Don_Kiddick   11 #37 Posted December 11, 2006 They would all be banned if they were referring to animals instead of humans   Or a Muslim terrorist............ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
slimsid2000 Â Â 10 #38 Posted December 11, 2006 Obviously many people here do not mourn the death of dictators. Lets hope they will not do so next year when old Saddam pays a little visit to gallows land. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Mattski   10 #39 Posted December 11, 2006 Slimsid,  You are right to point out the similarities. For example, neither group of victims has really seen justice done. On the one hand, the extent of Saddam's crimes will never be fully revealed as the court will not be allowed to investigate the crimes which took place with full cooperation with the US and Britain, while similarly, Chile has been robbed off its opportunity to really find out what happened to the disappeared and the extent of US support.  This parallel also helps to underscore the hypocracy with which our beloved leaders approach foreign affairs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
StarSparkle   10 #40 Posted December 11, 2006 *monotone* oh. dear. I'm. Heartbroken. At. The. News...  sorry that's all the emotion I could muster up... i was far too busy thinking of the shedloads of victims who suffered as a result of his junta.  Absolutely, Plain Talker.  I was quite horrified at the hushed tones they were using on Sky News to describe his passing yesterday evening. Like we were supposed to be sad about it or something.... Totally bizarre.  StarSparkle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
StarSparkle   10 #41 Posted December 11, 2006 It's disgusting to think that the UK supported such a despotic and cruel dictator. I'm just glad it was before my time, or I'd've made my vote count... How on earth can a philosophy of 'an enemy of my enemy is my friend' work in these circumstances?  Just because fewer of 'our' people die than 'his' people die makes it alright?  Selfish and morally wrong. I'd've rather gone it alone. And all over a tiny island and some sheep  Excellent post, well said.  Some things are quite simply WRONG - like torture and murder - no matter what the excuse.  StarSparkle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
GabbleRatcht   10 #42 Posted December 11, 2006 Slimsid, You are right to point out the similarities. For example, neither group of victims has really seen justice done. On the one hand, the extent of Saddam's crimes will never be fully revealed as the court will not be allowed to investigate the crimes which took place with full cooperation with the US and Britain, while similarly, Chile has been robbed off its opportunity to really find out what happened to the disappeared and the extent of US support.  This parallel also helps to underscore the hypocracy with which our beloved leaders approach foreign affairs.  Hear, hear.  The hypocrisy is abominable.  As said in another thread, the reason that Saddam wasn't tried for gassing the Kurds is that the US supplied the regime with the gas they used. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
StarSparkle   10 #43 Posted December 11, 2006 Obviously many people here do not mourn the death of dictators. Lets hope they will not do so next year when old Saddam pays a little visit to gallows land.  Um, slight difference in the circumstances, Sidney dear.  Pinochet died a natural death; if the courts have their way, Saddam will be murdered.  Bit different....  StarSparkle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Annoni_mouse   10 #44 Posted December 11, 2006 It is certainly true that, whatever they did, it was more than any of our European allies or the yanks. However, they was been at war with the Argentines only a few years before and the motive was very much selfish in that they didn't want to be next. The rumour has always been that they provided radar information on the Argentine Air Force, but I have always been sceptical of this.  You mean apart from the fact that the Americans supplied the British with the latest intelligence, or offered the loan of one of their supercarriers(an offer turned down by the Thatcher government), or that they supplied the latest Aim-9L sidewinder air to air missiles, which allowed the out-numbered Sea Harrier force to achieve limited air-superiority over the islands....  No help at all really, was it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
StarSparkle   10 #45 Posted December 11, 2006 You mean apart from the fact that the Americans supplied the British with the latest intelligence, or offered the loan of one of their supercarriers(an offer turned down by the Thatcher government), or that they supplied the latest Aim-9L sidewinder air to air missiles, which allowed the out-numbered Sea Harrier force to achieve limited air-superiority over the islands.... No help at all really, was it?  But it was SO grudgingly given, and only after a great deal of 'moral' pressure had been applied by the British government (and reputedly, America's own secret service)... sorry, that's going off-topic.  StarSparkle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Annoni_mouse   10 #46 Posted December 11, 2006 But it was SO grudgingly given, and only after a great deal of 'moral' pressure had been applied by the British government (and reputedly, America's own secret service)... sorry, that's going off-topic. StarSparkle  Maybe..but bear in mind, the US was being asked to choose between two allies, and couldn't be seen, at least publicly, to be favoring one or the other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
artisan   10 #47 Posted December 11, 2006 It has been mentioned that he gave Thatcher support, against the Argentinians. The only thing that the Argies have done against me is when Marraddona scored his foul goal. The Arab muslims however have killed hundreds of my fellow countrymen, not in war, but in cowardly attacks. The Falklands War was just to get sympathy for thatcher. The current war, for all its faults, is at least against a real enemy, out to do us real harm. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
StarSparkle   10 #48 Posted December 11, 2006 Maybe..but bear in mind, the US was being asked to choose between two allies, and couldn't be seen, at least publicly, to be favoring one or the other.  Great Britain (the Special Relationship and all that c***) versus Argentina (poxy South American banana republic) ....  I'm never swallowed all this 'special relationship' garbage - but that to treat the UK at the same level as a tin-pot South American dictatorship was a slap in the face with an iron gauntlet for Britain.  Disgusting and disgraceful, and showed America's true colours, if they weren't already plain for all to see.  As long as the USA's ok, the rest of the world, including so-called valued allies, can go screw itself.  StarSparkle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...