Bush-Hitler Comparisons Ripen No Comparison?

Yeah dropping the atom bomb on a few Japanese cities sure sorted them out didn't it....

 

Compare pre 1945 japan to post 1945 japan.

One is a leading donor of aid in the world. The other is responsible for the rape and murder of 3-10 million people. I'll let you guess which one is which.

Dont blame America for not sacrificing american lives. We had the oppurtunity to end the war without further loss of American life. We did it. Just like anyone else would have. Japan shouldnt have attacked us.

 

History has a tendency to repeat itself. For example, when the US was at odds with Iran, the US financially supported Saddam Hussein as dictator, also arming him, giving Iraq biological and chemical weapons. During the Iran-Iraq war, the US under Reagon sold weapons to the Niguaragian Contras and filtered that money to Iran. Basically, we were helping both sides of a war, something considered illegal.


Next example, Soviets were invading Afghanistan and the US helped sponser the freedom fighters to rid the world of Communism. They were trained by US troops and given money. Who had an intimate relationship with the US during this time? Osama. Those freedom fighters included a group now known as Al Quada and terrorists. The country was left in ruins and these people blamed the US for abandoning them.

What is my point? The US has looked out for its interests first. Not too many people seem educated with an understanding of neutral history. That is part of the problem with history, because the conquers tend to rewrite it from their point of view & ignore the conquered groups point of view.

Lets look at a little history. Although Bush is not mentally unstable, he is similar to Hitler, though a lot dumber. Like Hitler, he lied to invade a country which posed no threat, which makes him a war criminal. Bush is responsible for the deaths of about a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis. How many more innocent people will suffer before we realize that war is not the answer?

Peace & Love

 

The victors write the history, and then the anti-war groups rewrite history to suit their needs to. Consider this:

The US never gave Iraq chemical or biological weapons, this is a commonly repeated myth. Additionally, in terms of arming him, we gave him less than 1% of his weapons. Not much.

Afghan freedom fighters were mostly trained by Pakistan's ISI security services, which were the conduit for US arms and other aid. There was no direct relationship with Osama, let alone an "intimate" one. Al Queda was not formed until 1988, after the Soviets had already started leaving, and was not a recipient of US aid.

 

That is a blatant lie. We did supply Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, and you know it. Saddam Hussein was supplied throughout the administration of Reagan and Bush (41), and we continued to back him as he used chemical weapons against his own people. It wasn't until the US wanted to invade Iraq that those atrocites became relevant to us.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

 

The US has had a tendency to interfere with other countries to protect their interests, not taking into consideration the reprocussions of their actions. For example, putting Saddam into power. Also, Castro had been US backed until he turned commie and then we wanted him out. The list could go on, but these are facts. Look up facts and don't confuse them with opinions.

History does repeat itself and denying this basic fact shows ignorance in history. Unfortunately, hatred and delusion prevent wisdom from rooting in the mind (from the perspective of a Buddhist). BTW, figures don't lie but liars can figure. Keep that in mind when looking at different figures.

It doesn't matter who "wins" or "loses" these debates when millions of people are victims in their own country. They live in extreme poverty and are lacking in basic nessicities, including clean water and fuel. Let's remember the Iraquis instead of uselessly arguing ("never argue with a crazy man")

Peace & Love

 

Inhaling too much chemtrails? You posted an article that doesn't say the US sold chemical or biological weapons to Iraq. Nobody sold chem or bio weapons to Iraq, they built their own. I've been throught this with you before and you totally failed to prove your case.

That you would come back and repeat the same lie just shows how allergic you are to facts.

 

Maybe you should learn to read, Pressed_Rat link did say the US sold chemical and bio weapons to Iraq.

Here is another article http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

 

is there somethiong in the canadian water?

 

What you can't read either?

You tell me what "Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague", means to you.

Sure they have civilian application but come on the US knew it was going to be used for military purposes.

 

PB said that biological or chemical WEAPONS weren't sold to saddam and that he made them himself.

That article says nthing about WEAPONS being sold to saddam.

prescursors were sold.

 

Big difference, the US knew what they were being used for as they keeped selling them after Saddam used them AS weapons aginst Iraqn and the Kurds.

This is why Saddam didn't have WMDs this time around since he needed supplies from the US to make them and they only have a 10 year shelf life.

 

yeah Psy, funny that you can cut things out and paste them, but you can't actually READ them.

i've been through this a billion times. you have to read up on these things to understand them rather than just doing a google search until you find a "progressive" website that says what you want to hear and quickly cut and paste it (perhaps adding in some insult about "the corporate media" to flesh out the post a bit).

Anthrax sounds pretty scary doesn't it? They must cook that stuff up in some secret military lab 2 miles underground at area 51, right? No. It is a naturally occurring pathogen that can be found in the soil all over the world. Cattle is commonly infected with anthrax in many countries, including Iraq.

