NationStates Jolt Archive

I've got a few things to speak about and a couple of questions I wish to ask.

First thing - Dubya & Co were stating prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq that the United Nations was something for a past era, etc. etc. So, why is the US enforcing -UN resolutions-? If the UN doesn't matter, then its resolutions shouldn't matter either.

Secondly, why are you people surprised that the Iraqi people don't like you? First, you put brutal sanctions on them for 12 years and killed over 1.7 million Iraqis, mainly children. You continually bomb the country. You then invade the country a second time and kill over 10,000 civilians and wound tens of thousands other civilians. The Iraqi people didn't tell you to come there. If the people wanted Saddam out, they would have gotten him out. Just like in Eastern European nations, the Soviet Union, etc. etc.

Why do you think you can enforce "democracy" on Iraqis? If democracy is to develop, it must develop on its own. You cannot enforce your ideals on someone else. Didn't Powell say earlier this year in Kuwait that democracy must form within the culture and cannot be imposed? Yes, he did. So, why did they invade Iraq? You can't tell me that the CIA and all other intelligence agencies were 'wrong' about Iraq having WMDs. They all knew he didn't have it and that is why the majority of the world did not join the US.

The US itself doesn't have a democracy. Until the popular vote actually means that the candidate that has the most votes wins, it is not a democracy. The "electoral college" is undemocratic, for it does not follow the popular vote.

And lastly, people like Salishe who say... let's move to the Kurds and support the Kurds and the such... but isn't that the same as Saddam who you kept saying gave preferential treatment to Sunnis? Now, you're giving preferential treatment to the Kurds, who make up about 15 to 20% of the population, an even smaller minority than the Sunnis who make up about 25-30% of the population.

Where did you get 10000 from? some al-jazeera site?

Where did you get 10000 from? some al-jazeera site?

Certainly not from the Pentagon, as democracy-loving America is NOT keeping the body count...

Wake up and smell the napalm.

Where did you get 10000 from? some al-jazeera site?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

Although, that doesn't include those that the US has massacred in Iraq in the last couple of days. In fact, it has stopped counting since Jan. 1st. so it's higher.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/003200404071934.htm

MOre than 60 Iraqis killed, including women and children and over 130 wounded in Fallujah.

Fighting overnight between US forces and Iraqi insurgents killed 60 Iraqis and wounded more than 130, hospital officials said today.

Among the dead were 26 people including 16 children and up to eight women, killed when warplanes struck four houses late yesterday

Where did you get 10000 from? some al-jazeera site?

And there is NOTHING wrong with al-Jazeera. They report the truth. FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, etc. report lies.

Where did you get 10000 from? some al-jazeera site?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

Although, that doesn't include those that the US has massacred in Iraq in the last couple of days. In fact, it has stopped counting since Jan. 1st. so it's higher.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/003200404071934.htm

MOre than 60 Iraqis killed, including women and children and over 130 wounded in Fallujah.

Fighting overnight between US forces and Iraqi insurgents killed 60 Iraqis and wounded more than 130, hospital officials said today.

Among the dead were 26 people including 16 children and up to eight women, killed when warplanes struck four houses late yesterday
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Don't bother the yankee children with statistics of dead foreigners, they don't care. They like to stand in front of star spangled mirrors, saluting and mumbling words of freedom and democracy. Please don't disturb them, they can't take the real world.

Yep, another reason to trust Al Anbar. Not only has he shown us the light in regards to Al-Jazeera, but he's also shown us the light on how Saddam wasn't really doing anything bad, anyway. And how anything relating to Geroge W. is bad. Please, more revalations.

Could not agree with you more, Al Anbar.
Democracy is an evolutionary process.
One cannot force choice on a people who have no clue how to choose. Why do you think they are following these clerics? It is because it is someone LOCAL who can make decisions for them.

Where did you get 10000 from? some al-jazeera site?

And there is NOTHING wrong with al-Jazeera. They report the truth. FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, etc. report lies.

Acutally, all of them are the same, except for FOX and those war-loving conservative bastards.

Yep, another reason to trust Al Anbar. Not only has he shown us the light in regards to Al-Jazeera, but he's also shown us the light on how Saddam wasn't really doing anything bad, anyway. And how anything relating to Geroge W. is bad. Please, more revalations.

1) Al Jazeera is one source. FoxNews is another. ANYONE who believes one source and does not exercise critical spirit is in for a rude awakening. BTW, Kwangistar, have you looked at current events in Iraq?

2) Saddam Hussein was doing some pretty bad things, yep. None of those the U.S. charged him with, however.

3) Anything relating to George W. is therefore related to the whole Neocon Mafia currently in power in the U.S. I suppose that someone (presumably, those CEOs who are benefitting from the current state of affairs in the Middle East) can find nothing bad with that.

Yep, another reason to trust Al Anbar. Not only has he shown us the light in regards to Al-Jazeera, but he's also shown us the light on how Saddam wasn't really doing anything bad, anyway. And how anything relating to Geroge W. is bad. Please, more revalations.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

They may be revelations to you, but to some of us, the facts are part of everyday life.
You want revelations?
Try this.

'One veteran's outrage: Bush, Iraq and the dead pile up'
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/021804Dalton/021804dalton.html

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/021804Dalton/021804dalton.html
'As an American, a former Marine (if there is such an animal . . . former that is), as a disabled Vietnam veteran, I am outraged over the glib, cavalier and dismissive attitude of Bush and his cabal when it comes to the wholesale slaughter of our young men and women which is being done only to futher their quest for empire. Bush talks of the "sacrifices" that "we" must make . . . after all we are at war he tells us. Damn it! The only people doing the sacrificing are the poor, people of color, and what is left of an ever decreasing middle class. He does not care! If he did, even just a little, he would show some sign of respect for the dead, the wounded and their families. Instead he goes into a 10-minue "lecture" attempting to convince us and the families of the fallen, that he, Bush, is making the world a safer place. After all didn't he get rid of that bad man Saddam? And the dead keep growing in numbers'.

Here we go again...

1) Al Jazeera is one source. FoxNews is another. ANYONE who believes one source and does not exercise critical spirit is in for a rude awakening. BTW, Kwangistar, have you looked at current events in Iraq?
Tell me who's doing what you accuse : only believing one source. Is it me, who just things Al-Jazeera is a bunch of anti-Israel and more sublimely, anti-American BS or the one who says that every American news channel (FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest) is all wrong and Al-Jazeera is right.

2) Saddam Hussein was doing some pretty bad things, yep. None of those the U.S. charged him with, however.
Really? During the 2003 State of the Union and other large speeches, The Bush administration clearly outlined *other* reasons besides WMD - being a brutal dictator that mass-murdered his citizens being one of them.

3) Anything relating to George W. is therefore related to the whole Neocon Mafia currently in power in the U.S. I suppose that someone (presumably, those CEOs who are benefitting from the current state of affairs in the Middle East) can find nothing bad with that.
Spare me. Please.

They may be revelations to you, but to some of us, the facts are part of everyday life.
You must have a distorted view of reality of Saddam Hussein being a not-so-bad guy is a "fact".

You want revelations?
Try this.

I read the first paragraph and I knew it was going to be an "America's a brutal evil empire" whinefest. No revalations that some people just don't want to like America.

Who brainwashed you? Would you rather live in under saddam or a democracy?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm
I’ve been looking through all of the cases. A large quantity of which the US military wasn’t even a target. Some of the cases were so vague or incomplete that it cannot exactly determine the exact cause without further research. In cases that expanded over multiple days it even admitted that there was some overlap and not all overlaps were corrected. There was even a minimum and maximum column with a discrepancy of nearly 2000 deaths leaving a large margin of error. Your source only describes total Iraqi civilian deaths, not civilian deaths related to US military actions.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

Here we go again...

