NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously. I think his secular leadership was good for Iraq and the region in general.

Seriously. I think his secular leadership was good for Iraq and the region in general.
Daaamn. Kinda late now, huh? :D

Daaamn. Kinda late now, huh? :D
Well I wansn't in favor of the war to begin with. I always saw Saddam as a guy one could make deals with.

I still say we should of put him on the ballot, just to see what the results would of been.

:rolleyes: yes, sell him wepons to kill his own people, hes better gone

EDIT: 300 up, wooo

:rolleyes: yes, sell him wepons to kill his own people
That's one of the nice things about him. He killed his own people, not ours.

so your saying one iraqi/kurd < one westerner?

so your saying one iraqi/kurd < one westerner?
Yeah. That's what I'm saying. It's not a popular position to hold, but I value the lives of my countrymen more than the lives of foreigners. Particularly foreigners with very different cultures.

Yeah. That's what I'm saying. It's not a popular position to hold, but I value the lives of my countrymen more than the lives of foreigners. Particularly foreigners with very different cultures.

thats harsh

so your saying one iraqi/kurd < one westerner?
An iron fisted dictator focused on his own people is a lot less dangerous than a non-descript leader wielding power over unjoined groups wanting to kill anyone not of their cultural beliefs.

Yeah. That's what I'm saying. It's not a popular position to hold, but I value the lives of my countrymen more than the lives of foreigners. Particularly foreigners with very different cultures.


oh lord..........

*gets a bucket of popcorn*

oh lord..........

*gets a bucket of popcorn*

*steals popcorn*

thats harsh
Well, it is true that governments have a responsibility to their own people and not to other people. As well, it is true that one's allies/group is going to be more valuable to the person than any outside of that group.System of value: People in social group> allies> neutrals>rocks> enemies. Of course, that is just my take on it.

Yeah. That's what I'm saying. It's not a popular position to hold, but I value the lives of my countrymen more than the lives of foreigners. Particularly foreigners with very different cultures.

thats ethnocentrism the belief that all cultures other than yours are inferior its like evolved racism or if your from kansas "intelligently designed racism"

As a matter of fact, the first Gulf War was also totally unnecessary.

hmm oppresive regime kills own civilians, general maniac, yet it held peace Vs. New Opressive regime by maniac who kills his own troops that holds no law whatsoever.

Pretty even to me.

I like W better, ya imperialism!*throws confetti into the air* Now if only we Canadians would invade somewhere...*goes off to invade somewhere*

thats ethnocentrism the belief that all cultures other than yours are inferior its like evolved racism or if your from kansas "intelligently designed racism"No, it's not like racism. First of all, one can change cultures, not races. Second, some cultures are superior. Look at the cultures that see mass immigration. Wester Europe, the USA, Canada and Australia get loads of immigrants from all over the world. Why? Their cultures promote prosperous business and allow people freedom to live their lives as they choose. The superior cultures are those that best satisfy the demands of human nature. "Western" cultures do that extremely well.

As a matter of fact, the first Gulf War was also totally unnecessary.
Absolutely right. What business is it of mine if Iraq invades Kuwait? Hell, let 'em take over Saudi too. They could use a secular dictator over there.

Well, it is true that governments have a responsibility to their own people and not to other people. As well, it is true that one's allies/group is going to be more valuable to the person than any outside of that group.System of value: People in social group> allies> neutrals>rocks> enemies. Of course, that is just my take on it.

pretty good take on it, but it doesnt justify not caring about the Iraqis


*oh god, im starting to justify the Iraq war*

No, it's not like racism. First of all, one can change cultures, not races. Second, some cultures are superior. Look at the cultures that see mass immigration. Wester Europe, the USA, Canada and Australia get loads of immigrants from all over the world. Why? Their cultures promote prosperous business and allow people freedom to live their lives as they choose. The superior cultures are those that best satisfy the demands of human nature. "Western" cultures do that extremely well.

I thought that was capitalism

I miss him too. ME and him are birthday buddies.

I thought that was capitalism
Actually, it is centuries old infrastructure that allows for high end capitalism.
Drunk Commies is just having a fit of being wrong all the time.

I thought that was capitalism
Capitalism is an artifact of western culture. Adam Smith was writing his stuff in the same period of western cultural development as guys like Dave Hume. That age is where modern western culture was born.

Absolutely right. What business is it of mine if Iraq invades Kuwait? Hell, let 'em take over Saudi too. They could use a secular dictator over there.


Read history, they told us they were going to, and we let them. Saddam was our pet prior to that, we gave him the green light to invade then betrayed him.

Capitalism is an artifact of western culture.
Capitalism is a concept, nothing to do with this or that culture.

Naturally. Irrespective of the intricacies of his regime, deplorable though they were, Saddam was sufficiently cowed so as to constitute no threat to either Europe, or the USA and its judaic bitch. Indeed, I should imagine that subsequent to the forcible ejection of Saddam, the majority of Iraqi's would contend to have seen their quality of life depreciate considerably.

Capitalism is a concept, nothing to do with this or that culture.
Right. Like not charging interest has nothing to do with muslim culture. Sure.

Capitalism is an artifact of western culture. Adam Smith was writing his stuff in the same period of western cultural development as guys like Dave Hume. That age is where modern western culture was born.

something tells me that japan and singapore don't have western cultures

thats ethnocentrism the belief that all cultures other than yours are inferior its like evolved racism or if your from kansas "intelligently designed racism"

No its not. he didn't say he thought his people were superior. He said he values them more. If you had the choice of your friend being killed or someone elses friend being killed, you would probably shoose the other guy. It isn't ethnocentrism, it is patriotism and selfishness. Maybe selfishness is too far, its just human nature goddammit.

nor Hong Kong

Absolutely right. What business is it of mine if Iraq invades Kuwait? Hell, let 'em take over Saudi too. They could use a secular dictator over there.

