Lynch condemns 'US propaganda'

[NickD]

But was Saddam really all that bad?

Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

To diversify the largely oil-based Iraqi economy, Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign revolutionized Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas.

[...]

Nevertheless, Saddam focused on fostering loyalty to the Ba'athist government in the rural areas. After nationalizing foreign oil interests, Saddam supervised the modernization of the countryside, mechanizing agriculture on a large scale, and distributing land to peasant farmers. The Ba'athists established farm cooperatives, in which profits were distributed according to the labors of the individual and the unskilled were trained. The government's commitment to agrarian reform was demonstrated by the doubling of expenditures for agricultural development in 1974-1975. Moreover, agrarian reform in Iraq improved the living standard of the peasantry and increased production, though not to the levels for which Saddam had hoped.

[...]

Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the Nasser model. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims.

[Grand Fromage]

But was Saddam really all that bad?

Yes. Though in his role as the only secular Arab ruler with any sort of power, he served as a great check on the power of other nations like Iran, and a thorn in the side of terrorists like Bin Laden.. That's actually why George Bush senior didn't take him out in the first Gulf War... evidently his son never talked to the old man about the whole thing.

[HATEFACE]

Especially toward the most recent months. There is a sharp decline where I believe the new strategy began. I know there have been mortar attacks in the green-zone, mortar attacks are nothing in the Iraq war. Insurgents use them quite frequently and we've no doubt developed a counter to this.
I think it's fair to wait until mid-summer when the new plan is in full swing. So I reserve my judgment

Ah, several of the articles I linked to pointed out that after an initial decline in violence following the surge, there's been an upswing.

Yes, I know. That's why I said "I think it's fair to wait until mid-summer when the new plan is in full swing. So I reserve my judgment"
Also I realized that two months are not mentioned in that counter. I read the articles mxlm.

Despite what the president says, war isn't just about staying the course, it's about realizing the ebb and flow of secratarian violence. Attempt to realize what is happening around you in the political world while the insurgency grows in the middle east. Al Quaida even mentioned in one of their tapes that they were glad that the american public was reasonable for electing democrats to congress. I wish I could find that video. it was on comcast from the Associated Press way way way back when the democrats too congress. I remember that they used the word "reasonable." because it was burned into my memory along with them saying that they should also "Take back Turkey."

It's funny what they find reasonable isn't it?

Well they got precisely what they wanted. A divided america. Poor troop funding, and a democratic congress.

"[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies- civilians and military— is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda_in_Iraq
EDIT:
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/061.shtml

**Sighs** . . .and Mulu believes talking with these people is the answer. . .

NickD wrote:
But was Saddam really all that bad?


Yes. Though in his role as the only secular Arab ruler with any sort of power, he served as a great check on the power of other nations like Iran, and a thorn in the side of terrorists like Bin Laden.. That's actually why George Bush senior didn't take him out in the first Gulf War... evidently his son never talked to the old man about the whole thing.

GF, "Saddam wasn't a secular leader. He wouldn't of invaded another Islamic state if he was. He used Islam to perform great atrocities."
He posed as a secular leader when it suited him. Yes, he was a thorn in the side of terrorists like Bin Laden but he was also a brutal man. I know you all think Saddam wasn't such a bad guy.

The whole middle east is bloody problematic and bitching about how George W Bush is inept about it isn't going to make it less problematic. All it proves is that you're an bafoon without any ideas and all you can do is speak ill about someone without being in the same situation.


You put the ass in arrogance. Is that right? I wouldn't know I'm an uneducated christian right.

It's really easy to say "Yeah, this is how it was and it worked."
I want to ask you how you would fix the current problem GF?

If I were to fix iraq and the middle east you all probably wouldn't like my answer. Because it would be a long process like Bush's plan and you would all whine about how ineffective it would be without giving constructive criticism. We can all agree that there are no quick fixes to the problems facing us.

I want you all to know, there is one single place in the arab world that is "perfect" and shows what can be accomplished. This place is known as the United Arab Emirates. They're drunk with oil money and full of peaceful happy arabs with a tad bit of interawebs censorship like china. Not a bad place at all.

