A humorous post

[baxter]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blsaddamrumsfeld.htm

OK this is humorous and just for laughs I have posted a photo from 1983. It is Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.

Please post your thoughts on what they may have said to each other

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Helping him fight the terrorist Iranian regime.

 

[baxter]

Helping him fight the terrorist Iranian regime.

Its humorous mate, lighten up. The thread is meant to be satirical

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Its humorous mate, lighten up. The thread is meant to be satirical

???

I wasn't saying that in an angry tone, was just saying what was going on it. :O

 

[baxter]

That’s the point to the thread, look beyond what you know and just look at two states men, 20 years ago, shaking hands, agreeing their agreements.
Compare that to now.
Honestly I’m not trying to provoke a disagreement I'm just after a humorous comment to the photograph.
call it a distraction from what is really going on.

 

[Pesmerga]

I don't get it. It doesn't seem very funny to me. They might have been at each others throats if there were no PR or press around.

 

[Adabiviak]

It's funny to me - it's even funnier that he (Saddam) was apparently on the CIA payroll for his efforts against Iran. We certainly gave them weapons (and a fairly legitimate reason not to like us). I don't condone terrorist actions, but I completely understand why they aren't thrilled with us, based on our past behavior.

 

[The Monkey]

Helping him fight the terrorist Iranian regime.

No, selling him weapons. He was a "evil" back then too, make no misstake.

 

[baxter]

The photograph is not funny and therein lays the joke.
The joke is the sheer scale of hypocrisy now shown by Rumsfeld.

At the time of Rumsfeld's visit, Hussein had invaded Iran, was seeking nuclear weapons and had used lethal mustard gas
This photograph was taken in 1983 after Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons . Even in 83 Hussian had an appalling human rights record.

Was Rumsfeld shaking hands with a known mass murderer, to give him a telling off maybe?
Eh...no this photograph shows him as a special envoy, his mission then was to improve U.S.-Iraqi relations, assure Hussein that Iran was their common enemy and promote an oil pipeline project.

The only thing funny about this particular joke is nobody is laughing.

 

[Solaris]

Tbqh Iran was a democracy till it was toppeled by a US backed dictator.

 

[No Limit]

Hey, Saddam, buddy, pal, friend, homeboy, how you doin?

 

[CptStern]

Helping him fight the terrorist Iranian regime.

you mean the fundamentalist regime that the US put into power after they disposed democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh?

 

[CptStern]

The photograph is not funny and therein lays the joke.
The joke is the sheer scale of hypocrisy now shown by Rumsfeld.

At the time of Rumsfeld's visit, Hussein had invaded Iran, was seeking nuclear weapons and had used lethal mustard gas
This photograph was taken in 1983 after Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons . Even in 83 Hussian had an appalling human rights record.

Was Rumsfeld shaking hands with a known mass murderer, to give him a telling off maybe?
Eh...no this photograph shows him as a special envoy, his mission then was to improve U.S.-Iraqi relations, assure Hussein that Iran was their common enemy and promote an oil pipeline project.

The only thing funny about this particular joke is nobody is laughing.

you've been doing your homework

here's a good resource that compiles it all together ...including declassified documents and a video from where that photo comes from

 

[SAJ]

Sorry for being pedantic Stern, but in what respect was the shah`s reign fundamentalist?
Not saying that youre wrong, but Ive never heard it referred to as such.

 

[CptStern]

I should calrify, as my post was misleading ....the shah's government wasnt fundamentalist but his government re-instated old british and american oil contracts that had been previously nationalised by Mossadegh much to the anger of iranians ...not to mention his brutal secret service were imprisoning and torturing citizens at whim

This all culminated with the revolution of 1979 when religious groups (long persecuted by SAVAK), the middle class and the left who supported the ayatollah's more moderate government overthrew the despotic shah ...once the ayatollah took over his more moderate ideology went out the door

so it's easy to see that if the US hadnt interfered Iran could have lived up to Mossadegh's vision of iran as a secular democratic state

here's some good reading on the coup

 

[SAJ]

I think thats more of a retraction than a clarification , Stern.
From talking to the Iranians that I know, I dont think any of them would call the Shah`s regime "moderate", westernised , yes, but far from moderate.