1) Al Jazeera is one source. FoxNews is another. ANYONE who believes one source and does not exercise critical spirit is in for a rude awakening. BTW, Kwangistar, have you looked at current events in Iraq?
Tell me who's doing what you accuse : only believing one source. Is it me, who just things Al-Jazeera is a bunch of anti-Israel and more sublimely, anti-American BS or the one who says that every American news channel (FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest) is all wrong and Al-Jazeera is right.

Well, I'm sure if you live in the middle east, they are some very similar things to say about America news networks wouldn't there be? Pro-Israel, anti-Muslim.. pro-American.. you think the American networks carry all the news? You think they put out the stuff that would make them look really bad? Of course they don't... The American media favours the American side.. the Middle east favours the middle east's point of view. Both equally as valid.. and both equally as biased.

Here we go again...

1) Al Jazeera is one source. FoxNews is another. ANYONE who believes one source and does not exercise critical spirit is in for a rude awakening. BTW, Kwangistar, have you looked at current events in Iraq?
Tell me who's doing what you accuse : only believing one source. Is it me, who just things Al-Jazeera is a bunch of anti-Israel and more sublimely, anti-American BS or the one who says that every American news channel (FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest) is all wrong and Al-Jazeera is right.


Actually - he was accused of using only Al jazeera as his source. Instead, he gave you TWO diferent sources that support his claim.

And here is a third (http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html)

Enough on that bogus assertion now?


2) Saddam Hussein was doing some pretty bad things, yep. None of those the U.S. charged him with, however.
Really? During the 2003 State of the Union and other large speeches, The Bush administration clearly outlined *other* reasons besides WMD - being a brutal dictator that mass-murdered his citizens being one of them.

YEs. Of course, GW used that as background material. Was he mass-murdering at the time? Nope. Had been nearly 15 years since Anfal.

You only go to war to stop imminent threats. Not to right past wrongs. Or could Al Qaeda use the excuse: The US commited mass murder against native tribes 150 years ago. Clearly they are a threat that needs to be demolished.



They may be revelations to you, but to some of us, the facts are part of everyday life.
You must have a distorted view of reality of Saddam Hussein being a not-so-bad guy is a "fact".

Why is it autmatically assumed that people who are against GW are For Saddam.

Simplistic logic - but then again we are getting used to that from some people around here....

Yep, another reason to trust Al Anbar. Not only has he shown us the light in regards to Al-Jazeera, but he's also shown us the light on how Saddam wasn't really doing anything bad, anyway. And how anything relating to Geroge W. is bad. Please, more revalations.

Please enleighten the class or give 1 example why Fox (seen in the free EU world as a Republican propaganda channel) would be better then Al Jazeera that works together with the BBC, oh yes, ounty Beep is not neutral for the Kwangistar Pravda.

Yep, another reason to trust Al Anbar. Not only has he shown us the light in regards to Al-Jazeera, but he's also shown us the light on how Saddam wasn't really doing anything bad, anyway. And how anything relating to Geroge W. is bad. Please, more revalations.

Please enleighten the class or give 1 example why Fox (seen in the free EU world as a Republican propaganda channel) would be better then Al Jazeera that works together with the BBC, oh yes, ounty Beep is not neutral for the Kwangistar Pravda.

I don't think we should even try for democracy in Iraq right now. What we need to do is:

1) Establish a common law system based on the common good
2) Create institutions in order to support his law, which should be as transparent as possible in order to minimize corruption
3) Entrench human rights, including property rights, into the constitution and law system
4) Ensure freedom of religion, but allow for state sponsored religion on a region by region basis
5) ENsure high levels of emigration possibility

Democracy, in my mind, is probably a lot less important than these things right now. IT's better to live in an undemocratic nation knowing your rights are secure than living in a democratic nations rife with chaos. Would you rather live in the Balkans or Nigeria, nominally democratic areas, or Cuba, non-democratic but generally high levels of human rights.

I don't think we should even try for democracy in Iraq right now. What we need to do is:

1) Establish a common law system based on the common good
2) Create institutions in order to support his law, which should be as transparent as possible in order to minimize corruption
3) Entrench human rights, including property rights, into the constitution and law system
4) Ensure freedom of religion, but allow for state sponsored religion on a region by region basis
5) ENsure high levels of emigration possibility

Democracy, in my mind, is probably a lot less important than these things right now. IT's better to live in an undemocratic nation knowing your rights are secure than living in a democratic nations rife with chaos. Would you rather live in the Balkans or Nigeria, nominally democratic areas, or Cuba, non-democratic but generally high levels of human rights.

I read the first paragraph and I knew it was going to be an "America's a brutal evil empire" whinefest. No revalations that some people just don't want to like America.[/quote]

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

So the fact that he's a vet is not relevent to you? I'm sure he and other Americans are grateful to you and acknowledge your superiority.
I suggest you read more and talk less, you might then have a little more knowledge of what you're trying to talk about.
I might point out to you that it is Iraqis fighting Americans in Iraq at the moment. Only an idiot would be unable to understand the significance of that.
You lot keep trumpeting your gangster leaders lies and deceipt. I will enjoy watching him kicked out in November.
The lying git clearly, despite his and your protestations to the contrary, gave WMD as the reason for his illegal invasion. WMD. You remember, those things hundreds and hundreds of American soldiers have died for. And thousands and thousands of Iraqis, the people you couldn't give a toss for. WMD. You can back-pedal all you like, it was WMD. WMD that the UN inspectors said didn't exist, and what do you know? Even King George can't find them with all his minions over there.
You spitefully write off the thoughts and opinions of a man who has fought for America because it doesn't suit your current Kings political ambitions, IE to win four more years, to finish the job he secretly wants. A subservient Middle-East. You can believe all the crap about democracy being 'instilled' into Iraq and other places if you must, I'll take the truth. King George is hell-bent on destroying what little respect and credibility the US has left. Afghanistan was almost justifiable, and certainly understandable but Iraq has nothing to do with the 'war on terror', except in creating thousands more terrorists.
From the same American vet who you dismiss:

'Tim Russert on Meet the Press, when he interviewed Bush, asked him, "Now looking back, in your mind, is it worth the loss of 530 American lives and 3,000 injuries and woundings simply to remove Saddam Hussein, even though there were no weapons of mass destruction?" Did Bush show any signs of understanding, compassion, sympathy or loss about the dead and dying . . . not by any stretch of the imagination. Instead he went into one of the most obscene diatribes, an "instruction" for the families of the fallen, about Saddam being a "bad" man. So what! We knew he was a "bad" man the entire 20-plus years he was our bad man . . . it didn't seen to matter much then when Rumsfeld was having "tea" with him back in the '80s and giving him the things necessary to manufacture bio/chem weapons. Or when Cheney's Halliburton was doing business with him in 1998!'

Who brainwashed you? Would you rather live in under saddam or a democracy?

A democracy.


Does Iraq have one of those?

No.

They live under military occupation ruled by an appointed council salted with criminal exiles (Chalabi) whos decisions are subject to veto by an appointed American civillian who does not neccessarily share their core values, and who is definitely basing his decisions on the best interests of the USA rather than of Iraqis.


Not saying it's the same as Saddam.

But it ain't the thriving freedom you describe either.

I think Iraqis have the right to be happy that Saddam is gone at the same time as they are unhappy to be under occupation.



