiracy theory types. But the document has been well known for many years.

    An affidavit by former Reagan National Security Council member Howard Teicher may also interest you:

    http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/hidden/teicher.htm

    Here are a lot of documents received under the freedom of information act:

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/#docs


    As for Kuwait green light, I can't claim it is fact. It appears that way though. Secretary Glaspie now says quotes attributed to her were incorrect and that the Iraqis misunderstood her. But she did meet with Saddam 8 days before the invasion of Kuwait and reports claim she said: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America."

    Like I said, Glaspie has claimed that is not accurate when she testified before Congress. British journalists have tapes and transcripts however.

    What is undisputed is that on July 31st, two days before the Iraqi invasion, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, testified to Congress that the "United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."



    I don't read any crazy liberal news sources and everything I know about the situation is stuff I've read in mainstream newspapers, magazines, and tv and radio. It's not usually page 1 material of course, but it's all out there and not challenged by the government. Hell, Ross Perot mentioned the Glaspie green light in his NBC presidential debate in 1992. This is not new "news".
     
  13. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    The Geneva convention provides that we should not provide pictures, etc. of our enemy in humiliating poses, etc. The pictures of Saddam fall within that area. The Catholic Church was spot on about that. Just because someone is bad, doesn't excuse our behaving poorly, when there is no necessity to do so.


    To follow Jon's argument (and 80 - 90% of the time I agree with him) would allow the police to violate our rights in an old argument: "The end justifies the means". As I recall that was the Communist States argument for their treatment of their people.

    Art
     
  14. maranelloman

    maranelloman Guest

     
  15. darth550

    darth550 Five Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa

    Jul 14, 2003
    58,187
    With Stu
    Full Name:
    St Mark
    Word has it we knew he was there for quite a while. Now, we will just have to wait and see if George 43 (or those in power) played the "Capture Saddam" card too soon to effect the election.

    DL
     
  16. vraa

    vraa Formula 3
    Rossa Subscribed

    Oct 31, 2003
    1,483
    Texas
    Full Name:
    Mr. A
     
  17. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    Dave:

    The pictures show him in a humilating position. I'm not the only one to see that. If you can keep your bias from showing, you'll realize that this isn't the right thing to do. No matter how bad someone is, that is no excuse to violate principals, especially when there is no need to do so. By the way, my wife, a staunch repub even thought the shots were disgraceful, so it isn't just me.

    By the way, when we get around to making sure that he gets punished, what about his aiders and abettors? LIke Rumsfeld, Cheeney, et al. Are they going to have to testify. Maybe that's why we don't want to be a part of the trial, we'd have the subpeana power of those guys and we'd have to make them provide testimony which might prove embarassing.

    Art
     
  18. maranelloman

    maranelloman Guest

    Sorry, Art, but that's complete BS. My wife, a staunch Dem, saw nothing wrong with that focking corksucker being given a very humane, gentle medical exam. You might want to take your own advice about bias, Art. Your desire to make the US & Mr. Bush look bad at all costs is clouding your objectivity. And, again, where's your outrage at what Saddam did to millions of people for 30+ years?

    As for going after the "abettors" as you call them, I suggest you begin with France, Germany, and Russia. After you finish with all of those pieces of schit, then you can look at the US, if you wish. To do otherwise just further proves my point in the previous paragraph.
     
  19. Robin

    Robin F1 Rookie

    Nov 1, 2003
    2,893
    Arlington, VA
    I dunno Maranello.... not humiliating? I think a lot of people (don't think you were one of them, but still) were upset when the Iraqis captured some of our guys and put them on TV, grilling them about random things while the soldiers looked scared, confused, etc. Article 3.1(c) of the Geneva Convention states:

    "To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

    (c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment"

    So you don't think being poked and prodded by some guy with rubber gloves picking through your hair and sticking tongue depressors down your throat is humiliating or degrading? Would you like your next physical exam to be broadcast around the world? Didn't think so. Regardless of who the guy is, the same law applies. A simple photo or quick video of him looking around would be fine... I get the impression that this video was shown to display him as the defeated and weakened in a "just look at him now" bit of propaganda. We make a big deal out of medical records being kept private. Shouldn't the exam that provides these records be private as well?

    Anyway, regardless of who the guy is, what atrocities he's committed, or how much he deserves it, there's still a law and a "moral high ground" if you're into that kinda thing. While showing video of a ruthless dictator being examined like a vet searching a dog for ticks is kind of satisfying in a primal way, that doesn't make it right.

