The heavyweight champion as a political tool, history repeats itself!

As vile as he was Hussein did not use WMD on anyone he didn't possess any.
If you mean the Kurds it is ethnic, not ethic.
I'm not surpised you don't know anything about ethics.

You need to get out of this debate because its glaringly obvious you know jack **** about it.atsch

 

I think that the Nazis killed 20 million Russians both soldiers and civilians in WW2. That is some body count.

The dehumanisation, and extermination of Jewish people by them is second to none as far as atrocities go IMHO.

 

You cannot be THAT stupid. Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack[/url]

He had WMD's

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/10/14/15-Oct-14-World-View-NY-Times-reveals-Saddam-Hussein-had-large-quantities-of-WMDs[/url]

I suggest you stay out of political threads. You're a hack!!!

Go ahead and try to prove these links wrong.

 

Hilarious.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM[/url]

 

That is not necessarily true at all. It became fashionable to say so, somewhere along the line, I know. But historians estimates on the deliberate deaths under Stalin's rule vary considerably, as do the criteria for quantification. The counting of deaths by famine in Ukraine is highly controversial, for example, but has been used often to tip deaths by communism up over the Nazi number. And some of the figures are just impossible. It's a stretch to say Stalin killed more than Hitler actually, even though he was in power for about twice as many years. Almost all of the Nazis killing of over 10 million civilians happened in a 5 year period.

BUT even if were true that the Soviets killed more, the Nazis planned to kill far more but just so happened to lose the war.
If the Nazis had won things would have been much worse.

This article is pretty good on the death tolls:

[url]http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/[/url]


By the way, I have no wish to defend Stalin or the Bolsheviks or Communists - the record is atrocious, as you point out. But the Nazis were worse and more murderous, and the numbers killed by the communists in Russia has been inflated or acquired by bad methodology or for 'cold war' political reasons.
None of which would matter, except it does because Neo-Nazis and Fascists will jump on the "Commies was worse" vibe to rehabilitate Nationalism Socialism and build Hitler up into some sort of saviour.

Sure, but the Khymer Rouge could have called themselves anything. I think they even said "we are not communists" at one point, denouncing their roots as the Kampuchea Communist Party. They certainly had little to do with Marxism. They were an agrarian death cult that sprung up in a brutalized, backward, superstitious and xenophobic society.

That's one way of looking at it.

On the other hand, "communists" have made some contributions in democratic capitalist countries - whether it be for workers' rights, black civil rights, women's rights etc. - which are admirable principles, imo.
(Of course, this is communists who are NOT in power.)
And in my opinion, "Nazis" and racist fascists are always a force against progress.

 

In fact, they can even be capitalist communist regimes, as modern China proves.

 

I'm aware Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds,
I corrected your spelling on that post!
In the context that the then UK Government used it to give a reason to join the US in a joint assault on Iraq.No Weapons Of Mass Destruction were found, nor were they subsequently found.
This is the CIA's Final Report.

[url]WASHINGTON[/url] — In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.


Peter Taylor
1:00PM GMT 18 Mar 2013

Ten years on from the invasion, Iraq remains the most divisive war in recent history and the greatest intelligence failure in living memory.

Much of the key intelligence that was used to justify the war was based on fabrication, wishful thinking and lies - and as subsequent investigations showed, it was dramatically wrong. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

But crucially, there was intelligence that proved to be right. And, as a forensic, six-month investigation we conducted for BBC Panorama has revealed, it came from two highly-placed human sources at the very top of Saddam’s regime.

Both said that Iraq had no active WMD. Both were ignored or dismissed.

The intelligence from the first source came just a week before the government published its controversial dossier on WMD on 24 September 2002.



According to a new [url]investigation[/url] in the New York Times by veteranwar correspondent C.J. Chivers, American troops secretly reported finding "roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs" left over from the early years of Saddam Hussein's rule.Uncovered between 2004 and 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops were wounded when encountering these weapons.
So are these the weapons of mass destruction we've been hearing about for years? Despite the headlines shouting about[url] weapons of mass destruction[/url] in Iraq, the Times reports that the chemical weapons discovered by U.S. soldiers after the 2003 invasion were virtually unusable, and the Iraqi government simply didn't have the production facilities to make workable chemical weapons the way Bush claimed.
But that's not the worst part of the Times investigation. Because the leftover stores didn't fit the convenient narrative that Hussein had large-and-ready stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, military officials at times suppressed the evidence or ordered troops to keep their mouths shut — even when they fell sick
I could post a hundred such links but you would just ignore them so why bother?

 

See my following post.

 

the Klitschkos are a product of clever marketing, cashing in on increased affluence in Mid to Eastern Europe. politics? not sure it goes that far.

 

I put that in the same category as Al Capone handing out turkeys to the poor on Thanksgiving or John Gotti putting on free fireworks displays for the poor neighborhoods on July 4th.

(sorry, couldn't resist )

 

John Gotti's defending counsel was Roy Cohn the prosecutor for Red Baiter Senator Joe McCarthy,when asked why he would take such a brief ? He gave the same answer as you.Sorry couldn't resist.$$$$$$$.

 

Huh? I thought it was Bruce Cutler.

 

Fair enough, but I still beg to differ.

If Capone had been the only rich guy handing out free Turkeys then he too would be worthy of praise.

It's an unfortunate and inconvenient truth that the American communists were championing black civil rights for decades and fighting that struggle while just about of all your "freedom and democracy" American mainstream political parties were upholding racism and doing very little to stop Jim Crow oppression and the barbarism of lynchings.
And lots of those communists who were "flushed out" by McCarthyism were guilty of nothing more than struggling for black workers' rights and equality. Guilty of being organized "uppity ni*ggers" ?
(they were not all Bolshevik commissars waiting to shoot you in the back of the head.)