Saddam invaded Kuwait with our blessing. Our ambassador at the time (I forget her name) basically told him we would look the other way if Iraq invaded Kuwait. Of course, immediately after the invasion, Bush 1 was harping about Saddam being the new Hitler. Go figure.

pretty good take on it, but it doesnt justify not caring about the Iraqis


*oh god, im starting to justify the Iraq war*
True, but I never said anything about not caring about the Iraqis. The Iraqi people were not our enemy. So, Iraqis>rocks which means that we can care about them. Of course, Iraqi troops and such were our enemy and which is why we destroyed their power whenever possible, enemy troops<rocks. I did however say that Americans>Iraqis which I do stand by because I am more loyal to members of my group and care more about protecting them than I do about people outside of that group.

something tells me that japan and singapore don't have western cultures
Japan's and Singapore's cultures were greatly westernized. Japan by the US occupation after WW2, but also through Japanese emulation of western models in order to modernize just before WWII. Singapore got western influence throught the British.

Right. Like not charging interest has nothing to do with muslim culture. Sure.

wow turn off the 24-hour-network news and while your at it get rid of the prejudice

I ask you how many muslims have you actually met?

nor Hong Kong
Also westernized through British influence.

Saddam invaded Kuwait with our blessing. Our ambassador at the time (I forget her name) basically told him we would look the other way if Iraq invaded Kuwait. Of course, immediately after the invasion, Bush 1 was harping about Saddam being the new Hitler. Go figure.


It's entirely likely that W invaded Iraq solely to finish up Daddy's business, mainly killing Saddam, or atleast removing him from power since he was no longer of use to us but his country is.

Japan's and Singapore's cultures were greatly westernized. Japan by the US occupation after WW2, but also through Japanese emulation of western models in order to modernize just before WWII. Singapore got western influence throught the British.

yeah but is capitalism exclusively in the west? no, India(a 20% muslim country BTW), Singapore, Japan, South Korea all are captalist

wow turn off the 24-hour-network news and while your at it get rid of the prejudice

I ask you how many muslims have you actually met?
Prejudice?

http://www.findaproperty.com/story.aspx?storyid=9584

British banks are offering "Islamic" banking that is divorced from the concept of interest. That's fine, but it illustrates that Muslim culture frowns on the concept of interest.

Now was I being prejudiced or accurate?

yeah but is capitalism exclusively in the west? no, India(a 20% muslim country BTW), Singapore, Japan, South Korea all are captalist
All greatly influenced by Western nations through occupation or colonization. Hell, in India almost everyone is raised speaking English along with Hindi. Their cultures are westernized.

Urdu is more prevalent than Hindi, but then thats me nit-picking

Prejudice?

http://www.findaproperty.com/story.aspx?storyid=9584

British banks are offering "Islamic" banking that is divorced from the concept of interest. That's fine, but it illustrates that Muslim culture frowns on the concept of interest.

Now was I being prejudiced or accurate?

oh come off it your a bonafide islamophobe and i'd be willing to bet you've never met or even talked to a single muslim

oh come off it your a bonafide islamophobe and i'd be willing to bet you've never met or even talked to a single muslim
There's nothing 'islamophobic' about what he said. Though that term is just used as a way of shouting down all criticism of islam.

Geez, can't criticize (sp?) anything these days without being a "phobe"... well apart from Bush and Neocons...
Pyotr: have you met any muslims? how many? in what country?

It's entirely likely that W invaded Iraq solely to finish up Daddy's business, mainly killing Saddam, or atleast removing him from power since he was no longer of use to us but his country is.

It's typical a policy typical of the U.S. and other Western countries: lavish a certain dictator with millions of dollars of aid, all the latest weapons, and endless praise, until the geopolitical climate changes and for one reason or another that dictator is no longer vital to our interest. Then, we begin harping about "human rights," while at the same time switching our support to the new dictator on the block somewhere else.

oh come off it your a bonafide islamophobe and i'd be willing to bet you've never met or even talked to a single muslim
I've met a small number, but that's irrelevant. I'm just arguing that business does best in cultures influenced by the West. Also nobody's talked about the fact that when refugees flee opression or search for freedom they come to westernized nations, not to places like Iran or Zimbabwe.

DC, you are SUCH a shit-disturber...you're jonesing for the Jesussaves days, aren't you...

Oh, I want some of that interest-free Islamic banking...time to convert! I could save thousands on my mortgage!!!!!!!

DC, you are SUCH a shit-disturber...you're jonesing for the Jesussaves days, aren't you...
This ain't a Jesussaves thing. I honestly believe what I'm posting here. But yeah, I like to rile people up sometimes. Being a troublemaker is fun.

This ain't a Jesussaves thing. I honestly believe what I'm posting here. But yeah, I like to rile people up sometimes. Being a troublemaker is fun.

that explains a lot

that explains a lot
Just because I put things rather bluntly in order to provoke a reaction doesn't mean I don't believe them.

DC, you are SUCH a shit-disturber...you're jonesing for the Jesussaves days, aren't you...

?

Saddam je SadNEdam. :D :D :D :D

PS) if you understand this - good for you, if you don't - who give's a fuck!

?
I used to post as Jesussaves, a very stupid religious fundamentalist character I came up with. I'm assuming that's what you didn't understand.

If the middle-east reclaimed every dollar the west has raped from it, they'd be richer than the U.S. The billions in oil that was stolen from Iran in WWII the untold wealth the egyptians would have reaped if the suez canal would have had the minimalist of tolls. the billions in oil wealth the Iraqis will never see now that Bush invaded, the list goes on and on

..!..(O.o)..!..

