3 ms·

> Freedom requires the ability to up and move into an area that is a challenge for the nearest power to control, regulate, and abuse. You're so right. Just rea

> Freedom requires the ability to up and move into an area that is a challenge for the nearest power to control, regulate, and abuse. You're so right. Just read about the horrendous abuses committed by Saddam Hussein and his psychopathic children in Iraq. And this in an area that was one of the cradles of civilization, many millennia ago. WTF happened in the meantime?

spikels 12y ago
Life in ancient Mesopotamia was at least as violent as life under Saddam Hussein or the current Iraqi government[1]. It was likely preceded by a succession of violent thugs (aka rulers) back to the dawn of humanity. If only the historical record was better you could probably trace the legitimacy of most governments back to some Neolithic caveman beating another caveman into submission. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130425-indus-civilization-discoveries-harappa-archaeology-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130425-indus...
- bostik 12y ago
  History is written by winners. The problem therein is that the winners are usually those who, after a prolonged conflict, stand on top of the highest pile of bodies. If they are smart enough, they will then start to purge the records from the worst atrocities. Maybe not to make themselves seem more benevolent than they are, but perhaps to prevent anyone from fully documenting the amount of force and brutality necessary to become a winner. After all, if you know how to win in a game where the only move to win is to cheat, why would you leave the most succesful instructions lying around?
  - zimbatm 12y ago
    Or under German occupation the french resistance where called terrorists. The one who wins gets to select his perspective of the events.
Zigurd 12y ago
You do know that the story of the soccer coach in the plastic shredder was made-up? Also, no babies were hurled from incubators in Kuwait. I have no idea how bad a man he was in fact, but the facts are now muddied by a lot of professionally crafted lies, like about WMDs, meant to justify an invasion. He was also a friend of America. He was secular and progressive. Until it was time to have a war. Both of those images of Hussein were created for us to shape our opinions. Which do you like to believe? What are the actual facts?
- PhantomGremlin 12y ago
  It's of course hard to know "the actual facts". As another commenter here reminded us, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's not one person, it's an entire brutal regime that operated in Iraq. I remember reading some stories, but don't have links saved. But the stories are so numerous and so "over the top" that it's probably not just "a lot of professionally crafted lies". There's probably a lot of truth there. So I did a quick search. The Guardian [1] (leftist rag recently giving us the Snowden revelations) had this to say about Uday, one of Saddam Hussein's sons, in the lead paragraph in a story in 2003: Uday: career of rape, torture and murder He was a monster even by the standards of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a sadist with a taste for cruelty so extreme that even his father was forced to acknowledge that his first-born son would not be a worthy heir. Uday and Qusay pretty much got to do as they pleased in Iraq. At least until they suffered from a terminal case of acute lead poisoning. I was never very enthusiastic about how jingoistic the US was vis a vis Iraq in the runup to the 2003 invasion. But ridding the gene pool of a few of these miscreants can't be such a bad thing. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/23/iraq.suzannegoldenberg http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/23/iraq.suzannegol...

spikels 12y ago

Life in ancient Mesopotamia was at least as violent as life under Saddam Hussein or the current Iraqi government[1]. It was likely preceded by a succession of violent thugs (aka rulers) back to the dawn of humanity. If only the historical record was better you could probably trace the legitimacy of most governments back to some Neolithic caveman beating another caveman into submission. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130425-indus-civilization-discoveries-harappa-archaeology-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130425-indus...

bostik 12y ago
History is written by winners. The problem therein is that the winners are usually those who, after a prolonged conflict, stand on top of the highest pile of bodies. If they are smart enough, they will then start to purge the records from the worst atrocities. Maybe not to make themselves seem more benevolent than they are, but perhaps to prevent anyone from fully documenting the amount of force and brutality necessary to become a winner. After all, if you know how to win in a game where the only move to win is to cheat, why would you leave the most succesful instructions lying around?
- zimbatm 12y ago
  Or under German occupation the french resistance where called terrorists. The one who wins gets to select his perspective of the events.

Zigurd 12y ago

You do know that the story of the soccer coach in the plastic shredder was made-up? Also, no babies were hurled from incubators in Kuwait. I have no idea how bad a man he was in fact, but the facts are now muddied by a lot of professionally crafted lies, like about WMDs, meant to justify an invasion. He was also a friend of America. He was secular and progressive. Until it was time to have a war. Both of those images of Hussein were created for us to shape our opinions. Which do you like to believe? What are the actual facts?

PhantomGremlin 12y ago
It's of course hard to know "the actual facts". As another commenter here reminded us, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's not one person, it's an entire brutal regime that operated in Iraq. I remember reading some stories, but don't have links saved. But the stories are so numerous and so "over the top" that it's probably not just "a lot of professionally crafted lies". There's probably a lot of truth there. So I did a quick search. The Guardian [1] (leftist rag recently giving us the Snowden revelations) had this to say about Uday, one of Saddam Hussein's sons, in the lead paragraph in a story in 2003: Uday: career of rape, torture and murder He was a monster even by the standards of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a sadist with a taste for cruelty so extreme that even his father was forced to acknowledge that his first-born son would not be a worthy heir. Uday and Qusay pretty much got to do as they pleased in Iraq. At least until they suffered from a terminal case of acute lead poisoning. I was never very enthusiastic about how jingoistic the US was vis a vis Iraq in the runup to the 2003 invasion. But ridding the gene pool of a few of these miscreants can't be such a bad thing. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/23/iraq.suzannegoldenberg http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jul/23/iraq.suzannegol...