-Z-

I read the first paragraph and I knew it was going to be an "America's a brutal evil empire" whinefest. No revalations that some people just don't want to like America.[/quote]

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

So the fact that he's a vet is not relevent to you? I'm sure he and other Americans are grateful to you and acknowledge your superiority.
I suggest you read more and talk less, you might then have a little more knowledge of what you're trying to talk about.
I might point out to you that it is Iraqis fighting Americans in Iraq at the moment. Only an idiot would be unable to understand the significance of that.
You lot keep trumpeting your gangster leaders lies and deceipt. I will enjoy watching him kicked out in November.
The lying git clearly, despite his and your protestations to the contrary, gave WMD as the reason for his illegal invasion. WMD. You remember, those things hundreds and hundreds of American soldiers have died for. And thousands and thousands of Iraqis, the people you couldn't give a toss for. WMD. You can back-pedal all you like, it was WMD. WMD that the UN inspectors said didn't exist, and what do you know? Even King George can't find them with all his minions over there.
You spitefully write off the thoughts and opinions of a man who has fought for America because it doesn't suit your current Kings political ambitions, IE to win four more years, to finish the job he secretly wants. A subservient Middle-East. You can believe all the crap about democracy being 'instilled' into Iraq and other places if you must, I'll take the truth. King George is hell-bent on destroying what little respect and credibility the US has left. Afghanistan was almost justifiable, and certainly understandable but Iraq has nothing to do with the 'war on terror', except in creating thousands more terrorists.
From the same American vet who you dismiss:

'Tim Russert on Meet the Press, when he interviewed Bush, asked him, "Now looking back, in your mind, is it worth the loss of 530 American lives and 3,000 injuries and woundings simply to remove Saddam Hussein, even though there were no weapons of mass destruction?" Did Bush show any signs of understanding, compassion, sympathy or loss about the dead and dying . . . not by any stretch of the imagination. Instead he went into one of the most obscene diatribes, an "instruction" for the families of the fallen, about Saddam being a "bad" man. So what! We knew he was a "bad" man the entire 20-plus years he was our bad man . . . it didn't seen to matter much then when Rumsfeld was having "tea" with him back in the '80s and giving him the things necessary to manufacture bio/chem weapons. Or when Cheney's Halliburton was doing business with him in 1998!'

Yep, another reason to trust Al Anbar. Not only has he shown us the light in regards to Al-Jazeera, but he's also shown us the light on how Saddam wasn't really doing anything bad, anyway. And how anything relating to Geroge W. is bad. Please, more revalations.

Please enleighten the class or give 1 example why Fox (seen in the free EU world as a Republican propaganda channel) would be better then Al Jazeera that works together with the BBC, oh yes, ounty Beep is not neutral for the Kwangistar Pravda.

Here we go again...

Tell me who's doing what you accuse : only believing one source. Is it me, who just things Al-Jazeera is a bunch of anti-Israel and more sublimely, anti-American BS or the one who says that every American news channel (FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest) is all wrong and Al-Jazeera is right.

I *accused* someone? That's news to me. I simply told you (and yes, I was speaking specifically to you) to use critical spirit. I purposely mentioned Al-Jazeera and FoxNews, the two extremes of ideologically-driven media, and nobody else.

Really? During the 2003 State of the Union and other large speeches, The Bush administration clearly outlined *other* reasons besides WMD - being a brutal dictator that mass-murdered his citizens being one of them.

Sorry, pal, you've got to be kidding. The world is full of brutal dictators who mass-murder their own citizens (and a lot of them are bedfellows of the U.S., just like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were in the past); what made Saddam special were his alleged WMD. Which weren't real. Try again.

Spare me. Please.

No, from the Neocon Mafia only you and the other U.S. citizens can spare us.

Enough on that bogus assertion now?
No. Lets see if you can follow this.

Al Anbar said this : "And there is NOTHING wrong with al-Jazeera. They report the truth. FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, etc. report lies."

Then I ridiculed him and said it was wrong,

Then Fift said this : "ANYONE who believes one source and does not exercise critical spirit is in for a rude awakening."

Now, from what Anbar said there in his post, it would seem like he only trusted one news source out of all of the American ones. The websites were about the body count, but this sub-plot was about whether Al-Jazeera was credible, and Al-Anbar says they are while all the other TV news stations are wrong.

YEs. Of course, GW used that as background material. Was he mass-murdering at the time? Nope. Had been nearly 15 years since Anfal.

You only go to war to stop imminent threats. Not to right past wrongs. Or could Al Qaeda use the excuse: The US commited mass murder against native tribes 150 years ago. Clearly they are a threat that needs to be demolished.
Really? I know that directly after the Gulf War he massacred the family members of those who were in the uprising - and of course also the people who rebelled in the first place. 2003 minus 1992.... a bit less than 15. Thats of course assuming that his record is *spotless* between then and 2003, however it certainly is not.

Why is it autmatically assumed that people who are against GW are For Saddam.

Simplistic logic - but then again we are getting used to that from some people around here....
Sipmlistic logic, and if I may add, assumptions are a very common one.

People that are against GW aren't necessarily for Saddam, Al-Anbar is, he admitted it in a post earlier. Those 'relevations' I listed had 3 parts : One was that Al-Jazeera was a truthful newsource (While all American newschannels weren't.) The second was that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy. The third was that anything relating to George W. was bad. Since Spherical didn't differentiate between the 3 and simply said that "they may be relevations to you, but to some of us, the facts are part of every day life", I thought that meant that since there was no distinguishing between all 3, it was a "fact" that Saddam wasn't so bad, Al-Jazeera was unbiased, and anything relating to Bush is bad. I didn't assume, it was right there on the screen.

I don't think we should even try for democracy in Iraq right now. What we need to do is:

1) Establish a common law system based on the common good
2) Create institutions in order to support his law, which should be as transparent as possible in order to minimize corruption
3) Entrench human rights, including property rights, into the constitution and law system
4) Ensure freedom of religion, but allow for state sponsored religion on a region by region basis
5) ENsure high levels of emigration possibility

Democracy, in my mind, is probably a lot less important than these things right now. IT's better to live in an undemocratic nation knowing your rights are secure than living in a democratic nations rife with chaos. Would you rather live in the Balkans or Nigeria, nominally democratic areas, or Cuba, non-democratic but generally high levels of human rights.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Hear hear. Well said.

Well, I'm sure if you live in the middle east, they are some very similar things to say about America news networks wouldn't there be? Pro-Israel, anti-Muslim.. pro-American.. you think the American networks carry all the news? You think they put out the stuff that would make them look really bad? Of course they don't... The American media favours the American side.. the Middle east favours the middle east's point of view. Both equally as valid.. and both equally as biased.

Then I guess it dosen't make much send for people to be railing against "Faux News" and things like that, does it?

Oh, and when people dispute claims on the numbers of civillian deaths - perhaps they should ask themselves why it's so hard to get that figure.

You'd think it was the sort of thing people would care about.


You'd think right. People would care. Perhaps they might care a lot.

Which is why the Coalition PRovisional Authority ordered the attempt to put an official count on civilian deaths to be stopped (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-iraq-civilians_x.htm)

They don't want you to know how many died.

Why is that do you think?

-Z-

[I didn't assume, it was right there on the screen.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

You were just unable to understand it.

You said you couldn't be bothered to read this ex-marines article so I post a bit more for you.

'To Bush and his cabal we are just numbers on paper, pieces on a chessboard to be moved around at his "pleasure." In the meantime, the dead keep growing in numbers.

Bush stated he is a "war president." That his "policy" decisions are made with "war in mind." Welcome to militarism and the "American Empire." And the dead keep piling up. Empire and its accompanying "might makes right" dogma, by any of the Orwellian double-speak terms or the euphemisms currently in vogue, is still "empire." '

Oh, and when people dispute claims on the numbers of civillian deaths - perhaps they should ask themselves why it's so hard to get that figure.

You'd think it was the sort of thing people would care about.


You'd think right. People would care. Perhaps they might care a lot.

Which is why the Coalition PRovisional Authority ordered the attempt to put an official count on civilian deaths to be stopped (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-iraq-civilians_x.htm)

They don't want you to know how many died.

Why is that do you think?