What happened was the University of Baghdad calls up the American Type Culture Collection, a non-profit lab in Virginia, and requests samples. They also got samples of two strains from the Pasteur Institute in France. The veterinary lab at Baghdad U requested Anthrax samples, as labs in many countries do, for the purpose of developing animal and human vaccines for local versions of Anthrax. So we sent them to Iraq.

So getting anthrax samples was the easy part, because at the time they were perfectly legal. "Weaponsing" it (the standard liquid form isn't much use) and developing delivery systems is the much harder part. For that, Iraq needed its own engineers.

Not quite as exciting as "we gave Iraq biological weapons", but there are plenty of places on the web that will give you what you WANT to hear, stripped of all context and inconvenient facts.

 

Iraq still needed a constant supply and the US knew what those supplies where going for. Then you have the BS over the recent Iraq war of Saddam having antrax when nobody sold Saddam antrax in 10 years and Iraq has no capablity to make it on its own.

okay the US sold Iraq the MEANS to make biological and chemical weapons, happier now?

 

You make shit up like nobody else here. It never ceases to amaze me how you just make up one story after another, never even blinking when the last one is proved wrong, just quickly replacing it with the new improved lie.

Saddam never used bio weapons against anyone. So how could we "keeped" selling them after he used them? Chemical weapons are just chemicals - do you think Saddam had to go to the US to get chlorine? Actually you probably do. Never mind. Also, Saddam bought bio materials from all sorts of countries, e.g. the Pasteur lab in France. He didn't "need" supplies from the US. The reason you don't know this is because most anti-war websites are totally uninterested in Saddam's relationships with any countries other than the US. That's why there's 10,000 websites on the 1% of arms Saddam bought from the USA, but virtually nothing on the other 99%. So if you read these websites, which you obviously do without the slightist hint of scepticism, you'd get the impression the only country Saddam had any relationship with is the USA.

 

I was talking about both chemical and bio exports to Iraq (yes US chemicials went into making Iraqi chemical based weapons) and it was only a matter of time before Saddam used bio weapons too. The US never restricted biological and chemical exports to Iraq after Saddam used the chemical weapons in Iran. Hell the US never stoped giving Saddam reconnaissance phots after Saddam used chemical weapons on Iran.

Sure Saddam could find other sources or make chemicals himself but doing so would have slowed his production down and Saddam could not replace US reconnaissance the US shared with Saddam.

The US gave Saddam the means to commit atrocities.

So atrocities in US intrests okay, atrocities not in US intrest not okay. See the double standard?

 

So first Rat calls me a liar, then you ask if I can read, then you ask if Megara can read, then you admit we were right all along and they never sold chem or bio weapons to Iraq. So can you read, or do you just not bother?

Then you claimed we kept selling them to him even as he used them on the Kurds when Saddam never used bio weapons on anyone.

You said he could only get supplies from the US, then you changed your story and said "sure he could get other sources". WTF? So you were just making it up before?

Trying to debate such a moving target is a waste of time. Why don't you make your mind up what exactly your story is first. While you're at it, back up the following statements:

US chemicials went into making Iraqi chemical based weapon: Prove that US chemicals went in after Halabja, and that they were not common industrial chemicals which Saddam could get anywhere.

Sure Saddam could find other sources or make chemicals himself but doing so would have slowed his production down: Prove it.

Iraq still needed a constant supply of anthrax: prove it.

 

For those interested in the bizarre hypocricy of criticism of US sales of dual use materials and technologies, read this:

http://www.phmovement.org/pubs/issuepapers/hong20.html

It essentially accuses the US of genocide for denying dual use materials (e.g. chlorine, vaccines) and technologies to Iraq during the sanctions regime.

Can't win.

 

Come on you KNEW it was just a overstatement yet you made a overstatement in the other direction. The US did far more then just supply 1% of Iraq weapons.

Just because someone uses a overstatment doesn't make it false. The US still aided in Saddams biological and chemical program via exporting what Saddam needed.

My bad, I ment the aid as a whole. He was using weapons, intellegence and chemicals for atrocities and the US still gave Saddam the means.

I said he need a constant supply, Iraq didn't have have the resources it needed thus the US and others was suppling those chemicals. Yet notice that Saddam only got cut off of said supplies when he became a threat to US intrests.

Yes they were dual use but the US still provided reconnaissance to Saddam that was used to launch chemical attack which would mean that Saddams actions had to have the support of the US goverment.

The US had did nothing to even suggest to Saddam that the US had anything aginst his atrocities till Saddam became a threat to US intrests. Infact the US rewarded Saddam for being a thug for the US intrest.

This is the point the US is the world biggest hyprocirite. Another example is when Turky burned down 3,000 Kurdish villages and the US called the Kurdish that fought back aginst Turkist oppression terrorist and continued to arm Turkey to commit gennocide against their Kurds. Go see the documentary "Good Kurds, Bad Kurds" to see how fucked up US forien policy is.