[mxlm]

Yes, I know. That's why I said "I think it's fair to wait until mid-summer when the new plan is in full swing. So I reserve my judgment"
Also I realized that two months are not mentioned in that counter. I read the articles mxlm.

Righto

Despite what the president says, war isn't just about staying the course, it's about realizing the ebb and flow of secratarian violence. Attempt to realize what is happening around you in the political world while the insurgency grows in the middle east. Al Quaida even mentioned in one of their tapes that they were glad that the american public was reasonable for electing democrats to congress. I wish I could find that video. it was on comcast from the Associated Press way way way back when the democrats too congress. I remember that they used the word "reasonable." because it was burned into my memory along with them saying that they should also "Take back Turkey."

It's funny what they find reasonable isn't it?

Well they got precisely what they wanted. A divided america. Poor troop funding, and a democratic congress.

That's one interpretation. Here's another.
this
EDIT: Oops. Got my articles mixed up. this is what I meant to link to (though the other's well worth reading). You may have to jump through hoops to read it, unfortunately. So here's the salient point:

Just before the 2004 American elections, Kilcullen was doing intelligence work for the Australian government, sifting through Osama bin Laden's public statements, including transcripts of a video that offered a list of grievances against America: Palestine, Saudi Ara-bia, Afghanistan, global warming. The last item brought Kilcullen up short. "I thought, Hang on! What kind of jihadist are you?" he recalled. The odd inclusion of environmentalist rhetoric, he said, made clear that "this wasn't a list of genuine grievances. This was an Al Qaeda information strategy." Ron Suskind, in his book "The One Percent Doctrine," claims that analysts at the C.I.A. watched a similar video, released in 2004, and concluded that "bin Laden's message was clearly designed to assist the President's reelection." Bin Laden shrewdly created an implicit association between Al Qaeda and the Democratic Party, for he had come to feel that Bush's strategy in the war on terror was sustaining his own global importance. Indeed, in the years after September 11th Al Qaeda's core leadership had become a propaganda hub. "If bin Laden didn't have access to global media, satellite communications, and the Internet, he'd just be a cranky guy in a cave," Kilcullen said.

[HATEFACE]

Yes, I know. That's why I said "I think it's fair to wait until mid-summer when the new plan is in full swing. So I reserve my judgment"
Also I realized that two months are not mentioned in that counter. I read the articles mxlm.

Righto

Despite what the president says, war isn't just about staying the course, it's about realizing the ebb and flow of secratarian violence. Attempt to realize what is happening around you in the political world while the insurgency grows in the middle east. Al Quaida even mentioned in one of their tapes that they were glad that the american public was reasonable for electing democrats to congress. I wish I could find that video. it was on comcast from the Associated Press way way way back when the democrats too congress. I remember that they used the word "reasonable." because it was burned into my memory along with them saying that they should also "Take back Turkey."

It's funny what they find reasonable isn't it?

Well they got precisely what they wanted. A divided america. Poor troop funding, and a democratic congress.

That's one interpretation. Here's another.
this
EDIT: Oops. Got my articles mixed up. this is what I meant to link to (though the other's well worth reading). You may have to jump through hoops to read it, unfortunately. So here's the salient point:

Just before the 2004 American elections, Kilcullen was doing intelligence work for the Australian government, sifting through Osama bin Laden's public statements, including transcripts of a video that offered a list of grievances against America: Palestine, Saudi Ara-bia, Afghanistan, global warming. The last item brought Kilcullen up short. "I thought, Hang on! What kind of jihadist are you?" he recalled. The odd inclusion of environmentalist rhetoric, he said, made clear that "this wasn't a list of genuine grievances. This was an Al Qaeda information strategy." Ron Suskind, in his book "The One Percent Doctrine," claims that analysts at the C.I.A. watched a similar video, released in 2004, and concluded that "bin Laden's message was clearly designed to assist the President's reelection." Bin Laden shrewdly created an implicit association between Al Qaeda and the Democratic Party, for he had come to feel that Bush's strategy in the war on terror was sustaining his own global importance. Indeed, in the years after September 11th Al Qaeda's core leadership had become a propaganda hub. "If bin Laden didn't have access to global media, satellite communications, and the Internet, he'd just be a cranky guy in a cave," Kilcullen said.