I used to post as Jesussaves, a very stupid religious fundamentalist character I came up with. I'm assuming that's what you didn't understand.

I meant, what does she mean "shit-disturber?" :confused:

This ain't a Jesussaves thing. I honestly believe what I'm posting here. But yeah, I like to rile people up sometimes. Being a troublemaker is fun.
I know, but you express your thoughts a bit...misleadingly at times, and I suspect for a purpose. But anyway. On with the show! Pass the damn popcorn, I ain't gonna to bite on this one!:D

Well if you miss him that bad ..he's still alive in a cell in Iraq. Go visit .

Although saddam coud have been counted on to attack iran and kill a few more hundred thousand of them ...so maybe you have a point...democracy is too slow to see the danger .

Saddam je SadNEdam. :D :D :D :D

PS) if you understand this - good for you, if you don't - who give's a fuck!

Some obscure Hungarian joke?

:rolleyes: yes, sell him wepons to kill his own people, hes better gone

EDIT: 300 up, wooo

there have been a few reports coming out saying that the people were happier under suddam, at least the country had some form of stability, then the yanks come along and screw everything.. but i don't think he was a good dictator at all, but i'm sure he was a hell of alot better then the gun hoe American marines which now infest their streets, raping little girls killing innocent people and various other war crimes... imo thats all lol ;)

still i voted what are you smoking

there have been a few reports coming out saying that the people were happier under suddam, at least the country had some form of stability, then the yanks come along and screw everything.. but i don't think he was a good dictator at all, but i'm sure he was a hell of alot better then the gun hoe American marines which now infest their streets, raping little girls killing innocent people and various other war crimes... imo thats all lol

still i voted what are you smoking


watch out a marines behind you ...:rolleyes:

Read history, they told us they were going to, and we let them. Saddam was our pet prior to that, we gave him the green light to invade then betrayed him.

Saddam invaded Kuwait with our blessing. Our ambassador at the time (I forget her name) basically told him we would look the other way if Iraq invaded Kuwait. Of course, immediately after the invasion, Bush 1 was harping about Saddam being the new Hitler. Go figure.

You are both factually incorrect. Iraq had threatened Kuwait with invasion numerous times, both before and during Saddam's reign. Each and every time the West, led by the US, said "No! If you invade Kuwait we will kick you out by force". This is historical fact. There was a crisis between Iraq/Kuwait in the 1960's, the 1970's, the 1980's and finally in 1990/91. Each time Iraq threatened to invade, and the West moved forces to the region as a show of force to say "Just try it..." Saddam, desperately in need of oil revenues in 1990 having bankrupted the country by invading Iran (and building palaces and huge solid gold state coaches for himself), decided to gamble that the West wouldn't intervene, based on their support during the Iran/Iraq War. He was wrong. At no point did the US or anyone else (except Yasser Arafat) tell Saddam that invading Kuwait would be OK. These are all recorded historical facts.

Why did the West support Iraq in the Iran/Iraq War? Because of the two bastards at play there, Iraq was less of a bastard. The US couldn't have Iran in a position to threaten the oil supplies in the Middle East, because Iran is so anti-West it would have cut off supplies. And before everyone starts harping on about how "its just about oil/Bush getting rich/Halliburton", I'd like you to imagine realistically what life would be like if America hadn't got involved, and there was a sudden and massive restriction on the availability of oil. Economies would freeze. There would be no fuel for people to drive to work. There would be no heating oil, so people would freeze. Manufacturing relies on oil, electricity production relies on oil. Our entire world economy relies on oil. Also note that a world-wide economic collapse through cutting off oil would fuck over the Middle Eastern countries much more than everyone else. Those countries produce oil and only oil. Nothing else. If they stop selling oil, the money dries up. Only really insane leaders like Armindinnerjacket and his fundamentalist buddies in Iran would threaten to cut off the West's oil supplies, and its leaders like that who need to be kept in check, because at the end of the day its the people of the Middle East who are going to suffer the most if we don't keep our oil supplies secure.

If the middle-east reclaimed every dollar the west has raped from it, they'd be richer than the U.S. The billions in oil that was stolen from Iran in WWII the untold wealth the egyptians would have reaped if the suez canal would have had the minimalist of tolls. the billions in oil wealth the Iraqis will never see now that Bush invaded, the list goes on and on
The middle east wouldn't be rich, the rulers of those countries would just be richer. That's the problem with their economic system. Rampant corruption by government is the rule. Business doesn't function without kickbacks, bribes, and do-nothing jobs for the ruler's nephews.

I meant, what does she mean "shit-disturber?" :confused:
I thought it meant troublemaker. I hope it doesn't mean fudge packer.

something tells me that japan and singapore don't have western cultures

on the contrary, theyve both got heavily american- and british-influenced cultures, respectively. additionally, even without that influence, there is still a bit of predisposition to capitalism and the order it brings (compared to socialism) in those cultures as they stood before western intervention

watch out a marines behind you ...:rolleyes:

only one.. if he can take the pain i can take the smell rofl

i guess in the marines defense you could say they are an army, they are trained to kill, not to be a police force.. but i am anti-American, so it suits me to say they are brain washed, gun hoe, morons looking for a fight..

The middle east wouldn't be rich, the rulers of those countries would just be richer. That's the problem with their economic system. Rampant corruption by government is the rule. Business doesn't function without kickbacks, bribes, and do-nothing jobs for the ruler's nephews.