 

[CptStern]

I think thats more of a retraction than a clarification , Stern.
From talking to the Iranians that I know, I dont think any of them would call the Shah`s regime "moderate", westernised , yes, but far from moderate.

retraction/clarification ...shades of the same colour :E

and I was referring to the ayatollah's government being more moderate than the shah's

 

[seinfeldrules]

The photograph is not funny and therein lays the joke.

hahahaha I find it funny you say this to Rakrurai:

Its humorous mate, lighten up. The thread is meant to be satirical

Then come out with a post like you did. Gotta love it.

 

[baxter]

hahahaha I find it funny you say this to Rakrurai:


Then come out with a post like you did. Gotta love it.

You're right on that one, Oh my my, caught red handed using double standards.
There I was asking for humous comments on a photograph only to explain later on the circumstances behind it.
Mind you my "double standards" are on a internet forum not the world stage.

 

[SAJ]

and I was referring to the ayatollah's government being more moderate than the shah's

Ok, well once again Im going to have to ask for you to expand on that statement.
For the life of me , I cant imagine in what way the ayatollah`s regime(which one, you dont specify) could be considered moderate.
I swear Im not trying to be difficult here, Im just interested.

 

[seinfeldrules]

There I was asking for humous comments on a photograph only to explain later on the circumstances behind it.

Yeah, you pretty much ignored Rakurai's take on it. Wonder why...

 

[CptStern]

ya I was confused about that one too ...

k first you have to understand this part:


"The revolution is divided into two stages: the first saw an alliance of liberal, leftist, and religious groups oust the Shah; the second stage, often named the Islamic Revolution, saw the ayatollahs come to power."

source


so at first it was a colaboration between the religious and secular ...in the beginning they all supported a constitutional democracy but by the end of the revolution the ayatollahs had already gained significant power and the fundamentialism that had already been growing in iran took firm hold

 

[baxter]

Yeah, you pretty much ignored Rakurai's take on it. Wonder why...

Pretty much like you've ignored my take on it.

 

[NeptuneUK]

"so, saddam how'd ya do it?"

"aimb0t L0l!!"

 

[ríomhaire]

The thing about Iraq having WMDs, even if they did they aren't good at fighting and would probably blow themselves up. they only got 10 miles into the boarder of Iran or something with weapons and funding from the US.

 

[SAJ]

Thanks for clearing that up Stern,once again your clarification doesnt gel with your orignal post but I guess I will have to let it slide(your between-post use of wikipedia is showing).

"so, saddam how'd ya do it?"

"aimb0t L0l!!"

Heh, give that man the prize!

 

[CptStern]

yes remind me to kick yer arse next time for putting me on the spot like that

 

[DEATH eVADER]

We get the oil, you get the guns

 

[Top Secret]

yes remind me to kick yer arse next time for putting me on the spot like that

If anyone commands where the stage light points, it's you.

 

[CptStern]

I say it in jest ....unlike most people I like it when people force me to re-examine facts

 

[Top Secret]

I say it in jest ....unlike most people I like it when people force me to re-examine facts

That, in no way, explains why you do it to other people. Is it safe to assume that others like it, because you enjoy it? That sounds awfully American Stern. Excuse me, I seem to be jumping in mid thread.

 

[CptStern]

That, in no way, explains why you do it to other people. Is it safe to assume that others like it, because you enjoy it? That sounds awfully American Stern. Excuse me, I seem to be jumping in mid thread.

hehe that sig is just nonsensical


anyways ...why shouldnt I put people into the spotlight? debating isnt about opinions or personal values, ethics or even feelings but rather facts ...if people took the time to actually reaseach the things they say then they wouldnt be called on it when they post it

 

[Top Secret]

hehe that sig is just nonsensical

And you created it.

anyways ...why shouldnt I put people into the spotlight? debating isnt about opinions or personal values, ethics or even feelings but rather facts ...if people took the time to actually reaseach the things they say then they wouldnt be called on it when they post it

You mistake "spotlight". And you also walk over your own statement. I'm not talking about facts, or opinions, or anything of the sort. And I'm not talking about calling people on false information. You can do that all you want. But when you create a thread, and list people to challenge you, specific people, who haven't even posted there yet. It really does give off a sign of no maturity. Which to tell you the truth, is a bit degrading.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Pretty much like you've ignored my take on it.