-Z-
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Sounds to me like something we used to read about regarding Sadaams regime.

"He told me, 'You should move far away from this subject,'" Mohsen said. "I don't know why."

Abbas, the minister"

Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered. Allegations of prostitution are used to intimidate opponents of the regime and have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women. There have been documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulting in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south." Refugees International reports that


Saddam killed more Iraqis than the US ever will. I don't know what you all are looking for: if the US hadn't invaded, Hussein would have continued to violate human rights- I don't think anyone's likely to debate that. If they leave now, thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, will die in the ensuing chaos. So what exactly do you want from the US here?

Sipmlistic logic, and if I may add, assumptions are a very common one.

All of your arguments simply parrot the Bush party line.. you never deviate from them. Which can only lead me to one conclusion.. you don't look into these things for yourself you simply parrot what you've been told to think and believe. Shame.

You appear to be un-able to step outside the box of American propaganda and consider for just a moment maybe it's not all lovely and rosey as you would have us all believe. Or as stated, the Bushies would have you believe. It's a war based on lies.. it was all along. No WMD means the war was one hell of a delayed reaction based on any thing else and if Saddam lives to see his trial (which I'm not sure the Americans want that) because if he does, all the American involvement will come out. Where the hell do you think he got the WMD's to begin with? That in a criminal court would make you as gulity as him. Or do you believe that when the USA and the UK gave Saddam WMD during the Iraq/Iran war they gave them to him thinking he wouldn't use them? If so, what was the point in giving them to him to begin with. America still considered him an ally after he used them on Iran. So now Saddam is evil and America is not?

If I give you a gun knowing you will use it to kill some one, that makes me as guilty as you. So cut the bullsh*t please.

[

Saddam killed more Iraqis than the US ever will. I don't know what you all are looking for: if the US hadn't invaded, Hussein would have continued to violate human rights- I don't think anyone's likely to debate that. If they leave now, thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, will die in the ensuing chaos. So what exactly do you want from the US here?
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Not much. Just clear up the mess they've made without the loss of more Iraqi and coaltion lives. But that ain't gonna happen is it?

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Not much. Just clear up the mess they've made without the loss of more Iraqi and coaltion lives. But that ain't gonna happen is it?

It's still better than life under Hussein, I would imagine, given the numbers HE killed and the atrocities HE commited. I don't feel very comfortable saying that tyrranical, oppressive regimes should be allowed to stand because it's convenient for us.

I read the first paragraph and I knew it was going to be an "America's a brutal evil empire" whinefest. No revalations that some people just don't want to like America.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

So the fact that he's a vet is not relevent to you? I'm sure he and other Americans are grateful to you and acknowledge your superiority.[/Quote]
I don't claim to be above (Superior) anyone else, but knowing you I could expect at least one part of the strawman in the first few seconds. Being a vet really dosen't matter to me. Bob Kerry (not to be confused with John) was a vet too, and he killed a bunch of South Vietnamese with his own hands. Just because you are a vet dosen't make you infallable or right, it is a good, distinguishing characteristic, but you can find vets on almost every side of every issue : Such as Vets for John Kerry and Vets against John Kerry.

I suggest you read more and talk less, you might then have a little more knowledge of what you're trying to talk about.
I might point out to you that it is Iraqis fighting Americans in Iraq at the moment. Only an idiot would be unable to understand the significance of that.
Its more than just the Iraqi's. Foreign terrorists are flooding in as well. Of course the majority will be Iraqi's, because were in Iraq. I don't see any significance to that.

You lot keep trumpeting your gangster leaders lies and deceipt. I will enjoy watching him kicked out in November.
The lying git clearly, despite his and your protestations to the contrary, gave WMD as the reason for his illegal invasion.
As *a* reason. Not as the reason, the media of course sensationalized on it, because they're the media. Watch the 2003 State of the Union adress again, I believe he gave 12(?) reasons to go to war against Iraq, only 1 was WMD. And the WMD reason was valid back then. Hindsight is always 20/20, some people like to pretened that they could see what was going to happen back in March of last year.

WMD. You remember, those things hundreds and hundreds of American soldiers have died for. And thousands and thousands of Iraqis, the people you couldn't give a toss for.
Stop. You've said this about 5 times in different threads. Its simply not true. I'd say that the people that wanted to keep Saddam in power were the ones that didn't care about the Iraqi's, but thats just my point of view.

WMD. You can back-pedal all you like, it was WMD. WMD that the UN inspectors said didn't exist, and what do you know? Even King George can't find them with all his minions over there.
No, the UN said they couldn't be sure if they existed, and that Iraq was in material breech. It was stated clearly that the burden of proof was on Iraq, and what did they do? Produced an over 1000 page dossier about their WMD that *still* had missing information in it - and then said that they'd fill in that information past the deadline. WMD inspectors said that they couldn't find it, but that it was most likely there.

You spitefully write off the thoughts and opinions of a man who has fought for America because it doesn't suit your current Kings political ambitions, IE to win four more years, to finish the job he secretly wants. A subservient Middle-East. You can believe all the crap about democracy being 'instilled' into Iraq and other places if you must, I'll take the truth. King George is hell-bent on destroying what little respect and credibility the US has left. Afghanistan was almost justifiable, and certainly understandable but Iraq has nothing to do with the 'war on terror', except in creating thousands more terrorists.
Puhleeze. You can have your facts, and roll around in the Anti-Bush mud all you want. When you present a reasonable arguement on why Bush is going to take oer all of the Middle East, then maybe I'll look into it. The only people hell-bent on destroying what respect and credibility the US has is people like you, Micheal Moore, and all the other Benedict Arnold Americans and foreigners that want to see the US go down in flames.

[Quote]From the same American vet who you dismiss:
giving him the things necessary to manufacture bio/chem weapons. quote]
I dismiss everyone who puts out lies like that.

The Arab Socialist Republic of Al Anbar is a massive, safe nation, renowned for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate, cynical population of 1.098 billion are ruled without fear or favor by a psychotic dictator, who outlaws just about everything and refers to the populace as "my little playthings."


Funny what your country profile looks like. Sounds like Al Anbar is worried he'll be the next Psychotic Dictator to go down :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Sorry, pal, you've got to be kidding. The world is full of brutal dictators who mass-murder their own citizens (and a lot of them are bedfellows of the U.S., just like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were in the past); what made Saddam special were his alleged WMD. Which weren't real. Try again.
Nope, Saddam and Osama weren't pals with the US. A case could be made for Saddam - a weak one at that - but definately not Osama, who despised the US for basically his whole life. What made Saddam especially special was his dozens of broken UN resolutions.

I read the first paragraph and I knew it was going to be an "America's a brutal evil empire" whinefest. No revalations that some people just don't want to like America.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

So the fact that he's a vet is not relevent to you? I'm sure he and other Americans are grateful to you and acknowledge your superiority.
I suggest you read more and talk less, you might then have a little more knowledge of what you're trying to talk about.
I might point out to you that it is Iraqis fighting Americans in Iraq at the moment. Only an idiot would be unable to understand the significance of that.
You lot keep trumpeting your gangster leaders lies and deceipt. I will enjoy watching him kicked out in November.
The lying git clearly, despite his and your protestations to the contrary, gave WMD as the reason for his illegal invasion. WMD. You remember, those things hundreds and hundreds of American soldiers have died for. And thousands and thousands of Iraqis, the people you couldn't give a toss for. WMD. You can back-pedal all you like, it was WMD. WMD that the UN inspectors said didn't exist, and what do you know? Even King George can't find them with all his minions over there.
You spitefully write off the thoughts and opinions of a man who has fought for America because it doesn't suit your current Kings political ambitions, IE to win four more years, to finish the job he secretly wants. A subservient Middle-East. You can believe all the crap about democracy being 'instilled' into Iraq and other places if you must, I'll take the truth. King George is hell-bent on destroying what little respect and credibility the US has left. Afghanistan was almost justifiable, and certainly understandable but Iraq has nothing to do with the 'war on terror', except in creating thousands more terrorists.
From the same American vet who you dismiss:

'Tim Russert on Meet the Press, when he interviewed Bush, asked him, "Now looking back, in your mind, is it worth the loss of 530 American lives and 3,000 injuries and woundings simply to remove Saddam Hussein, even though there were no weapons of mass destruction?" Did Bush show any signs of understanding, compassion, sympathy or loss about the dead and dying . . . not by any stretch of the imagination. Instead he went into one of the most obscene diatribes, an "instruction" for the families of the fallen, about Saddam being a "bad" man. So what! We knew he was a "bad" man the entire 20-plus years he was our bad man . . . it didn't seen to matter much then when Rumsfeld was having "tea" with him back in the '80s and giving him the things necessary to manufacture bio/chem weapons. Or when Cheney's Halliburton was doing business with him in 1998!'[/quote]
Well thought out and equally well stated!!

