Re: Still curious…
[color=blue]I will attempt to do the same as Logan, by highlighting my response in blue, and I apologise Saddy, it does appear jumbled!!![/color]
ADM: Yes he is, he belongs to one of the strongest suits of muslim caste their is…Sunni Muslims, he killed the Kurds because of their religious beliefs, and he hates the Shi’te factions in the south and they hate him, it was only his paramilitary forces that kept them in check.
[color=orange]Logan[/color]: No, I mean that I do not believe that he is a particularly religious man– just because you may belong to a religion does not neccesarily make you religious. And the Baath Party is considered to be secular as I said (certainly by Moslem standards) and he is the leader. He only uses religion for his own ends, as I intimated.
[color=blue]ADM: I do not believe so, he does use religion to his own ends, but we don’t know how strong his belief in his faith is, maybe he does employ an approach that is akin to Stalin, but like so many other’s the middle east, a leader does require a following of religion to guide his actions. I go by his treatment of the other muslim groups in his country which he treats with disdain, his actions towards both Shi’te and Kurd indicate his attacks on them being for religious reasons. [/color][/color]
For what I’ve read and heard on the news, it was not because of religious beliefs particularly that he killed the Kurds, it was because he saw them as a threat — especially to his party’s control of the oilfields in Northern Iraq. BTW, do you think in Turkey that they’vre been killed the Kurds for religious purposes only — I don’t. Again with the Shiites, they were considered a threat (religion may have been used by some — I don’t know — in the Baath Party to justify these actions. Also, there is a huge Shiite population in Iran and Iraq was fighting them, aso in part due to oil like with the invasion of Kuwait (that was when Iran was the US’s enemy and Iraq was their ally) — I don’t think I need spell out the ramifications. BTW, you do know that Tariq Aziz is a Christian, right?
[color=blue]ADM: Again, we can only speculate on how religious he is and to what are we making a comparison too?, I think he would find it difficult too convince suicide bombers to attack the coalition if they didn’t believe in his religious conviction, like Osama, he has said that such people will attain their place in heaven for their actions, but these people would need to know that he is sending them to their deaths with a strong religious belief.[/color]
Logan: As for similarities between the practises of the early NAZI party ( who were democratically elected as you know) and the Bush administration (which was…), think of as broad examples only (particularly since the horrible events of 9-11) increased miltarism, a decrease in civil liberties, nationalism, increased xenophobia, an international agenda that will bow to noone, and a strike first attitude.
BTW, “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” (aka The Bush Doctrine), has me very scared indeed; as if the Monroe Doctrine wasn’t bad enough! 😯
Of course (to use an old idiom) one can draw similarities between apples and oranges if one desires — they’re both fruit for instance. But just because there are many differences doesn’t mean that there are no similarities — and I understood what he was getting at, and what he was not getting at. I think people need to be a little more generous with their replies, and try to think through what the other person is saying more (my humble opinion).
ADM: Oh, yes and don’t forget America claiming it’s the master race and that the Jewish people deserved to be wiped out, oh and good choice America to start of your world domination, a third world country, while Nazi Germany was taking over countries bordering it, America decides to start their world domination by invading a dusty, not particularly rich third world country.
Your description of America can be added to any of the top six nations of the world, and of course you going to have increased Xenophobia, especially when two large planes smash into the side on one of your national treasures, your reasoning for linking the US to the Nazi’s is absurd, try to come up with something a little more compelling next time.
[color=orange]Logan[/color]: Ah, I think you missed my point by a long-shot (again). My point was that one can draw parallels (I never said it was a good thing to do so), just as one can find dissimilarities, and I understood what Lexxrobotech was getting at, and I find your atiitude “ungenerous” to him to his argument to say the least. He never said they were the same… I’ll leave it at that.
[color=blue]ADM: My attitude being ‘ungenerous’ is exactly that, I don’t believe that this sort of talk has any merit whatsoever, you can apply the same principles to many countries, but he has obviously singled out America and only America to say such things, you can’t ignore that he is making a comparison between Nazi Germany and the US, but for so many reasons he is wrong, the examples to show a link between the two are not enough to be convincing, like I said these same examples can and do apply to other western countries, but that does not make them akin to Nazi Germany. For instance you can draw a comparison that the American are an intensely proud people, as were the Germans during the time of the nazi’s, but in no way can you assume this makes them the same, it is loosely based at best, and what he say’s serve’s no function but too insult Americans.[/color]
Logan: Just something that still bugs me…
BTW, ADM, you’re an old veteran of the war thread, why do you call people who organise war protests etc. cowards? Surely they are putting themselves at risk, just as protesters have been shot, arrested, interrogated, black listed, harassed, harangued, tortured etc. in many places on many occassions (including here using at least one of those examples), and can therefore not be called cowards. For me the coward is he who is too scared to speak out, or take any action despite his beliefs. How do you define “coward”?[/quote]
ADM: Do you actually read any of these posts at all?
Ummm to take action despite his beliefs for starters, i.e instead of whining about how the war is wrong, give me the solution that will stop it, and please spare me the diplomacy routine, I want a solution that means no bloodshed.
But my main attack is the cowards that use this war to their own advantage, they are not interested in the War, they use people like you to get another point of view across, look for them at these demonstrations, they are not hard to miss, they will be the ones showing their political allegiance on placards, these are the cowards, they are also the organisers of such demonstrations, and people like you are their mouthpiece.
ADM[/quote]
[color=orange]Logan[/color]: Still looking for clarification…
Do you read my posts? You haven’t answered my question, or if you did I missed it again. A coward is “someone who is easily frightened or intimidated by danger or pain” (OED). So why are they cowards? Specifically cowards. It’s funny that you called them cowards again before even answering my question, and I think I can see a little begging the question in your posts.[/quote]
[color=blue]And yet again you pay no heed to my posts, in fact I used your own description of a coward to answer your question, or do you not remember posting the bit about ‘or take any action despite his beliefs’.
You cannot interpret the literal use of the word ‘coward’ to this, my understanding of a coward is for someone to incite disorder whilst not having the guts to admit as much, which is akin to ‘or take any action despite his beliefs’, or someone who is frightened of confrontation when faced with a challenge to their beliefs, both in your own description and in the OED’s explanation can you find why I call these people cowards.
Specifically to use other people’s beliefs and fears, using them as a front for your own beliefs whilst never admitting that this is your intention, for me that is a form of cowardice. An example in it’s simplest form, like a playground bully, the bully starts a fight, he starts to lose the fight, he then uses other people’s agenda’s to get other’s into the fight on his behalf, and then the bully leaves them to fight for him, he has left other’s to make the confrontation for reasons that had originally nothing to do with them[/color].[color=#444444][/color]