09-27-2006, 09:16 PM
If you had to choose one or the other, who would you rather have lunch with:
George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein? Why?
George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein? Why?
09-27-2006, 11:56 PM
Saddam Hussein. At least you could hold an intelligent conversation 
I'd like to never have to talk to either, but I seriously would pick Hussein. Unless by "lunch with Bush", you mean "blatantly insulting Bush for several hours while eating an expensive meal" in which case I'm for that one.
I'd like to never have to talk to either, but I seriously would pick Hussein. Unless by "lunch with Bush", you mean "blatantly insulting Bush for several hours while eating an expensive meal" in which case I'm for that one.
09-28-2006, 03:37 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. I think it would also be interesting to see what the former Iraqi dictator thinks about the US. We supported him in the 80's, allowed him to stay in power despite his transgressions in the 90's, and attacked him without any real provocation in the 00's. Seems a bit strange. I bet if he could string two words together without seeming insane, he could write a great book! Don't get me wrong, I think he's an evil madman but I still have a curiosity about his view of what's going on in the Middle East.
09-28-2006, 04:31 PM
Federation of DisjunctionSep 28 2006, 01:37 PM I agree wholeheartedly. I think it would also be interesting to see what the former Iraqi dictator thinks about the US. We supported him in the 80's, allowed him to stay in power despite his transgressions in the 90's, and attacked him without any real provocation in the 00's. Seems a bit strange. I bet if he could string two words together without seeming insane, he could write a great book! Don't get me wrong, I think he's an evil madman but I still have a curiosity about his view of what's going on in the Middle East. [/quote]
"without any real provocation"? How about the fact that he still hadn't complied properly with the terms of the cease-fire that ended the fighting during the previous campaign, and was actively trying to make people think he had WMDs hidden away for use against his enemies? It's easy enough to be wise after the fact, but please remember that before he was overthrown there were a lot of people who seriously believed that he had such weapons even before the (apparently incorrect) documents used by Bush & Blair to help justify the more recent campaign were made public...
As for supporting him in the '80s, at that time he was seen (perhaps correctly, at that stage) as the lesser of two evils in comparision to the mullahs in Iran and was backed on that basis rather than because the West actually approved of his behaviour. For comparision, would you claim that because the Western powers allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler they shouldn't then have stood up against him in the Cold War?
"without any real provocation"? How about the fact that he still hadn't complied properly with the terms of the cease-fire that ended the fighting during the previous campaign, and was actively trying to make people think he had WMDs hidden away for use against his enemies? It's easy enough to be wise after the fact, but please remember that before he was overthrown there were a lot of people who seriously believed that he had such weapons even before the (apparently incorrect) documents used by Bush & Blair to help justify the more recent campaign were made public...
As for supporting him in the '80s, at that time he was seen (perhaps correctly, at that stage) as the lesser of two evils in comparision to the mullahs in Iran and was backed on that basis rather than because the West actually approved of his behaviour. For comparision, would you claim that because the Western powers allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler they shouldn't then have stood up against him in the Cold War?
10-02-2006, 04:42 PM
Admirable contentions. However, it is clear to me that the current conflict had nothing to do with WMD. This was a tactic to strike out at one of the only focused foes we had in a war against a hidden enemy. This situation in Iraq is very quickly resembling Viet Nam for me and in the minds of many others. We don't really know who our friends or enemies are. For that matter, someone who is our friend could change into our enemy because we aren't doing enough to protect the people who want to have a democracy (even an arabian style democracy, which is somewhat different than our vision but potentially just as able to work over time)
As for him being the lesser of two evils, that may be true in comparission to 80's Iran but he's on trial right now for gassing the Kurds in the 80's so I'm not sure where our head was on that one.
In the end I just think the US should be more careful when dealing with developing nations. We upset the apple cart by supporting the Shaw's oppressive regime in Iran. Then when religious extremists took over (I'm not excusing any atrocious Iranian revolutionary actions mind you) we support a secular madman. Then when he falls out of favor, we go back and sell arms to the Iranian religious extremists, then when Iraq invades a sovereign nation, we force him out but leave him in power, after convicing the Shiites to revolt. (the shiites are subsequently slaughtered when we didn't enforce the no-fly zone - no wonder they don't trust us very much) Then we finally decide that its time to "take out the trash" because he's a threat? I just don't buy it.
BTW, my previous point is that it would be interesting to hear his side of the story. As a US citizen I feel better about the leadership we have that I do about Saddam but I still disagree with the way our leadership is running the show right now.
Also, Stalin and WWII is a different comparission than this situation. Lots of insanity going on there too but also a lot of power and a situation where you had the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Even if it was a cautious friendship. I might also add that although there were many horrible things going on in the USSR after the war but we never attacked. But that is a whole other debate about the Marxist political philosophy and how it was modified into a totolitarianist Communist ideology.
As for him being the lesser of two evils, that may be true in comparission to 80's Iran but he's on trial right now for gassing the Kurds in the 80's so I'm not sure where our head was on that one.
In the end I just think the US should be more careful when dealing with developing nations. We upset the apple cart by supporting the Shaw's oppressive regime in Iran. Then when religious extremists took over (I'm not excusing any atrocious Iranian revolutionary actions mind you) we support a secular madman. Then when he falls out of favor, we go back and sell arms to the Iranian religious extremists, then when Iraq invades a sovereign nation, we force him out but leave him in power, after convicing the Shiites to revolt. (the shiites are subsequently slaughtered when we didn't enforce the no-fly zone - no wonder they don't trust us very much) Then we finally decide that its time to "take out the trash" because he's a threat? I just don't buy it.
BTW, my previous point is that it would be interesting to hear his side of the story. As a US citizen I feel better about the leadership we have that I do about Saddam but I still disagree with the way our leadership is running the show right now.
Also, Stalin and WWII is a different comparission than this situation. Lots of insanity going on there too but also a lot of power and a situation where you had the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Even if it was a cautious friendship. I might also add that although there were many horrible things going on in the USSR after the war but we never attacked. But that is a whole other debate about the Marxist political philosophy and how it was modified into a totolitarianist Communist ideology.
10-02-2006, 06:45 PM
If lunch would involve a chainsaw in my oh-so-capable hands, why not both? Then I'd even invite Ann Coulter (yes, I'm still continuing my one-man-war against that *insert long - really, really, long - string of expletives, threats and insults of the worst imaginable kind here; the kind of words that would probably make Dan Savage blush* )
10-07-2006, 05:01 PM
GnejsOct 7 2006, 08:46 AM I do love the New Orleans kitchen.. is Texas anything like it? In that case I would go for Bush. If he were to serve something disgusting like hamburgers with raw oil as dip for the fries, I would go for hussein.. Im sure he makes a good falafel [/quote]
I would go as far as to say that Texas and New Orleans are absolutely nothing alike, except they're both in the South. You'd probably get steak.
I would go as far as to say that Texas and New Orleans are absolutely nothing alike, except they're both in the South. You'd probably get steak.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)