The only way the people of the Middle East would have gotten richer is if oil had never been discovered there in the first place.

only one.. if he can take the pain i can take the smell rofl

i guess in the marines defense you could say they are an army, they are trained to kill, not to be a police force.. but i am anti-American, so it suits me to say they are brain washed, gun hoe, morons looking for a fight..

Despite having little or no evidence to back up your slanderous and downright false claims about the Marines. Gotta love the moonbat mindset.

the Australian media is alot more reliable then the American, I've got Foxtel (pay T.V) over here, and i ocationally have a look at fox news, and the O'reilly (spelling please) factor, and i always wonder what nutters they have such a bias view towards the government, i remember seeing in one of the add breaks the "Fallen Heroes" i just laughed and went BS, either way as anti-american as i am lets hope these boys didn't die in vain, but i'm sure in the long run we'll see that they have.

every time there is someone with a differing view to then the pro governemtn fox news team they cut them off, or start making up crap sorta like you Bobghanistan, by chance are you a marein or an ameican lol if so you from texas? i wouldn't expect any less if you were

I thought it meant troublemaker. I hope it doesn't mean fudge packer.
I wouldn't denigrate fudge packers by comparing you to them:D

I wouldn't denigrate fudge packers by comparing you to them:D
I think they'd appreciate that.

Hel no!

Saddam was a dictator. He oppressed his people. Iraq will do much better in the future when things settle down. Iraq and the ME is better off without him. Terrible dictator.


No, I never supported Bush's invasion. It's still better then what Saddam did, that's reality.

may i ask hoy you are better off?? as i remember it when the war started Oil prices went up. thus havening a negative impact on you, unless you yourself are an Iraqi or have lived there during suddams rein and plan to live there once its settled

only one.. if he can take the pain i can take the smell rofl

i guess in the marines defense you could say they are an army, they are trained to kill, not to be a police force.. but i am anti-American, so it suits me to say they are brain washed, gun hoe, morons looking for a fight..

you are a xenophobic fucktard. have you ever met a marine officer? american generals are all thoroughly educated people. many enlisted marines have master's degrees. sure, they like fighting, and theyre good at it, but its a product of how they function.every facet of the marines functioning other than combat is managed by the navy, meaning that each and every marine is a trained, competent soldier. there are no marine bureaucrats. in addition to being the world's sharpest fighting force, they serve a unique role and are epitomize the concept of the adaptable soldier.

and btw its gung ho not gun hoe

D'oh I aly voted W is better, I wanted "What are you smoking?".

may i ask hoy you are better off?? as i remember it when the war started Oil prices went up. thus havening a negative impact on you, unless you yourself are an Iraqi or have lived there during suddams rein and plan to live there once its settled

I'm not Iraqi.

But here's the facts:

Saddam Murdurd his people. Saddam was a dictator. The people of Iraq were oppressed.

After Bush's invasion:

Iraqis participated in the elections for the first time. The insurgency is failing. ISF are being rebuilt to defend more and more territory.

If you can't see that in the long run Iraqis are better off without Saddam you just have biased hatred against Bush.

I don't like Bush either, but I won't let my disapproval blind me of the facts.

Let's leave it at that. I don't want to get pulled into this discussion. I've seen many "debates" here, and their really more of a ........spectator's sport.:fluffle:

i like gun hoe better sounds more like they are whores for the guns.

yes here in Australia we have American military bases, such as up in townsville, and yes i have met American soldiers and officers with my cousin who is in the navy, once again, they are mindless. their heads are flat their eyes are dull they have no brains at all.. sure alot of soldiers have degrees but they have to join the army to pay for them.. thats why you have alot of soldiers with degrees

D'oh I aly voted W is better, I wanted "What are you smoking?".



I'm not Iraqi.

But here's the facts:

Saddam Murdurd his people. Saddam was a dictator. The people of Iraq were oppressed.

After Bush's invasion:

Iraqis participated in the elections for the first time. The insurgency is failing. ISF are being rebuilt to defend more and more territory.

If you can't see that in the long run Iraqis are better off without Saddam you just have biased hatred against Bush.

I don't like Bush either, but I won't let my disapproval blind me of the facts.

Let's leave it at that. I don't want to get pulled into this discussion. I've seen many "debates" here, and their really more of a ........spectator's sport.:fluffle:
Under Saddam women weren't getting acid thrown in their faces for wearing western style clothes and the country wasn't involved in a slow motion civil war. More people are dying over there as a result of the liberation than Saddam ever killed. Saddam kept theocracy out and maintained order. Plus if we'd made deals with him he would have been a reliable ally against Iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorism.

D'oh I aly voted W is better, I wanted "What are you smoking?".



I'm not Iraqi.

But here's the facts:

Saddam Murdurd his people. Saddam was a dictator. The people of Iraq were oppressed.

After Bush's invasion:

Iraqis participated in the elections for the first time. The insurgency is failing. ISF are being rebuilt to defend more and more territory.

If you can't see that in the long run Iraqis are better off without Saddam you just have biased hatred against Bush.

I don't like Bush either, but I won't let my disapproval blind me of the facts.

Let's leave it at that. I don't want to get pulled into this discussion. I've seen many "debates" here, and their really more of a ........spectator's sport.:fluffle:

how can you tell the insurance is failing, in that region of the world the number of anti-American supporters is more then the number of American soldiers stationed there, there are irainans fighting against the Americans in the insurgence Iraqis people from all over the middle east, America will never win, no occupying force ever has. the elections were total carp because the country is in complete chaos and has been for the last 3 years, as soon as the Americans bail the country will tare itself apart, its almost of the brink of civil war. and your saying they live in a better country now.. i think not just going to get your food for the day or taking you kid to school you can be blown up.. thats a real good positive thing the Americans have done

i like gun hoe better sounds more like they are whores for the guns.

yes here in Australia we have American military bases, such as up in townsville, and yes i have met American soldiers and officers with my cousin who is in the navy, once again, they are mindless. their heads are flat their eyes are dull they have no brains at all.. sure alot of soldiers have degrees but they have to join the army to pay for them.. thats why you have alot of soldiers with degrees

So you are saying they are stupid because they couldn't afford to pay for their college degrees and decided to serve their country? Bigot.

oh come off it your a bonafide islamophobe and i'd be willing to bet you've never met or even talked to a single muslim

Prove it...

