| Username |
Post |
| hard_ |
Posted
on 01-May-03 09:40 PM
Ever since the great attack began on Iraq, Bush's speech seems to have been changing in its gist. Initially, it was WMDs and CWs. Then terrorism ties. Now, his speech appears to focus on tyrrant regime. I don't support Saddam, but the way Bush conducted war on Iraq, actually against Saddam, it looked like more of an assasination attempt to me.
Just a thought creeping by.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 02-May-03 06:18 AM
Just a thought creeping by haina ki... it's the TRUTH REVEALING ITSELF!
|
| bhenda2 |
Posted
on 02-May-03 06:52 AM
I dont know why you guys have so much sympathy for Saddam..he was a threat to his own people..a ruthless dictator...who only worked for himself and his family....didn't you see all the palaces he had...when his people are living in poverty...
I am glad that this guy is gone....I think every dictator in this world should be taken out...
retard Saddam trying to f**k with United States...I am sure he and his countrymen realized their Allah is not going to help them win wars.
|
| DigestIt |
Posted
on 02-May-03 09:50 AM
Bhenda:
How do you feel if India attacks Nepal and takes out our King G saying he is a ruthless King with all the military power and palaces while his people are suffering in poverty. Would you support India attack and occupation to 'liberate' Nepali people from 250 year old 'cruel' monarchy?
Or replace "India" with "USA" in the above question and read again.
If Nepalese unite to protest on streets, US military would shoot a few "to protect themselves". Then how would you feel?
It is not the sympathy of Saddam. It is the empathy of US policies.
"Why Saddam had to be dictator?"
Becuase he lived n a forest and there could be only one lion. If he would have been lenient and liberal, there would be no Saddam. Didn't you see what happened to Nepal's King Birendra?
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 02-May-03 09:58 AM
DijestIt:
You hit it right on the head! The protests around the world have nothing to do with "sympathy" for Saddam but everything to do with the concept of "Pax Americana" and Bush's ways of drawing/defining lines of "axis of evil"!
|
| bhenda2 |
Posted
on 02-May-03 10:01 AM
Ohh so you think Iraq has taken over by United States ha?? Our Nepali king hasn't used poisonous gas on his own people and killed hundreds and thousands of them, has he? if he did...he should have been taken out too.... and about American soldiers shooting at those Iraqis...didn't you hear Iraqis were the ones who started shooting first....havent you seen those barbarians walking around with AK 47s?
And what happened to King Birendra...he was a hen pecked man...who could not take care of his own family, ....and you and expected him to take care of the whole country...ha?
|
| DigestIt |
Posted
on 02-May-03 10:39 AM
That is the problem with you Bhenda:
If one becomes 'liberal' and 'lenient' >> then he/she becomes a "henpecked" and "one who can not take care of his family". e.g. King Birendra
Or
If one protects his family ( BTW, how do you protect your family? By eliminating its enemies) >> one becomes a tyrant and a murderer. e.g. Saddam.
So which way to go? Protect your family and be a tyrant or be a liberal and get yourself killed? Suggest me.
|
| bhenda2 |
Posted
on 02-May-03 11:18 AM
How was king Birendra lenient? By letting his son take drugs or by buying guns for him even though he knew he had a temper problem??
And about Saddam I am glad he is gone because he is a evil man for killing all those people...he is a recent hitler...maybe all those Jews would not have died if somebody had tried to stop Hitler way before.....
|
| bhenda2 |
Posted
on 02-May-03 11:35 AM
If one protects his family ( BTW, how do you protect your family? By eliminating its enemies) >> one becomes a tyrant and a murderer. e.g. Saddam.
Where do you live in a forest cave? Protect our family by eliminating our enemies....YEH Daaaa!!!! ofcourse you are a tyrant if you gass your enemies just because they dont agree with you...whatever your point is...GO BACK TO NEPAL WITH YOUR STONE AGE VIEWS....MAYBE GIRIJA WILL HIRE YOU.
|
| DigestIt |
Posted
on 02-May-03 12:04 PM
Bhenda:
You raised 2 issues:
1. How king Birendra was lenient? and
2. Saddam killed many people.
Let's analyze now.
1. King B was lenient becuase
A. He gave way to democracy in 1990 when less than 100 people had died in the movement. Historically, that was a small number of deaths.
B. He did not use military might to cursh the movement. He could have if he wanted.
C. After restoring the democracy he played by the rule by keeping himself as a true constitutional monarch. Never interfered with the system.
Re: Dipendra's drug and gun habits
What do you expect a father to do against his adult son? Put him in jail. Or be after him all the time. Dipendra was an adult. He had his drug problems and obsession of gun perhaps. But you can not blame a father for adult son's habit.