Bottom line.. if Saddam is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity then so is the American goverment and the UK government they gave him the WMD to begin with.. In fact the Americans consipired with Saddam during the Iran war. That's all been public for many years now. It's like any thing else.. you're just as guilty of the crime if you're the one to pull the trigger or not. Look at your own American laws. So I still ask, how is Saddam evil and America not? Saddam could of never gassed any one without the help of the United States. So maybe the ICC should come knocking on your door! Oh right, you're not a member of the ICC because you believe in holding every one accountable for their actions but YOU!

Bottom line.. if Saddam is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity then so is the American goverment and the UK government they gave him the WMD to begin with.. In fact the Americans consipired with Saddam during the Iran war. That's all been public for many years now. It's like any thing else.. you're just as guilty of the crime if you're the one to pull the trigger or not. Look at your own American laws. So I still ask, how is Saddam evil and America not? Saddam could of never gassed any one without the help of the United States. So maybe the ICC should come knocking on your door! Oh right, you're not a member of the ICC because you believe in holding every one accountable for their actions but YOU!
Hmm, from what I've heard, the cyanide for Saddam's chemical weapons came from Germany, actually...

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/17/iraq.chemical.suit/index.html

Germany is home to the most major suppliers listed in Iraq's 1998 U.N. declaration. The Netherlands and Switzerland each are home to three companies on the list. France, Austria and the United States each are home to two. The declaration says Singapore was the largest exporter of chemical weapons precursors. Other countries home to alleged chemical exporters to Iraq include India, Egypt, Spain and Luxembourg, with one each.

Sipmlistic logic, and if I may add, assumptions are a very common one.

All of your arguments simply parrot the Bush party line.. you never deviate from them. Which can only lead me to one conclusion.. you don't look into these things for yourself you simply parrot what you've been told to think and believe. Shame.
Well I have. Remebmer the science thread? I said sometimes Bush's policies don't follow the right scientific line. I don't agree with Bush's massive spending, and I think he should cut Social Security. Now will you stop calling me a parrot.

You appear to be un-able to step outside the box of American propaganda and consider for just a moment maybe it's not all lovely and rosey as you would have us all believe. Or as stated, the Bushies would have you believe.
I've been told this many times before. Quite frankly, its like Letila saying anyone who believes one ounce of capitalism is a corporate slave exploiting the poor. And it really dosen't mean anything to me. I don't go around calling you Noam Chomsky's mouthpiece, so the same courtesy would be nice. Personally, I think you're a better liberal than some of them around here, but thats just me.

It's a war based on lies.. it was all along. No WMD means the war was one hell of a delayed reaction based on any thing else and if Saddam lives to see his trial (which I'm not sure the Americans want that) because if he does, all the American involvement will come out. Where the hell do you think he got the WMD's to begin with?
France and the USSR.

That in a criminal court would make you as gulity as him. Or do you believe that when the USA and the UK gave Saddam WMD during the Iraq/Iran war they gave them to him thinking he wouldn't use them? If so, what was the point in giving them to him to begin with. America still considered him an ally after he used them on Iran. So now Saddam is evil and America is not?
Actually, I do. All the USA gave to Saddam really was small biological samples of diseases that we give to every friendly regime around the world - for vaccines.

If I give you a gun knowing you will use it to kill some one, that makes me as guilty as you. So cut the bullsh*t please.
It does. I believe we've seen the Rumsfeld-Hussein picture on these boards before, but not this one :

http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20030314/ufran0314/0314saddam.jpg

I've got a few things to speak about and a couple of questions I wish to ask.

First thing - Dubya & Co were stating prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq that the United Nations was something for a past era, etc. etc. So, why is the US enforcing -UN resolutions-? If the UN doesn't matter, then its resolutions shouldn't matter either.

Secondly, why are you people surprised that the Iraqi people don't like you? First, you put brutal sanctions on them for 12 years and killed over 1.7 million Iraqis, mainly children. You continually bomb the country. You then invade the country a second time and kill over 10,000 civilians and wound tens of thousands other civilians. The Iraqi people didn't tell you to come there. If the people wanted Saddam out, they would have gotten him out. Just like in Eastern European nations, the Soviet Union, etc. etc.

Why do you think you can enforce "democracy" on Iraqis? If democracy is to develop, it must develop on its own. You cannot enforce your ideals on someone else. Didn't Powell say earlier this year in Kuwait that democracy must form within the culture and cannot be imposed? Yes, he did. So, why did they invade Iraq? You can't tell me that the CIA and all other intelligence agencies were 'wrong' about Iraq having WMDs. They all knew he didn't have it and that is why the majority of the world did not join the US.

The US itself doesn't have a democracy. Until the popular vote actually means that the candidate that has the most votes wins, it is not a democracy. The "electoral college" is undemocratic, for it does not follow the popular vote.

And lastly, people like Salishe who say... let's move to the Kurds and support the Kurds and the such... but isn't that the same as Saddam who you kept saying gave preferential treatment to Sunnis? Now, you're giving preferential treatment to the Kurds, who make up about 15 to 20% of the population, an even smaller minority than the Sunnis who make up about 25-30% of the population.

I didn't read the answers as their the standard answer, just going to answer the person who started the thread.

There is nothing legal or illegal about war. War is outside the normal legal parameters, because they occur between states. And yes the U.N. doesn't matter, and the entire American government in union should stop acting as if it does. It doesn't represent world politics anymore. India and Brazil should have greater says in the Security Council but do not.

The U.S. didn't impose the sanctions, the U.N. did. U.S. has embargoes against several nations. I won't comment on the figures, since their not reviewable. No one actually went out to count and frankly I don't think anyone cares; and that is a shame. As for Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union fell apart, it wasn't taken apart by the "people". It slowly rotted away until finally, opportunists in Russia saw their chance and dissolved the union. And I seriously doubt the Iraqis would have been able to get rid of Saddam alone; Stalin stayed in power until his death and so did most leaders of the Soviet Union and the other inumerable amount of dictactors which plague this world.

As for the WMD's and the imposition of democracy. Personnally, I don't see one nation in Iraq I see three. The faster we recognize the reality the faster we can give everyone what they want. The Shi'ites of the south get their own state, the Sunni get theirs and the Kurds get their Kurdistan. Regional politics be damned. This solution is vastly simpler to implement and less headache. You can't force people to co-exist if they refuse to do so. And the WMD's, I always believed Saddam had some. The fact we haven't found any doesn't mean they didn't exist. If Saddam didn't have any, then why all the subterfuge? And the stalling? And the threats and handlers for all the U.N. inspections? Saddam's Iraq lost the first Gulf War and agreed to certain terms under which there was a cessation of violence. He didn't live up to his side of the agreement, he forfeited his position.