...if you can't use facts to back up your opinions, keep them to yourself.

So you are saying they are stupid because they couldn't afford to pay for their college degrees and decided to serve their country? Bigot.

there are other ways.. like you have the degree so go GET a job in the field you have studied not go off to iraq and get you head blown off

Seriously. I think his secular leadership was good for Iraq and the region in general.

Indeed. We really screwed up what balance there was in the Middle East.

I picked "what are you smoking", anyone who would " miss " Saddam needs to really need to see a professional head shrinker, and for the people who picked " The greatest Arab leader " must haver VERY low opinion of Arab leaders to pick that assclown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

^ that fellow is a able leader,and a good soldier.

I picked "what are you smoking", anyone who would " miss " Saddam needs to really need to see a professional head shrinker.
Sir, I have sold crack, I have transported crack across state lines, but I have never smoked crack. Well, that one time when we rolled some up with the weed in a blunt, but that doesn't count.

Saddam really was, in my opinion, the lesser evil.

there are other ways.. like you have the degree so go GET a job in the field you have studied not go off to iraq and get you head blown off

The war in Iraq began in 2003. Most enlistment contracts are 4 years, some 5 or more. Hmmm, thats means that not everyone who is in the military joined while that conflict was in progress. And not everyone in the military goes to Iraq. Plus, military service looks quite good on a Resume.

Sure, getting a job in the field you plan on getting a degree in sounds good, but thats not always possible, and even if you manage to, you won't be paid very much. Balancing a full-time job with college isn't a good thing. Grades suffer, college last even LONGER due to not being able to take as many classes.

I have to agree with DC...it's not that he was so wonderful and we should love him...but his regime was a heck of a lot better than the current chaos.

I say the same about the Taliban. They were horrible...but the current turmoil is arguably worse.

Sir, I have sold crack, I have transported crack across state lines, but I have never smoked crack. Well, that one time when we rolled some up with the weed in a blunt, but that doesn't count.

Saddam really was, in my opinion, the lesser evil.


Look, not even going to bother getting into a pissing contest with some person who thinks that Saddam is good guy who was misunderstood, and the real enemy is the " nazi Bush "

I dont have the time nor the want for that type of bullshit.

Look, not even going to bother getting into a pissing contest with some person who thinks that Saddam is good guy who was misunderstood, and the real enemy is the " nazi Bush "

I dont have the time nor the want for that type of bullshit.
Um, who's post were you reading? Wanna buy some crack?

Under Saddam women weren't getting acid thrown in their faces for wearing western style clothes and the country wasn't involved in a slow motion civil war. More people are dying over there as a result of the liberation than Saddam ever killed. Saddam kept theocracy out and maintained order.

I hate to agree with DCD, but he's quite correct here.

Just because Saddam was awful doesn't make removing him a cure-all. A good situation doesn't automatically materialise when you remove a bad one. Saddam was indeed the lesser evil. People's lives were a lot better under his stable, secular regime.

Too many people think only in terms of "all good" or "all bad". Saddam was despicable, but now he's gone Iraqis are far worse off.

The war in Iraq began in 2003. Most enlistment contracts are 4 years, some 5 or more. Hmmm, thats means that not everyone who is in the military joined while that conflict was in progress. And not everyone in the military goes to Iraq. Plus, military service looks quite good on a Resume.

Sure, getting a job in the field you plan on getting a degree in sounds good, but thats not always possible, and even if you manage to, you won't be paid very much. Balancing a full-time job with college isn't a good thing. Grades suffer, college last even LONGER due to not being able to take as many classes.

i couldent care less really, but military service here isnt a big deal alot of people think that if you have been in the army your a drunk army jerk

i couldent care less really, but military service here isnt a big deal alot of people think that if you have been in the army your a drunk army jerk
Lovely. Service to one's country makes him a jerk. You all must hate your country.

Um, who's post were you reading? Wanna buy some crack?


Most of the we where better off with Saddam crowd falls into that camp,you know, Saddam is not the threat, Bush is,haliburton, blah blah ect.ect, since the left has a hive mind, just wanted to cut to the chase.


Saddam was a problem, He was delt with, end of story.

our amry is very small we have 20 million people and an army of some 50000..

nothing compared to most countrys in the world america has 280 million and i'm sure at least a million people in its army

i couldent care less really, but military service here isnt a big deal alot of people think that if you have been in the army your a drunk army jerk

Really? I've never come across that. I'm currently in the Marine Corps, and have been for the last 4+ years, and I've never gotten any kind of bashing for my military service, maybe arguements for my views on Iraq and all but never for my service. I guess alot of people aren't so many then, or maybe most of them are confined to Australia.

Infact, I've never gotten anything but praise and thanks. Even from people that hate George Bush. Maybe your views on members of the Military aren't as widely shared as you think.

Saddam was a problem, He was delt with, end of story.

Very easy for you to say that. You're not Iraqi. You don't have to live in the post-Saddam Iraq.

Most of the we where better off with Saddam crowd falls into that camp,you know, Saddam is not the threat, Bush is,haliburton, blah blah ect.ect, since the left has a hive mind, just wanted to cut to the chase.