If you had wanted serious discussion you should have labeled the thread as such. I'm not going to waste my time on somebody who washes away serious discussion, merely to post his own a few posts down.

 

[CptStern]

And you created it.





You mistake "spotlight". And you also walk over your own statement. I'm not talking about facts, or opinions, or anything of the sort. And I'm not talking about calling people on false information. You can do that all you want. But when you create a thread, and list people to challenge you, specific people, who haven't even posted there yet. It really does give off a sign of no maturity. Which to tell you the truth, is a bit degrading.

you know, you're right ...I gave you too much credit that you'd actually come up with such an abstract concept ...judging from your semi-literate pre-amble on targeting specific people I'd say your ego took a bit of a bruising at being called out ...which is ironic because I asked for your opinion ...but hey this is the politics forum ..we call each other out everytime we make a post, everytime we support or reject the topic at hand we are drawing a poverbial line in the sand daring others to cross

 

[baxter]

If you had wanted serious discussion you should have labeled the thread as such. I'm not going to waste my time on somebody who washes away serious discussion, merely to post his own a few posts down.

The labelling of the thread was incorrect, as was my use of posting a provocative photograph. The point I was putting across was neither.
If you want serious discussion rather than simply having a go at me maybe you would consider this as a serious statement.

Highlighting, pointing out or even poking fun at American Politicians hypocrisy is not an attack on America. It is not anti American to be appalled at sleaze balls that profit from the suffering of others.
I understand your hostility and desire to defend your country as would be mine but had that been a UK politician doing the same I would feel the same way I do, appalled.
By all means have a go at me, by all means be annoyed at my double standards but in the same token would you simply look at what I have put forward and consider it
I am not asking for you to abandon your highly held principles, simply to look at a photograph from 1983 and consider how it comes across.
Is there a point where you would ever say “Hey this is just isn’t right “?

 

[seinfeldrules]

By all means have a go at me, by all means be annoyed at my double standards but in the same token would you simply look at what I have put forward and consider it

This photo, unsuprisingly, has been discussed a million times.

My take on the photo is this:

During his period as Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East, Rumsfeld was the main conduit for crucial American military intelligence, hardware and strategic advice to Saddam Hussein, then fighting Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. During this period, US policy supported Iraq, believing it to be a useful buffer against Iran's new religious government, although the United States had originally been hesitant to work with a Soviet client state. When he visited on December 19-20, 1983, he and Saddam Hussein had a 90 minute discussion which covered Syria's occupation of Lebanon, preventing Syrian and Iranian expansion, preventing arms sales to Iran by foreign countries, increasing Iraqi oil production via a possible new oil pipeline across Jordan. Not mentioned was Iraqi production and use of chemical weapons. The Iranian government had cited several Iraqi air and ground chemical weapons attacks in the preceding two months, and the Iranian news agency had reported the use of chemical weapons as early as 1981. The US State Department first condemned the use of chemical weapons in the war on March 5, 1984, two days before the ICRC confirmed Iranian allegations.

wikipedia.org

 

[baxter]

This photo, unsuprisingly, has been discussed a million times.

You're right best not discuss it any more, simply brush it under the carpet, so off to bed for me and from you own source it's nice to know what they didn't discuss.

Not mentioned was Iraqi production and use of chemical weapons.

 

[CptStern]

This photo, unsuprisingly, has been discussed a million times.

My take on the photo is this:


wikipedia.org

oh but that doesnt paint the entire picture of the meeting


"His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons,[this is days after the world had learned of saddam's use of WMD] according to detailed notes on the meeting"



...hey look I just happen to have the US declassified minutes from that meeting:


http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq31.pdf



read it

 

[Top Secret]

you know, you're right ...I gave you too much credit that you'd actually come up with such an abstract concept

You're too funny.

...judging from your semi-literate pre-amble on targeting specific people I'd say your ego took a bit of a bruising at being called out

To tell you the truth, I smiled a little bit. Although it was quite childish of you to pick a fight, I was rather enlightened that I was chosen.

...which is ironic because I asked for your opinion ...but hey this is the politics forum ..we call each other out everytime we make a post, everytime we support or reject the topic at hand we are drawing a poverbial line in the sand daring others to cross

Are we now? I'm just having a good conversation in English.