The U.S. is the oldest democracy in existence to date. The electoral college has worked just fine for them, and their technically a republic. Show me one Middle Eastern state with the amount of freedoms and choice that the U.S. provides for its citizens.

Bottom line.. if Saddam is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity then so is the American goverment and the UK government they gave him the WMD to begin with.. In fact the Americans consipired with Saddam during the Iran war. That's all been public for many years now. It's like any thing else.. you're just as guilty of the crime if you're the one to pull the trigger or not. Look at your own American laws. So I still ask, how is Saddam evil and America not? Saddam could of never gassed any one without the help of the United States. So maybe the ICC should come knocking on your door! Oh right, you're not a member of the ICC because you believe in holding every one accountable for their actions but YOU!

Yes, I agree that's problematic. But I dont think it necessarily has much to do with how we examine this war, from a moral standpoint. I think, in general, it is important that we have a sort of definition or code for what constitutes a regime that is entitled to non-interference, and a regime that is not. I'm not entirely certain what this criteria might be (Rawls outlines a potential system in "Law of Peoples") but I think virtually any system of international law would not entitle Hussein to non-interference. He did not respect human rights, he did not consult with his people, he did not allow basic freedoms of conscience and religion, he was expansionist, and he was not leading with any kind of 'common good' directives.

I don't see why he would be entitled to non-interference.

Sipmlistic logic, and if I may add, assumptions are a very common one.

All of your arguments simply parrot the Bush party line.. you never deviate from them. Which can only lead me to one conclusion.. you don't look into these things for yourself you simply parrot what you've been told to think and believe. Shame.
Well I have. Remebmer the science thread? I said sometimes Bush's policies don't follow the right scientific line. I don't agree with Bush's massive spending, and I think he should cut Social Security. Now will you stop calling me a parrot.

You appear to be un-able to step outside the box of American propaganda and consider for just a moment maybe it's not all lovely and rosey as you would have us all believe. Or as stated, the Bushies would have you believe.
I've been told this many times before. Quite frankly, its like Letila saying anyone who believes one ounce of capitalism is a corporate slave exploiting the poor. And it really dosen't mean anything to me. I don't go around calling you Noam Chomsky's mouthpiece, so the same courtesy would be nice. Personally, I think you're a better liberal than some of them around here, but thats just me.

It's a war based on lies.. it was all along. No WMD means the war was one hell of a delayed reaction based on any thing else and if Saddam lives to see his trial (which I'm not sure the Americans want that) because if he does, all the American involvement will come out. Where the hell do you think he got the WMD's to begin with?
France and the USSR.

That in a criminal court would make you as gulity as him. Or do you believe that when the USA and the UK gave Saddam WMD during the Iraq/Iran war they gave them to him thinking he wouldn't use them? If so, what was the point in giving them to him to begin with. America still considered him an ally after he used them on Iran. So now Saddam is evil and America is not?
Actually, I do. All the USA gave to Saddam really was small biological samples of diseases that we give to every friendly regime around the world - for vaccines.

If I give you a gun knowing you will use it to kill some one, that makes me as guilty as you. So cut the bullsh*t please.
It does. I believe we've seen the Rumsfeld-Hussein picture on these boards before, but not this one :

http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20030314/ufran0314/0314saddam.jpg

Actually, France and Germany and Russia are have known to sell Saddam conventional weapons.. agreed.. and maybe along with the Americans and the UK, maybe they did give him WMD as well.. I won't argue that. But then you're all guilty.. so how exactly does this negate the fact that America is guilty as well? Oh and all those other nations you mentioned with the exception of Russia.. are signatory members of the ICC. So, I ask again, if Saddam is guilty then why aren't all the people including your American government as guilty as him? You would be in any court of law in the USA.. so what gives you the high ground? What did your government think he was going to use the WMD for? They knew who Saddam was.. hell you installed him!

Because, if I'm a gun vendor selling a gun to a guy who has the license and all the credentials that makes it legal, and I sell it to him, and that guy then goes and shoots some people, I as the gun vendor am not at fault.

If I gave him a rocket launcher, I would be at fault.
If I gave him stuff without his proper credentials, I would be at fault.

Unfortunately, I don't see anything particularly wrong with what the US did - or the UK really for that matter - of course the vast majority of "aid" came from the USSR and its satillite nations in Eastern Europe and around the world. The US gave him samples, which could have been turned into biological weapons, but they were nothing out of the ordinary of which we give to other friendly nations.

Actually, France and Germany and Russia are have known to sell Saddam conventional weapons.. agreed.. and maybe along with the Americans and the UK, maybe they did give him WMD as well.. I won't argue that. But then you're all guilty.. so how exactly does this negate the fact that America is guilty as well?
Guilty of what exactly?
Oh and all those other nations you mentioned with the exception of Russia.. are signatory members of the ICC. So, I ask again, if Saddam is guilty then why aren't all the people including your American government as guilty as him? You would be in any court of law in the USA.. so what gives you the high ground? What did your government think he was going to use the WMD for? They knew who Saddam was.. hell you installed him!

That's not true, actually. Saddam was not installed by the US, he rose through the ranks of the Baathist party to overthrow the monarchy. The US has put a lot of dicatators into power, but Saddam's not one of them.

As for WMD, it's possible they thought these WMD would simply be used as a deterrent.

Also, what are you claiming the US Is guilty of exactly?

Actually, France and Germany and Russia are have known to sell Saddam conventional weapons.. agreed.. and maybe along with the Americans and the UK, maybe they did give him WMD as well.. I won't argue that. But then you're all guilty.. so how exactly does this negate the fact that America is guilty as well?
Guilty of what exactly?
Oh and all those other nations you mentioned with the exception of Russia.. are signatory members of the ICC. So, I ask again, if Saddam is guilty then why aren't all the people including your American government as guilty as him? You would be in any court of law in the USA.. so what gives you the high ground? What did your government think he was going to use the WMD for? They knew who Saddam was.. hell you installed him!

That's not true, actually. Saddam was not installed by the US, he rose through the ranks of the Baathist party to overthrow the monarchy. The US has put a lot of dicatators into power, but Saddam's not one of them.

As for WMD, it's possible they thought these WMD would simply be used as a deterrent.

Also, what are you claiming the US Is guilty of exactly?

It's called an "accessory" before the fact, during the fact and after the fact. If I give you a gun knowing you will use it to kill people, that makes me as guilty of that crime as you. For any one to say that the Americans didn't know by giving Saddam WMD while at war with Iran that he wasn't going to use them is simply laughable.

Also, look up the history of the CIA's involvement with helping to oust the monarchy in Iraq and all the help they gave to the Baathist party so they could come to power. It's a fact!

I'll try to find you a link.. the one I'm thinking of is even entertaining.. I'll look for it.

These are the things the Americans either hope you're too young to remember.. to long ago and hope you forgot.. and or never knew at all.

Saddam was not installed by the US, he rose through the ranks of the Baathist party to overthrow the monarchy. The US has put a lot of dicatators into power, but Saddam's not one of them.
Saddam was installed by the good old KGB, actually. Iraq was a Russian playground, not American- hence the socialist inclinations of the Baath party. The Russians installed Saddam's predecessor, colonel Kassem, and when he was found not obedient enough, they assisted Saddam in overthrowing him. Kind of what they did with Afghan rulers before they decided to overthrow the last of them and govern directly.

Actually, France and Germany and Russia are have known to sell Saddam conventional weapons.. agreed.. and maybe along with the Americans and the UK, maybe they did give him WMD as well.. I won't argue that. But then you're all guilty.. so how exactly does this negate the fact that America is guilty as well?
Guilty of what exactly?
Oh and all those other nations you mentioned with the exception of Russia.. are signatory members of the ICC. So, I ask again, if Saddam is guilty then why aren't all the people including your American government as guilty as him? You would be in any court of law in the USA.. so what gives you the high ground? What did your government think he was going to use the WMD for? They knew who Saddam was.. hell you installed him!