So we have two interpretations. Which one is the right one? Ockham's razor. They are both fair and equal interpretations, both appear to be correct in their reasoning. Maybe we should break down the two principle view points on Al Qaeda?

[Lusipher]

But was Saddam really all that bad?

Only someone living on an island could come up with that. Say hello to Gilligan and the Skipper next time you goto the other side of the island. Watch out for the gigantic ringwraiths too while your at it

[NickD]

Only someone living on an island could come up with that. Say hello to Gilligan and the Skipper next time you goto the other side of the island. Watch out for the gigantic ringwraiths too while your at it

So, uh, tell me, why was he so bad?

[HATEFACE]

Only someone living on an island could come up with that. Say hello to Gilligan and the Skipper next time you goto the other side of the island. Watch out for the gigantic ringwraiths too while your at it

So, uh, tell me, why was he so bad?

There are videos of his war crimes. I'm not sure if I should post them because they are violent and graphic. I'm unsure of the forum rules regarding showing videos exicutions, beheadings, torture, and rape.

But If I get the go ahead I'll do it.

[mxlm]

Maybe we should break down the two principle view points on Al Qaeda?

It seems to me that the basic premise of the view expressed in the New Yorker article is that Al-Qaeda knows what they're doing, and what they're doing is 'propaganda'. Or informational warfare, if you wanna talk like Col. Kilcullen. And that further, they're competent. Therefore, they're not going to say 'we like the democrats' if they actually do like the democrats.

However, my interpretation is that while it's nice to know what AQ would like, decisions should be made on the basis of what's best for America, not what's least appealing to AQ.

It's further my interpretation that they'd love to have Americans of any political stripe accusing each of being 'liked by' or playing into the hands of AQ.

That said, the idea of economic warfare isn't exactly a new thing; Bin Laden indicated that America's economy = good target well before 9/11. And after as well, though there you start running into questions about informational warfare, how does he want us to respond, etc.[/url]

[HATEFACE]

Maybe we should break down the two principle view points on Al Qaeda?

It seems to me that the basic premise of the view expressed in the New Yorker article is that Al-Qaeda knows what they're doing, and what they're doing is 'propaganda'. Or informational warfare, if you wanna talk like Col. Kilcullen. And that further, they're competent. Therefore, they're not going to say 'we like the democrats' if they actually do like the democrats.

However, my interpretation is that while it's nice to know what AQ would like, decisions should be made on the basis of what's best for America, not what's least appealing to AQ.

It's further my interpretation that they'd love to have Americans of any political stripe accusing each of being 'liked by' or playing into the hands of AQ.

That said, the idea of economic warfare isn't exactly a new thing; Bin Laden indicated that America's economy = good target well before 9/11. And after as well, though there you start running into questions about informational warfare, how does he want us to respond, etc.[/url]

Right, right.
I think we should do what is best for America and what's least appealing to AQ.

I think there is some reverse psychology at play too. You could reason that AQ want a failed state in iraq for their own interests.

I do agree that we should be reasonable in our war spending, which is why I don't agree to finding, let's say peat moss research funding in a war bill.

[Mulu]

Getting to this a little late as I've been busy.

I must be one of those special forum trolls. . .

One who just recently came out of the closet?

They are common knowledge? Well I must be very very stupid and ignorant.

I won't contest it. Bombings in Iraq in 2007 have occured at a rate greater than one/day. Look for the chart on number of fatality bombings, on page 6. In fact, fatality bombings have been occuring at a rate of greater than one/day since January 2006 (same document, page 16). Of course, the evening news says much the same thing.

Ethnic cleansing means displacing people who belong to one ethnicity in favor of another. Simply googling the terms "ethnic cleansing Iraq" will give you thousands of articles on death squads and sectarian assassinations in Iraq aimed at ethnic cleansing. There are currently 1.8 million Iraqis seeking asylum (page 29), which of course requires that your life is threatened. Denying this reality is simply delusional.

About 4 million Iraqis are currently displaced, but those who remain fear to leave their homes because of thieves, kidnappers, death squads, and all the other risks associated with being in Iraq, especially Baghdad.

Well, Mxlm already did this job.

Personally, I wouldn't mind giving and recieving a beating.