Saddam was a problem, He was delt with, end of story.
He wasn't our problem. He was the kurds and the shi'ite's problem. He was also a weapon we could have used to fight the religious extremism in the region.

Really? I've never come across that. I'm currently in the Marine Corps, and have been for the last 4+ years, and I've never gotten any kind of bashing for my military service, maybe arguements for my views on Iraq and all but never for my service. I guess alot of people aren't so many then, or maybe most of them are confined to Australia.

Infact, I've never gotten anything but praise and thanks. Even from people that hate George Bush. Maybe your views on members of the Military aren't as widely shared as you think.

didn't you read what i said, MY country! you just strengthened my point of view that American marines are simple minded, don't worry though i'll keep it our little secret

anyway its time for my to sign off i've got to get ready for a party!!

Seriously. I think his secular leadership was good for Iraq and the region in general.


Yep - well over 70,000 violent deaths per year (only counting four events) is a GREAT humanitarian record!:rolleyes:

He wasn't our problem. He was the kurds and the shi'ite's problem. He was also a weapon we could have used to fight the religious extremism in the region.

He WAS our problem and he FUNDED those religious extremists!

didn't you read what i said, MY country! you just strengthened my point of view that American marines are simple minded, don't worry though i'll keep it our little secret

Yes, in the post I quoted, but prior to that you attacked American military members.

Yep - well over 70,000 violent deaths per year (only counting four events) is a GREAT humanitarian record!:rolleyes:
Why should I care about his humanitarian record? He could have been useful to us, but we've thrown him away.

Yep - well over 70,000 violent deaths per year (only counting four events) is a GREAT humanitarian record!:rolleyes:

look at stalin more like a million violent deaths a year, what you do about him?

He WAS our problem and he FUNDED those religious extremists!
Not nearly as much as the Saudis did. When are we going to destroy the Saudi royal family? Fact is we could have used him as a counterweight to Iran, but now we can't.

Right. Like not charging interest has nothing to do with muslim culture. Sure.

Christianity, which is a fairly influential part of western civilisation, has similar issues with usury. Later on they redefined usury as charging excessive interest on loans. This is rather like the way in which Mormons redefined polygamy as having one wife for political purposes.
:rolleyes:

Christianity, which is a fairly influential part of western civilisation, has similar issues with usury. Later on they redefined usury as charging excessive interest on loans. This is rather like the way in which Mormons redefined polygamy as having one wife for political purposes.
:rolleyes:
Part of the development of western civilization was distancing politics, business and social life from religion.

(gives obvious "human rights atrocities" speech)

commies, you and i should be glad we weren't Shi'a or Kurds in Iraq during Saddam's rule.

(gives obvious "human rights atrocities" speech)

commies, you and i should be glad we weren't Shi'a or Kurds in Iraq during Saddam's rule.
I am glad for that. I'm also glad that I'm not one now. But from where I'm sitting Saddam was useful to us.

something tells me that japan and singapore don't have western cultures

It is fair to say, however, that Japan and Singapore(and Hong Kong) were influenced by the west. Much of the Middle-East is trying very hard to avoid the influence of Western modernity.

I'm on a kick researching fascism right now. Their purposes were very similar. They were resisting what they saw as the "dehumanizing" and "fragmenting" effects of rationality, equality, and democracy on society. This might tend to explain why the contemporary islamist reaction seems so similar to fascism. Similar goals.

Geez, can't criticize (sp?) anything these days without being a "phobe"... well apart from Bush and Neocons...
Pyotr: have you met any muslims? how many? in what country?

yes

somewhere between 80 and 140

America
I live in Dearborn
I have about 15 muslims living within 100 feet of my house and the only violence i've seen is when a nazi chucked a brick through one of their windows after 9/11

Not nearly as much as the Saudis did. When are we going to destroy the Saudi royal family? Fact is we could have used him as a counterweight to Iran, but now we can't.

We tried that and the lefties castigated us for it. Remember???

Agreed, sometimes getting rid of a dictator can make things a lot worse. Look at the Democratic Republic of Congo. It had one of the most despicable dictators of the 20th century (Mobutu Sese Seko), but at least he held the country and its 200+ tribes together. Now the country is mired in a civil war that is the deadliest conflict since World War II, with 3-5 million dead.

Saddam invaded Kuwait with our blessing. Our ambassador at the time (I forget her name) basically told him we would look the other way if Iraq invaded Kuwait. Of course, immediately after the invasion, Bush 1 was harping about Saddam being the new Hitler. Go figure.
Her name was April Gillespie and yes you are correct. Saddam was sucker punched for the second time. The first time he got sucker punched occured when the US sold arms to Iran during the Iraq/Iran war.

Yeah. That's what I'm saying. It's not a popular position to hold, but I value the lives of my countrymen more than the lives of foreigners. Particularly foreigners with very different cultures.
Actually, I don't know why more Republicans hold this opinion. Especially the scary far right ones who used to say, a bit less now than they did then, that we should just nuke them all. Maybe we don't want people to be massively murdered unless we're the ones doing the bombing?

Yep - well over 70,000 violent deaths per year (only counting four events) is a GREAT humanitarian record!:rolleyes:
Please support your contentions with credible links. In earlier posts you were claiming 50,000, now it is over 70,000. Most casualties were due to Shia and Kurdish revolts. How many has he executed in the past 10 years?

I must say, he frankly was a good leader.

He managed to keep 3 ethnic groups from killing each other. Granted, he killed people, but compared to some leaders, he did barely anything.

Saddam was dangerous. Right now, it's pretty bad in Iraq, but something had to be done about Saddam.

I miss Saddam Hussein.