That's not true, actually. Saddam was not installed by the US, he rose through the ranks of the Baathist party to overthrow the monarchy. The US has put a lot of dicatators into power, but Saddam's not one of them.

As for WMD, it's possible they thought these WMD would simply be used as a deterrent.

Also, what are you claiming the US Is guilty of exactly?

It's called an "accessory" before the fact, during the fact and after the fact. If I give you a gun knowing you will use it to kill people, that makes me as guilty of that crime as you. For any one to say that the Americans didn't know by giving Saddam WMD while at war with Iran that he wasn't going to use them is simply laughable.

Also, look up the history of the CIA's involvement with helping to oust the monarchy in Iraq and all the help they gave to the Baathist party so they could come to power. It's a fact!

I'll try to find you a link.. the one I'm thinking of is even entertaining.. I'll look for it.

These are the things the Americans either hope you're too young to remember.. to long ago and hope you forgot.. and or never knew at all.

With all due respect to Womblingdon, he has no idea what he's talking about.

A brief and entertaining history of the Americans love affair with Saddam and the Baathist party.. it has the source's.. just look at the bottom of each page.. it's flash.. so you must have flash installed.. but it's all fact and is all public record.. the Americans just hope you don't know about it.

A History in Brief (http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html)

Well you may believe as you wish, if you think news groups like PBS Frontline and the New York Times are not credible.. :shock:

Hmm... some of that stuff in that flash is not exactly right, but some of it is. I don't think that really changes much. It's immoral, by anyone's standards, to inflict the horror's Saddam did upon the Iraqis. We may have been complicit, but I don't necessarily thinks so.

Basically, just because the US has done immoral things in the past in regards to Iraq does not mean it can only do immoral things today. I think that it's justified to remove Saddam from power no matter how he got there. Even without US duplicity, he was a terrible ruler, and I certaily don't think fits into the realm of tolerable dictators. Even disregarding WMD, there is still good reason to remove him.

With all due respect to Womblingdon, he has no idea what he's talking about.
Well, its kind of late here and I can't be bothered doing a truly extensive search- but doesn't it strike you as strange that in your version of history, America is portrayed as the only player on the chessboard? Something HAS to be wrong with this picture.


Well you may believe as you wish, if you think news groups like PBS Frontline and the New York Times are not credible.. :shock:
All, but we don't get actual traceable publications from the New York Times or PBS Frontline in this amusing presentation, we are forced to take the presentation makers word for it. Not quite the same thing...

Hmm... some of that stuff in that flash is not exactly right, but some of it is. I don't think that really changes much. It's immoral, by anyone's standards, to inflict the horror's Saddam did upon the Iraqis. We may have been complicit, but I don't necessarily thinks so.

Basically, just because the US has done immoral things in the past in regards to Iraq does not mean it can only do immoral things today. I think that it's justified to remove Saddam from power no matter how he got there. Even without US duplicity, he was a terrible ruler, and I certaily don't think fits into the realm of tolerable dictators. Even disregarding WMD, there is still good reason to remove him.

Umm Saddam hasn't done any thing since he thwarted the Shia up rising in 91/92 that would put him in the category of crimes against humanity or war crimes. Don't forget that the war crimes part had every thing to do with the Americans. Without the Americans help and involvement Iran would of taken Iraq.. Iraq wouldn't of stood a chance. So if he is to be tried for use of any WMD against his people then the Americans must shoulder part of that blame.

Why is it that we say "oh, yeah, the Americans did some past wrongs, but that is history" Yet, we say it's ok to invade a country more then 10 years after the fact of what Saddam is being accused of and say "well his past wrong are relevant" it's hypocrisy at best.

As for any one who says that not every shred of what that link said is true, I will be more then happy to provide other and more sources to the exact same information. How you can say the maker of that flash was only giving his view and it's not fact only proves you don't know as much about Iraqi history as you think you do.. and or you refuse to believe it's true for what reason is beyond me.

It's true. Deal with it!

With all due respect to Womblingdon, he has no idea what he's talking about.
Well, its kind of late here and I can't be bothered doing a truly extensive search- but doesn't it strike you as strange that in your version of history, America is portrayed as the only player on the chessboard? Something HAS to be wrong with this picture.

I'm aware there was other players.. this was just to show American involvement.


Well you may believe as you wish, if you think news groups like PBS Frontline and the New York Times are not credible.. :shock:

Womblingdon wrote:
All, but we don't get actual traceable publications from the New York Times or PBS Frontline in this amusing presentation, we are forced to take the presentation makers word for it. Not quite the same thing...

Just because you can't find it, doesn't mean it's not true. I assure you it's quite true.. I've known this long before the war even started.. I knew about it as I watched the live Iran/Contra hearings on the TV in the mid to late 80's. This isn't news.. it's old news. That came out a long time ago. I guess Bush and co did have the people pegged.. they were counting on the fact that people wouldn't remember and with a lot of you, they hit the jackpot!

Umm Saddam hasn't done any thing since he thwarted the Shia up rising in 91/92 that would put him in the category of crimes against humanity or war crimes. Don't forget that the war crimes part had every thing to do with the Americans. Without the Americans help and involvement Iran would of taken Iraq.. Iraq wouldn't of stood a chance. So if he is to be tried for use of any WMD against his people then the Americans must shoulder part of that blame.


Steph, Saddam continued to violate human rights (as described by the UN declaration of universal rights, and also any other general understanding of human rights) including extra-judicial executions of dissidents, seizure of property, government terror, and massive abuses of the population as a whole. While maybe it's true Iran would have invaded Iraq, but I dont' think Iran fits into what anyone would call a tolerable regime! The oppression of women there alone is quite frightening. THere are some things I think we should tolerate, I don't think every state needs to be a liberal democratic one to be consider legitimate, but Iraq certainly doesn't meet anyone's standards. The Baathist regime, through their actions of the past two decades, regardless of what the US had to do with it clearly shows they had no concern for their own people, much less peaceful living with the world as a whole. Besides, I'm not prepared to dismiss the 250000 dead because it was a decade ago, unless you're willing to dismiss the US actions in Iraq that occured prior to the Shia uprising. It's strange to say Saddam was OK because he didn't do anything bad after '91, but that the US should held accountable for immoral actions between 82-88.

Why is it that we say "oh, yeah, the Americans did some past wrongs, but that is history" Yet, we say it's ok to invade a country more then 10 years after the fact of what Saddam is being accused of and say "well his past wrong are relevant" it's hypocrisy at best.

His present wrongs were strong enough, in my opinion, to warrant intervention. Had he been a wise, fair or even relatively benign ruler, I would be more inclined to agree, but he simply was not. I agree that we should either decide things 10 years ago do or don't matter, but regardless, the crimes of the regime were strong enough that I feel all rights to non-interference were lost.

As for any one who says that not every shred of what that link said is true, I will be more then happy to provide other and more sources to the exact same information. How you can say the maker of that flash was only giving his view and it's not fact only proves you don't know as much about Iraqi history as you think you do.. and or you refuse to believe it's true for what reason is beyond me.

It's true. Deal with it!

