Saddam

[Toad]

Yah, Mav... what would you know about it eh?  


He's not from Angola. He's just hiding, like most of the snipers do. Funny how many angry young men you see here on the BBS but never see anything like the BBS handle in the game isn't it?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Toad
Yah, Mav... what would you know about it eh?  


He's not from Angola. He's just hiding, like most of the snipers do. Funny how many angry young men you see here on the BBS but never see anything like the BBS handle in the game isn't it?

I was going to mention that myself.

[BGBMAW]

its cause theyare scared little bicches

and Siaf...you are a moron. and uneducated....perps taking guns?..LMFAo..im sure you were in the "Hundred Mom MArch"..



How about this...


  Marine Corps General Reinwald was interviewed on the radio the other day
and
you have to read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns
and
children.
Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you got to love this!!!!
This is one of the best comeback lines of all time.  It is a portion of a
National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US
Marine
Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting
his
military installation.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach
these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and
shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting!  That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the
rifle
range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous
activity
to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how.  We will be teaching them proper rifle
discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not
one,
- are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.


LMFAo..

Salute BiGB

...ya..i ride by my handle ..do you?

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Toad
In the 1989 Romanian Coup d'Etat 1104 people died in December 1989. Before December 22nd 162 people died, 73 in Timisoara, 48 in Bucharest and 41 somewhere else in Romania. 3352 people were wounded. Some of the first victims were sent to Bucharest and cremated. The military had 260 dead, and 545 wounded. The "Securitatea" 65 dead and 73 wounded.

Sorry...after more research you will learn that those are the confirmed dead.  No true count is known as many of the bodies were cremated or dumped in the Timis or Bega rivers.  The list of the missing is in the thousands.  Eye witness reports from reporters from the Soviet Union contradict the "official" counts.

OTOH, in 91 in the North and in the South, Saddam's forces did shoot. Did remain engaged for a month until it was over. Did not switch sides. Estimates are 20,000 dead in Basra alone. [/B]

Since you are using the "official" counts of the dead above, then give and apples to apples comparison...how many "officially" died in Basra?

And regardless, the number of people revolting in the north and south did not even come close to a majority of the Iraqi people.  When most of the people in and around Baghdad revolt with the people in the north&south and that revolt fails...then you have an argument.

As I said before, there's the difference.[/B]

Yes, and the difference is that not enough of the people in Iraq care enough to put an effort into removing Saddam themselves.

I see you dodged the question of how the Kurds managed an Independent Kurdistan once the US/UK/France established the no-fly zone. They lost without it, won with external support. And have held it since. [/B]

Well, obviously because the US/UK/France are protecting those 3 million Kurds.  But how does that relate to the argument at hand: if enough Iraqis wanted Saddam out of power they could remove him themselves? 3 million Kurds is no where near a majority of Iraqis not even when combined with southern rebels.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Martlet
Sorry to disagree, but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Disagreement is fine...but without backing up your assertion it appears that you are the one that has no idea what you are talking about.

Have you ever been confronted by an armed assailant?  I have.  Did I roll over...no...I drew my own weapon and he decided I was more likely to kill him than he was to kill me.

[BGBMAW]

ok Crow wins...


The Iraq;s did vote Saddam in..and they love him...


is that rigth Crow?



BiGB
xoxo

[Martlet]

Originally posted by crowMAW
Disagreement is fine...but without backing up your assertion it appears that you are the one that has no idea what you are talking about.

Have you ever been confronted by an armed assailant?  I have.  Did I roll over...no...I drew my own weapon and he decided I was more likely to kill him than he was to kill me.

Yes, I have.

However, I don't remember what the discussion was, and I can't find the post.

[udet]

I agree with the US being the global policeman. No other country has the military to do it, and I also think ideologically the US is the right country to do it.

[Toad]

No, the difference is that Saddam had enough military to kill what's reported as ~ 250,000 Iraqis in order to put down a revolt.

Nowhere I have I seen anything like that number of dead in Romania... unofficial or official.

What Ceausescu (in case you don't know how to pronounce it, it's also been phonetically simulated as: say "chow - chess - kew") did not have is enough military like Saddam's. If he had, that revolt would likely have failed as well.

I suppose we may finally get some reliable numbers from the Iraqi revolts after Saddam is removed. Maybe. No doubt historians will research it.

Like they've down with the Romanian revolt now that Ceausescu is long gone.

The no-fly zone (the French dropped out when they resumed trade with Iraq, btw) relates because it shows that given military support AND resolve on the part of the Kurds, independence is quite possible. It highlights the results of the '91 revolt. Military power makes the difference. Saddam with his overwhelming military power can hold the country UNLESS the revolutionaries have some external military help.