I ain't missing you Saddam
since you've been gone
away

I ain't missing you
no matter what
I might say

But there's a desert storm that's raging
through my frozen heart tonight

And it's my heart
that's breaking
down this long distance line tonight


I ain't missing you Saddam

Please support your contentions with credible links. In earlier posts you were claiming 50,000, now it is over 70,000. Most casualties were due to Shia and Kurdish revolts. How many has he executed in the past 10 years?
ARE YOU GOING TO READ THEM THIS TIME!!!!!

Your double standard tells me that you are simply of the Hate America no matter what type.

You claim the revolts should not be counted - WHY NOT?!?!?!?! Did Saddam not have them killed????? Was exterminating WHOLE VILLAGES somehow JUSTIFIED in your sick world????

Are the wars that Saddam started somehow less deserving of inclusion than this one?????

The VAST majority of the deaths in Iraq are due to terrorist bombing of innocents. They target schools, Mosques etc. - ON PURPOSE.

I have already backed this up. But for the benefit of those who have not seen the multiple sourcing I have provided - here it is AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!


Let it be known I took only four FOUR yes, you read that right ONLYFOUR instances of Saddams mass killings - out of literally countless examples.


HERE:

I got my estimate of Iraqi deaths in the current war from Iraq Body Count - another anti-war site. (I used their high-end estimate)

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

The Anfal campaign where 182,000 were murdered.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

The Iran- Iraq war where a million or so lost their lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll

The uprisings that took place after we left Iraq in 1991 where 30,000 to 60,000 were killed by Saddam's troops and chemical weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm

There were approximately 400,000 people who have disappeared forever in Saddam's prisons.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf


Do the math:

The HIGHEST number from Iraqi body count as of right now, is 43,520 TOTAL in the 39 months we have been there.(actually closer to 40 - but I want to keep it real)

43520/39=1116 deaths per month (the VAST majority of which were killed by terrorist attacks - NOT the U.S. or Great Britain, but I used this figure to again give YOUR side all of the benefit of the doubt)


1116 x 12 = 13329 average deaths per year since we went in.

Now for Saddam's Reign of terror:

Iran-Iraq War - 1,000,000 + 400,000 who died in Saddam's prisons + 60,000 from the uprisings after we pulled out in 1991 + 180,000 in the AL-Afar campaign = 1,640,000 total over 23 years OR 71,304 per year. There are countless other instances but I only needed four to obliterate your myth.

For the 55,000 figure, I cut it down significantly in order to not overstate anything I have since realized that my trying to understate my positions count for ZERO with you.




Here are some other links:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mass_graves_in_Iraq

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/iraq/

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm

nt

Before USAlpenstock's blast, I was going to say something about terrorism, but I'll just restrict myself to:

I liked his quaint hats! They were apparently all armoured.
A big mustache is a good look too. Like dear old uncle Joe :p

yes

somewhere between 80 and 140

America
I live in Dearborn
I have about 15 muslims living within 100 feet of my house and the only violence i've seen is when a nazi chucked a brick through one of their windows after 9/11
He wasn't much of a nazi. Nazis loved Muslims. They had Muslim troops and maintained a strong relationship with the Mufti of Jerusalem.

Saddam was dangerous. Right now, it's pretty bad in Iraq, but something had to be done about Saddam.
Yeah, Saddam was dangerous. Dangerous to Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.

As a matter of fact, the first Gulf War was also totally unnecessary.

The Iraq-Iran war?

Seriously. I think his secular leadership was good for Iraq and the region in general.

While I will assume you posted this thread as bate.........(can I have what your smoking please!) please read about your home boy before you praise him. I sure he is being missed as much as Ian Paisely will be when he eventually (and I stress the eventually) dies!

Hussein was a good leader. He kept the place in-line, helped out the people he was not busy torturing, and kept Iran from doing anything stupid...

A mite genocidal, but hey, everybodys got their faults.

Evil dude, in my opinion, but he kept Iraq running and was doing a service to the rest of the region for us. Shoulda invaded Syria or Iran if we were scared of terrorists.

While I will assume you posted this thread as bate.........(can I have what your smoking please!) please read about your home boy before you praise him. I sure he is being missed as much as Ian Paisely will be when he eventually (and I stress the eventually) dies!
Praise him? Read through the thread. I never say he's a nice guy, but he was good for regional stability and could have been used as a weapon against Iran. Surgery isn't nice, but it beats cancer. Saddam isn't nice, but his regime beats radical Islamic theocracies.

Praise him? Read through the thread. I never say he's a nice guy, but he was good for regional stability and could have been used as a weapon against Iran. Surgery isn't nice, but it beats cancer. Saddam isn't nice, but his regime beats radical Islamic theocracies.
Man, it's all or nothing for some people, hey? Either Saddam was the devil, or he was Jesus...you couldn't possibly have an opinion that lies somewhere in the middle...

...of course your poll could be adding to the perception of extremism on your part.

Man, it's all or nothing for some people, hey? Either Saddam was the devil, or he was Jesus...you couldn't possibly have an opinion that lies somewhere in the middle...

...of course your poll could be adding to the perception of extremism on your part.
Well extremism is fun. Imagine how boring the world would be without extremists exploding at random or publishing books about how roughly half of all Americans are traitors. What would we talk about here? Would we have dozens more threads on Pirates vs. Ninjas or maybe Chuck Norris?

I miss too him actually. 1st off he just looked like a statesman you know, hes what a president should look like. he was also secular and provided healthcare and electricity(something the US cant do). He was and a counterbalance to Iran and finally he was a strongman that could keep the country together, he should come back.

nt
Last edited by USalpenstock : Yesterday at 10:42 PM. Reason: I take back my good will gesture. CH is simply a moron.