No, that's not what I was saying. The statement from the US ambassador is painted as an outright approval of the Kuwaiti invasion, which isn't necessarily true. Glaspie is a master of doublespeak, and at no point in the statement at question is the US intention made clear. In fact, from the tone of the full discussion Glaspie was not giving approval, but simply tring to determine whether Hussein was intending to carry through with the threats. I think it's misleading to draw so much out of one quote, taken without context, which is, in my mind, much less than clear.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

None of the pro-war arguments address the central issue properly. King George lied to the American public, the Congress and to the world. He stated that the US was commiting itself to an illegal war to find and destroy WMD. No other reason for invasion would have been sanctioned by Congress. George and Dick and Donald lied and lied to get the war they had planned for years. Iraq was not about terrorism. Iraq was not about WMD. Iraq was and is about a secret agenda of the far right that manipulates the American presidency. Those who call themselves patriots should not support a regime that squanders American, Allied and Iraqi lives for a political ambition.
America, your country is in peril. The danger is not so-called terrorism. That can be coped with and without the Iraq adventure, would now be less of a problem. America and the west in general is threatened by a clique of far right shadow politicians that do not care how many people die, do not care how America is viewed from abroad, do not care how many civil rights they remove from American citizens.

For those with short memories, read this. It is far from unbiased but if you know anything about the history of the last few years you will see that the facts are used. You will see that all attacks on Bush here are based on what happened a few short years ago. It's nothing new. The dangers were being pointed out then. The dangers were ignored then and some people are still arguing a lost case.
Please take the trouble to read the article. Dismissing any facts from 'the left' is what seems to be the cause of a lot of ignorance here.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/iraq-o20.shtml
Bush aides push war with Iraq
By Joseph Kay
20 October 2001


"In the wake of the terror attacks of last month, a section of the Bush administration is working hard—overtly and covertly—to create a pretext for an American invasion of Iraq. The events of September 11, and more recently the anthrax scare, are being exploited by high-level operatives within the American government to promote a program that has long been sought by the military and intelligence establishment: the ousting of the Ba’athist regime of Sadaam Hussein and the transformation of Iraq into a state subservient to American interests".
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/iraq-o20.shtml

I just went to cnn.com and saw "Iraq violence a 'test of will'" as a headline. it showed a picture of a "proud" american soldier leaning over his machine gun. A show of American propaganda. They tell us that the Iraqis are wrong and evil, but who started the war? Anyone with a hippocampus (and if you dont know what that is you should try to win a darwin award) will remember that it was the united states. what is iraq doing? fighting back the only way they can! they know that a conventional battle is suicide. The us revolutionary war was fought the same way, a small, untrained, and unequipped army fighting the world's superpower with guerilla tactics and winning.

On the other hand, aljazeera.com's headline says "US air strike hits Falluja mosque, 40 killed". this calls america a bad guy, randomly attacking civilian targets. however, that is what the iraqis wanted people to think. or is it? does america just want to terrorize iraqis? nobody except those who bombed the place and the iraqis inside know.

However, my point is that both news sources put a spin on things, according mainly to what their audience wants to hear. American drones listen to their American masters through CNN, FOX, and others. Middle Eastern drones listen to their masters through al-Jazeera. only those with the brains to make up their own minds should be able to voice their opinion. Nothing should be taken as a fact. Although both sources say the same thing, they say it in different ways. Spin doctors are everywhere. Get off the carousel and see things straight!

Steph, Saddam continued to violate human rights (as described by the UN declaration of universal rights, and also any other general understanding of human rights) including extra-judicial executions of dissidents, seizure of property, government terror, and massive abuses of the population as a whole. While maybe it's true Iran would have invaded Iraq, but I dont' think Iran fits into what anyone would call a tolerable regime! The oppression of women there alone is quite frightening. THere are some things I think we should tolerate, I don't think every state needs to be a liberal democratic one to be consider legitimate, but Iraq certainly doesn't meet anyone's standards. The Baathist regime, through their actions of the past two decades, regardless of what the US had to do with it clearly shows they had no concern for their own people, much less peaceful living with the world as a whole. Besides, I'm not prepared to dismiss the 250000 dead because it was a decade ago, unless you're willing to dismiss the US actions in Iraq that occured prior to the Shia uprising. It's strange to say Saddam was OK because he didn't do anything bad after '91, but that the US should held accountable for immoral actions between 82-88.

I sit here amazed every time I hear this argument. While granted you write it up with more finesse then most, it's still the same argument. You know, by your logic then if one should be held accountable they both should be. What do you think the chances of that is going to be?

To many of us who live outside of the United States we see some of the things they do as pretty brutal and against human rights. Don't forget as a Canadian you should know Mallberta is was a Canadian that wrote the Declaration of Human rights. All Canadians should know them rather well. The Americans have government sanctioned murder.. it's called capital punishment. That is in fact against human rights. One could even argue it's against their very own Constitution on the grounds of "cruel and unusual punishment" and it's not like they've never put many innocent people to death. Then of course most current is that they hold people who have not been charged with any crime against their will without the right to legal council.. this again is considered a breach of human rights. Amnesty International has spoken out many time against the United States for human rights violations. They also refuse to stand accountable for their war crimes and become signatory members of the ICC.. what war crimes you ask? Oh gawd, where to start.. How about Chile? War criminal Henry Kissinger (http://www.zpub.com/un/wanted-hkiss.html) but he will never have to answer for his war crimes, why? because he's an American protected war criminal. Listen the list is long of other dictators who are still in power such as Kim Jong IL who are far worse and have done far worse things to their people. America does business with China who probably has the worst human rights record in the world. It's all fine to say yes Saddam was a bad guy and indeed he was. However, what right did the Americans have to take him out? It was done illegally. There was no world backing or agreement to do this. On one hand the Americans cite the UN as being irrelevant in the next breath they cite UN resolutions being broken. Well Iraq has never had the UN resolutions brought against it like Israel has had, not even close. However the American protect Israel's war crimes by using their VETO every single time. Sure, the Palestinians have committed war crimes too.. but that doesn't cancel one out because the other does it. What is that old saying "Two wrong doesn't make a right"

The bottom line is it doesn't really matter what any one's opinion is, it was an illegal war waged against a sovereign nation based on lies. Sure now the story changes.. heck it changes every time they get caught in another lie. The Iraqi's don't want them there. This current uprising is being down played by the media and the White House, but do you know who is probably behind it all? Oh, only the most powerful man in Iraq. If you think this is just some little insurgent problem, think again. It's only going to get worse and when and if the Americans have to deal with 15 million really pissed off Shia, then will you still believe this is a liberation? Yeah if you ask Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani: The real face of power in Iraq (http://www.lebanonwire.com/0403/04030602IND.asp) he might tell you yes it is, a liberation from the Americans.. or so it's starting to look like now.

Don't get spoon fed your information, don't be so naive about the world. The Americans are no better then any one else for all their talk of democracy and freedom.. it's just catch phrases and propaganda.. the one true thing you can know for sure that history should have taught you by now is, they're lying! They always do!

Hmm... some of that stuff in that flash is not exactly right, but some of it is. I don't think that really changes much. It's immoral, by anyone's standards, to inflict the horror's Saddam did upon the Iraqis. We may have been complicit, but I don't necessarily thinks so.
So Saddam is the bad guy, but the people who propped him up and gave him the goods and services to commit these "horrors", and turned a blind eye to these deeds are not just as guilty? I do not follow your logic.

Basically, just because the US has done immoral things in the past in regards to Iraq does not mean it can only do immoral things today.
I believe that the US invasion of Iraq is immoral, and illegal.

I think that it's justified to remove Saddam from power no matter how he got there. Even without US duplicity, he was a terrible ruler, and I certaily don't think fits into the realm of tolerable dictators. Even disregarding WMD, there is still good reason to remove him.
So by your reasoning, the US, for that matter ANY country has the right to remove "intolerable dictators", without answering to any world body?

How do you spell ANARCHY?

Would Kim Jong-il, of North Korea be considered a "tolerable" leader? For that matter, who determines if a leader/ruler is indeed "tolerable"?

You do know that Bush has a list in his pocket? Who is next? Guess he won't be consulting with the UN anymore looking for a UN Resolution?