In the South, with the higher losses, it appears he did extinguish most of the resolve though. We're seeing that right now, I believe.

It will be quite interesting to see what happens when it's clear the regime no longer exists.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by MOSQ
1) The American Revolutionary War which you keep citing...As much as I hate  to say it today, the entry of the French, in particular the French Navy. If not for them, the war would have gone on much longer, or possibly even have been lost.

A) I wasn't aware that I had mentioned the US Revolution more than once...I've been trying to use modern examples to show that overthrow of a dictator is possible.

B) There is a big difference between supplying assistance and aid to a revolution already in progress (one that was started and waged by the oppressed) and invading a country to liberate a people that have not made a serious effort to win their own freedom.  

Now if the Declaration of Independence had never been written and France decided to invade England to depose King George so as to free the American Colonies, then that would be a good comparison to what is happening today.

2) Cambodia. What event overthrew the maniac Pol Pot, who it is estimated murdered a million Cambodians ? It certainly was NOT a popular uprising of the Cambodian people ! Under your scenario the Cambodian people should have risen up and defeated their oppressors. Only in your scenario several million more would be dead.

Is my history correct ?
[/B]

Absolutely!  The Cambodians should have revolted if they did not like Pol Pot.  Would millions more have died...probably.  Sorry to sound callous, but it is their freedom...they should fight for it!  If their freedom was not important enough to them to fight and die for it, why should it be important enough to anyone else to die for them?

Oddly, I was going to compare Romania to Cambodia as they found similar "killing fields" created by Ceausescu during one of his many purges.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by BGBMAW
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, - are you?

ROTFLMAO!

Good one BigB!  Glad we agree on at least something!

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Martlet
Yes, I have.

However, I don't remember what the discussion was, and I can't find the post.

Your post from 03-31-2003 11:01 PM

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Toad
Nowhere I have I seen anything like that number of dead in Romania... unofficial or official.

The only thing I can point you to on the web is here:

http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/revolution/revolt_daybyday.htm

However, if you are really interested, you can get a book by Matei Calinescu titled The 1989 Revolution and Romania's Problems of Communism which has eye witness accounts.  

Here is one quote from the book from a Russian reporter: "entering Timisoara we crossed the bridge and watched military forces throwing weighted bodies into the river."

Somehow, I just don't think that they would go through the trouble of having mass graves, AND cart bodies off to be cremated, AND also dump bodies into the Timis if there were a mere 73 dead.

What Ceausescu (in case you don't know how to pronounce it, it's also been phonetically simulated as: say "chow - chess - kew") did not have is enough military like Saddam's. If he had, that revolt would likely have failed as well.

Really...pony up some data Bud.  I listed his 1989 military assets yesterday just in case you tried to argue that Ceausescu's military was less than Saddam's...show me data that contradicts what I posted.  Sure looks comparable to me...and superior in some areas.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by crowMAW
Your post from 03-31-2003 11:01 PM

Ahhh, thanks.

While fundementally it sounds easy to just rise up and overthrow a sadistic dictatorship, there are some fundemental barriers.  While I'm not saying (obviously) that it is impossible, I am saying it is extremely difficult.

Lets say you want to revolt.   There are forces and spies in town.  They killed a guy and his family last year for conspiring to revolt.  Who do you talk to?  Not a stranger, too dangerous.

Ok, now you've found a group willing to revolt.  If you meet and they find out, your families, maybe your whole village, is dead.  By this stage some have most likely died already.  You have to take this fighting group, with small arms, gather it, and attack an already assembled and equipped army.  The whole time worrying about your family.

That's why there are so many from the people's congress over here now.  Saddam has so many people in his pocket through fear, everytime they tried to organize something it ended in slaughter.

The most successful rebellions are military coups.  Saddam keeps his best forces happy though.  They have a direct interest in him staying in power.

We had it made during our rebellion, our oppressors lived months away.

[Toad]

"like Saddam's"; Not necessarily quantitatively.

From your undoubtedly accurate to the last vowel depiction, the Securitate being stripped of their weapons doesn't seem to compare with the reports of how the Republican Guard fared against the Kurds and the Shiites. After initial reverses, the state forces came back extremely successfully and harshly.

We both agree that  xxxxxxxxxx nation's boys should be dying for xxxxxxxxx nation's independence.

However, we disagree on whether or not a populace without heavy weapons can successfully revolt against a government that accepts slaughter and genocide as an acceptable means of control, equipped with heavy weapons and soldiers more than willing to use them against their countrymen. Such a populace would have to have external military aid. IMO.

How'd the Kurds succeed in the North with a no-fly zone? They failed miserably without one in '91 but have held an Indpendent Kurdistan with the addition of "just" a no-fly zone... external military aid.