Why? Nevermind, I don't really want to know about your masturbatory habits.

just some thoughts and opinions. Feel free to call this forum troll an idiot, Mulu.

I don't think I need to.

As for the Iraqis that "hate us." Whom are you referring to?

Oh, you've got to be kidding me. How about the half that say it's okay to attack US forces?

I hope you can agree Al-Sadr and his movement should never have been part of the political process in Iraq. That is one major mistake that happened.

So, you think democracy was a major mistake? When you promise to hold a fair election, you have to stand by the results.

And yes, Saddam as a non-cleric was a secular leader.

No, rather we (or we, as Republicans or anyone else who will agree with me.) support(s) a government where a pro forma mention to Islam in the Constitution, like to God in ours.

You're just full of misinformation, aren't you? God isn't in our Constitution. Our country was not in any way founded as a Christian nation. Don't believe me? Ask the founding fathers.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion;

Well, I haven't time to get much farther than this. I'll peek in later.

[mxlm]

As an addendum, that bbc poll also includes info on the 'afraid to go outside' thing; 78% said they couldn't live where they wished without persecution, 75% said their freedom of movement was 'quite' or 'very' bad (p. 7).

Oh, and 41% feel 'not very safe' in their neighborhood, with an additional 33% not feeling 'safe at all' (p. 17).

Some fun info there about how often they've avoided going out of homes (more than 50% do), avoided checkpoints, markets, etc. as well.

[HATEFACE]

Getting to this a little late as I've been busy.

I must be one of those special forum trolls. . .

One who just recently came out of the closet?

They are common knowledge? Well I must be very very stupid and ignorant.

I won't contest it. Bombings in Iraq in 2007 have occured at a rate greater than one/day. Look for the chart on number of fatality bombings, on page 6. In fact, fatality bombings have been occuring at a rate of greater than one/day since January 2006 (same document, page 16). Of course, the evening news says much the same thing.

Ethnic cleansing means displacing people who belong to one ethnicity in favor of another. Simply googling the terms "ethnic cleansing Iraq" will give you thousands of articles on death squads and sectarian assassinations in Iraq aimed at ethnic cleansing. There are currently 1.8 million Iraqis seeking asylum (page 29), which of course requires that your life is threatened. Denying this reality is simply delusional.

About 4 million Iraqis are currently displaced, but those who remain fear to leave their homes because of thieves, kidnappers, death squads, and all the other risks associated with being in Iraq, especially Baghdad.

Well, Mxlm already did this job.

Personally, I wouldn't mind giving and recieving a beating.

Why? Nevermind, I don't really want to know about your masturbatory habits.

just some thoughts and opinions. Feel free to call this forum troll an idiot, Mulu.

I don't think I need to.

As for the Iraqis that "hate us." Whom are you referring to?

Oh, you've got to be kidding me. How about the half that say it's okay to attack US forces?

I hope you can agree Al-Sadr and his movement should never have been part of the political process in Iraq. That is one major mistake that happened.

So, you think democracy was a major mistake? When you promise to hold a fair election, you have to stand by the results.

And yes, Saddam as a non-cleric was a secular leader.

No, rather we (or we, as Republicans or anyone else who will agree with me.) support(s) a government where a pro forma mention to Islam in the Constitution, like to God in ours.

You're just full of misinformation, aren't you? God isn't in our Constitution. Our country was not in any way founded as a Christian nation. Don't believe me? Ask the founding fathers.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion;

Well, I haven't time to get much farther than this. I'll peek in later.

I think you're taking my quotes out of context.

I'm going to say an intuitive argument here. You could argue that the former secular leader Saddam was elected and we eliminated him. Now they elected Al-Sadr and we now support a government whose constitution deems Islam the official religion on the new nation. Well, an argument that many often present to me, my response is usually the same. Saddam wasn't a secular leader. He wouldn't of invaded another Islamic state if he was. He used Islam to perform great atrocities. Al-Sadr should of never have been part of the political process as I stated above. We support a government whose constitution deems Islam an official religion? No, rather we (or we, as Republicans or anyone else who will agree with me.) support(s) a government where a pro forma mention to Islam in the Constitution, like to God in ours. We do not have a Christian government, (Perhaps dominant. I dunno. Atheism third largest majority as far as -isms go, w00t!) rather we have a government were all religions and creeds are welcomed (though not necessarily tolerated ;p ALFA this means you.) That does not make Iraq an Islamic state, amiright?