How many of your habits your own dad dislike? Do you care? No. If you think, you gotta do it, you do it, no matter who says what? And here you are talking about the crown prince, man!
2. Saddam killed many people.
True, he killed. I told you already if he hadn't killed he would have been killed instead. Simple as that.
Look, why US is killing these powers now? Because if it doesn't, they will kill US. Same theory.
And who has not killed people to stay in power? Not just in countries like Pakistan and Afganishtan or Iraq but also in "developed" world. Just look closely.
Our monarch duing 25 years of Panchayat killed hundreds of freedom fighters in jungles in "encounter" or "running away" action. US is killing Iraqi who wants to have their country for themselves. Even at home, US killed thousands of Native Indians to steal their fertile land. Did you forget all that? Now who will take US out of power because it killed thousands of Indians?
Bonus for you:
3. Issue of WMD
Q. What is the purpose of weapon?
A. To kill your enemy, right?
If we agree on the previous Q&A, we will also agree that everyone has right to defend itself from its enemies, right?
OK, then, say you are walking to someplace and a mugger came to loot you. What would you do? Kick him, bite his ear off, use stick or throw stone?
Answer is anything and everything to get rid of him. If you are capable and can afford a gun, you could shoot him. If not, you have to pick up a stone and bang on his head. If nothing works, you bite his ear off.
The issue of WMD (bio/chemical) is also similar. If you can use 2000 lbs bunker busters, it is like you are using a pistol in above situation. If you don't have one of those, then you got to bite off his ear - dirty or clean - disable your enemy.
The real concern of bio/chem weapons is its use by terrorrist in civil setting such as train station or a theatre. That is real risk of WMD.
Again, USA preaching others NOT to carry such arms is like "the biggest chor" giving "no-stealing" lesson to the village and to declare there can be only one chor and that is me.
Remember, history is always written by the winners.
"ta ta"
DI
|
| Katmandude |
Posted
on 02-May-03 12:21 PM
I am just glad that Saddam is gone. I rather live in a world dominated by George Bush than Saddam Hussein anyday. This guy was a threat to his neighbours, destablizing the whole region, which is a fact agreed and verified by even Arabs...fidgety with his weapons. I do believe that if he was not constantly kept in check he could have tried to pull crazier stunts than just invade Kuwait.
People seem to have conviniently forgetten that IRAQ invaded KUWAIT to occupy, looted it; killed and tortured Kuwaitis just 11 years ago...how the heck is that justifiable?
Trust me I am not a big fan of Dubya, heck I can't even vote...but sometiems it takes a lil more guts than an ordinary citizens to make this kind of decision and he made that decision and thats why he is the president for better or for worst and we are not.
Sure I can say US is no good too but if I had to trust between US and Iraq with Saddam at the helm, I will trust US any given day. There are no guarantees in life and George Bush might turn lunatic one day and gas one of the states, say Montana any day but i will take my chances on that.
|
| bhenda2 |
Posted
on 02-May-03 12:25 PM
King Birendra did not give us our Democracy because he is lenient because he realized that there was no other way...he could have used army to supress but for how long?? He realized people were getting stronger and its not like his ancestors days anymore. the recent example of Maoists shows us that peoples movement for democracy would have been stopped my the Army..
So they could decide who Dipendra was suppose to get married to but could not help their son with his drug and drinking habit ha? or was it the way of life of darbariyas...get high...Everybody who knew Dipendra, knows he had a temper problem but being a father could not stop him from having guns...I think it shows how dumb king B was to buy guns for his short tempered son, who did not hesitate to beat up his little sister...
yeh America is not ruled by some pshychotic dictator....and some other countries are...thats why they cant have WMD...
and about Saddam I am glad he is gone before he killed another thousands of people...whatever your views are...70% of Americans support this war and I am one of them..
|
| maximum20 |
Posted
on 02-May-03 08:50 PM
>>>yeh America is not ruled by some pshychotic dictator....and some other countries are...thats why they cant have WMD...
I disagree with everything you said. America is ruled by a dumbass who is a puppet to the billionaires that fund his election campaigns. they should not be allowed to have WMD because they have the idoicy and the backing of dumb citizens to start a groundless war.
Even after seeing that iraq did not have any WMD, if you keep thinking Bush's decision was justified, all i can do is shake my head in total disgust.
|
| NepaliChica91 |
Posted
on 05-May-03 12:59 PM
i don't understand at all,
maybe u just should never compare dem two! both bush and saadam are horrible people! bush wants to attck another country and after they win or lose, they will rebuild it! why can't they just take a bulldozer and tear everythin apart and build it dat way? why does it have to be killin innocent victims and da soldiers? and saadam hussien kills people because dey don't lyke him or dont worship him! in different ways, saadam and bush are the same, why argue?
|