    -R
     
  20. TestShoot

    TestShoot F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Sep 1, 2003
    10,256
    Beverly Hills
    Full Name:
    King Koopa

    BS! Bad taste, not humiliating.

    he used gas on women and children, should we give him tea and cookies?

    His people showed US soldiers being dragged around naked and propped up by his troops on TV, posed like trophies as he endorsed it, the least we should be allowed to do is smack him with a wet noodle on live pay per view.

    Him on camera is to prove his capture, if it were not fo freedom of the press, and showing him in captivity, how else can we prove we have him? Take him around and personally introduce him to every US citizen that doubts he is in custody? Now during the medical screening, the press should not have been allowed to tape it, but then we have to fight the constitutuionality of barring thr press from a US military action since no top secret stuff was at risk.

    Should we ask him if he is going to be nice, and if he says yes, just release him?
     
  21. Challenge

    Challenge Formula 3

    Sep 27, 2002
    1,494
    PA
    Full Name:
    Kevin
    Dave, you are telling it like it is, but unfortunately it's for nothing. Liberals cannot be objective. Hell, I thought giving Saddam a medical exam was TOO KIND. Let the SOB roll around with lice in his head. Who cares? Not me. These Arabs (and liberals) would disbelieve we even caught SH if we did not broadcast his picture. The response then would have been "GWB is lying to the public because there is no proof!" Post proof (i.e. video and pictures) and they cry about the Geneva Convention. Please. He was dirty and unkempt because that's what happens when you live in a dirt hole. :D
     
  22. Robin

    Robin F1 Rookie

    Nov 1, 2003
    2,893
    Arlington, VA
    Whooaa... look out TestShoot, your slippery slope sure is steep...

    I love it when the same people who ***** and moan and Hussein's treatment of his people re: public executions and whippings, etc.. call on us to use the same tactics on him. Soooo are we no better than them?

    -R
     
  23. Robin

    Robin F1 Rookie

    Nov 1, 2003
    2,893
    Arlington, VA
    You can show photos and video without the "stick your tongue out and say AAHHHH" bs or showing him getting his hair picked through like a gorilla picking lice out of her friend's head. So again, next time you or Dave goes to your doctor for your physical, call up FNC and tell them you'd like to have your exam broadcast around the world.

    Oddly enough, I bet a lot of the people advocating public humiliation and execution, "let him roll around in his lice," etc are the same people who complain about too much violence in movies and TV and have jesus fish license plate frames...

    -R
     
  24. zjpj

    zjpj F1 Veteran

    Nov 4, 2003
    5,938
    USA
    Why do you feel sorry for this guy? For all he did, you're not only complainging about the "stick your tongue out and say AAHHHH," but you're comparing it to a public execution? Give me a break.
     
  25. Robin

    Robin F1 Rookie

    Nov 1, 2003
    2,893
    Arlington, VA
    No I'm not comparing his medical exam to a public execution. I'm talking about the people, some here, some who write to newspapers or letters to FNC talking heads, etc who say we should broadcast his public execution. Completely separate topic from the video...

    I just think the whole broadcast medical exam is walking a fine line across the edge of the Geneva Convention. I don't feel sorry for the guy either, he's a schmuck. But if we're gonna be the holier than thou policemen of the world and set an example for our righteousness, shouldn't we act in a civil manner? If it's not bad enough that we pretty much unilaterally conquered and occupied a country based on false pretenses, we then plaster the world with images of its president getting his tonsils scrubbed.

    I just find it odd that when video of our soldiers being interrogated is broadcast around the world, we complain about violating the Geneva Convention.. when an Arab country holds public executions, we complain about how barbaric their society is.. When a foreign head of state lies to its people, we complain about their corrupt government. When a foreign law enforcement agency holds a prisoner without charges or legal rights, we complain about justice. Yet when the tables are turned, the public opinion shifts. Geneva Convention? Who cares! Screw the prisoners in Iraq who are being held without charges and without the ability to contact a lawyer or their family.. screw them! (60 Minutes had a nice expose about this about 2 weeks ago) Public execution for Saddam? Yes! Heck put it on Pay Per View for $20, I'll pay! What? Our gov't lied? No they didn't.. they were just misunderstood! ........

    -R
     

Share This Page