You take my quotes out of context. Allow me to break it down so you understand.
"No, rather we. . . support a government where a pro forma mention to Islam in the Constitution, like to God in ours."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Iraq
Take a look Mulu, it says god in there. Can't miss it, it's right at the start.
When I said, like to God in ours is a little mis-leading.

Yeah, I screwed up there. I make mistakes, oh well. What I mean to say is this, we mention god frequently. Not the judeo-christian god, but god as a pro forma mention. i.e. "In god we trust." "One nation under god." etc.

We want it so they can mention god if they want but also uphold the principles of freedom of religion thus making the mention of god pro forma.

We do not have a Christian government, rather we have a government were all religions and creeds are welcomed. That does not make Iraq an Islamic state
Notice the part where I say "We do not have a christian government." I hope that clears things up for you. So for some reason you got it in your head that I was somehow trying to say that the united states was founded on christianity. If it was because of my mistake. I apologize for that. I am after all, posting it so that you may pick them apart.

Saddam isn't religous. I thought I mentioned that somewhere. I thought I said he used islam when it was convienent. - But that what happens when you post when your tired.

As for the Iraqis that "hate us." Whom are you referring to?

Oh, you've got to be kidding me. How about the half that say it's okay to attack US forces?

I said whom, not how many. Polls just can't be passed off as fact any more. Pen and Teller's bullsh*t gives an excellent example of why they can't. - But it doesn't matter what I think of polling, I'll just quote your pdf.

(2,212 Iraqi adults from throughout the country were interviewed)

It's a nice find regardless. More informative stuff aside from the polls.

So, you think democracy was a major mistake? When you promise to hold a fair election, you have to stand by the results.

Democracy isn't a mistake. Including a man who will just add fuel to the secratarian fire, is a big mistake. Yes, we did promise a fair election and that's what they got. Um, no I don't have to stand by the results? As an example, some europeans and americans dislike president Bush even though he was elected fairly twice. A lot of them don't stand by the results. They complain, quite frequently I might add. So, no I don't have to stand by the results of their election. I can complain he should of been removed at the start.

- I'll read it tomorrow see if any more mistakes were made, but I'm sure you'll highlight them in red for me teacher Mulu.

[NickD]

Only someone living on an island could come up with that. Say hello to Gilligan and the Skipper next time you goto the other side of the island. Watch out for the gigantic ringwraiths too while your at it

So, uh, tell me, why was he so bad?

There are videos of his war crimes. I'm not sure if I should post them because they are violent and graphic. I'm unsure of the forum rules regarding showing videos exicutions, beheadings, torture, and rape.

But If I get the go ahead I'll do it.

OK. I watched the first video and it was painful to watch. I won't watch the other 3. However, I didn't see Saddam Hussein in the video I did watch.

So how is Saddam Hussien a bad person compared to your hero George Bush, under whose regime American soldiers have executed, tortured and raped Iraqis?

[NickD]

Yes. Though in his role as the only secular Arab ruler with any sort of power, he served as a great check on the power of other nations like Iran

And that's where things went bad. After Iraq was financially crippled fighting Iran (with some financial backing from America), Iraq wanted Kuwait's help in recovering considering that Iraq largely attacked Iran for the security of other Arab countries. When Kuwait worked against Iraq's efforts to recover their losses through oil production, Iraq got a bit upset, especially considering Britian cut out Kuwait from Iraq in WW2 and Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq with slanted drilling.

Iraq's annexation of Kuwait is at least understandable given the circumstances.

From what I understand, America wasn't too bothered about Iraq invading Kuwait, especially as they were very close to Soviet Russia at the time. But Britian had large financial investments in Kuwait at the time and I suspect the Iron Lady pushed America into invading. And after the war on Iran, the Gulf War pretty much ensured Iraq would not recover for a very long time, creating the environment that was there.

It's hard to judge how one would react to having one's country destroyed largely because of the defense of others who then turn on you.