Hooray!! It is insult time at NS. :p

Her name was April Gillespie and yes you are correct. Saddam was sucker punched for the second time. The first time he got sucker punched occured when the US sold arms to Iran during the Iraq/Iran war.

Gillespie, that's her name! Thanks.

The Iraq-Iran war?

No. The one George H.W. Bush got us into. <_<

so your saying one iraqi/kurd < one westerner?

Oh my goodness, would you please THINK for a moment? Yes... since I'm from the US, an American life is more valuable TO ME than an Iraqi life. Just like, to an Iraqi, and Iraqi life is more valuable to them than an American life. Why in the world would that be hard for you to understand? Why would that even be considered wrong? I'd rather a foreign troop die than one of my troops. Among other things, it just hits closer to home. Sheesh.

My grandmother is Iraqi, by the way. so I'm part Iraqi. Try to explain my position in light of that.

ARE YOU GOING TO READ THEM THIS TIME!!!!!
I called you out because your first claim was 50,000 and then it went to 70,000. I guess I could have waited until you got to 100,000 and then I could have called BINGO!!

Your double standard tells me that you are simply of the Hate America no matter what type.
To you, it appears that anyone who doesn't worship the ground that George W. walks on is anti-American. And ummm no I don't hate America as much as you want to think I do. You on the other hand hate democracy.

You claim the revolts should not be counted - WHY NOT?!?!?!?! Did Saddam not have them killed????? Was exterminating WHOLE VILLAGES somehow JUSTIFIED in your sick world????
Lets see now, I promote peace and you promote wars. How does that make your world well and mine sick?

Are the wars that Saddam started somehow less deserving of inclusion than this one?????
If my memory of history serves me well, the US fully backed Saddam in his war against Iran and even threw in some intel, some equipment, oh yeah and some of those WMD that you have been looking for.

The VAST majority of the deaths in Iraq are due to terrorist bombing of innocents. They target schools, Mosques etc. - ON PURPOSE.
How many innocents have been killed by US firepower in this current war on Iraq? And I know that the US doesn't target hospitals, schools, market places, and mosques, but damn some of those got hit by US bombs and arty. I know, I know...collateral damage and all.

I have already backed this up. But for the benefit of those who have not seen the multiple sourcing I have provided - here it is AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let it be known I took only four FOUR yes, you read that right ONLYFOUR instances of Saddams mass killings - out of literally countless examples.
When I get more time, I will address the numbers that you have put up on the scoreboard and by the end of the official counting, your "official" tally will be whittled down to a more realistic number.

Stay tuned for Part 2.

Gillespie, that's her name! Thanks.
Hey...no problem. :)

Saddam did kill his own people. That's true. But way too many of you have a rosy picture of Kurds. Saddam's reaction was too violent but you have to remember that at the time the kurds supported Iran in Iraq-Iran war. They even fought on Iran's side. You think that Saddam should have patted them on their head? They also rioted against Saddam after the first Gulf war. From Saddam's point of you, they were terrorists. (they has used guerilla tectics for decades even before the Gulf war)

This all begun back in 1960's when the new leaders carried a campaign of arabization. Many kurds were forced to move from Kurdish areas and many arabs moved into Kurdish areas etc. The Kurds, no wonder, weren't so happy about this arabization and resistes it actively. Iran first gave them support and weapons but withdrew it's support briefly after and the resistance was crushed.

yes

somewhere between 80 and 140

America
I live in Dearborn
I have about 15 muslims living within 100 feet of my house and the only violence i've seen is when a nazi chucked a brick through one of their windows after 9/11

Just so people may have an idea what he's talking about:

Dearborn, Michigan is roughly 40% Arab, (so 40,000 people, since Dearborn has about 100,000) many of whom are Muslim. It has the largest concentration of Arabs outside of the Middle East.

It's one of my pet peeves when people just say the name of their town and not their state, expecting everyone to know which one they're talking about.

Firstly: Saddam Hussein was a merciless and brutal dictator who murdered thousands of his own people. That's it. Game over. End of story. The fact that he wasn't ruling under a religious guise, as so many Middle Eastern rulers do, is, in my view, a moot point when given his atrocious human rights failures.

Secondly: George W. Bush is not clinically retarded--he is a Yale graduate (an IQ test administered by the U.S. Army in 2004 showed that Bush had a higher IQ than John Kerry), but he has made some highly questionable public policy decisions that call into question his competence as a leader.

Thirdly: The Iraqi people will, eventually, be better off once their nation is stabilized and they have a reliable economy. To live in a democratic republic, with a free market economy, free of the terror and political oppression of a Saddam Hussein, is the optimal human condition.

Fourthly: The United States military is not raping teenage girls or killing innocent civilians wantonly, as many left-wing blogs (and certain sectors of the mainstream media) would have you believe. While tragedies like Abu Ghraib may have taken place, the United States military is, in general, known the world over for following the ROE to the letter (the CIA is a different story...)

Fifthly, and finally: I am not a shill in favor of the Iraq War. In my opinion, this war was one of President Bush's costliest mistakes, and I have opposed our entering into it since the beginning. Ruthless and capricious as he may have been, Saddam Hussein was still a world leader, Iraq was still a sovereign nation, and the United States has no authority to act as the world's watchdog.

Saddam did kill his own people. That's true. But way too many of you have a rosy picture of Kurds. Saddam's reaction was too violent but you have to remember that at the time the kurds supported Iran in Iraq-Iran war. They even fought on Iran's side. You think that Saddam should have patted them on their head? They also rioted against Saddam after the first Gulf war. From Saddam's point of you, they were terrorists. (they has used guerilla tectics for decades even before the Gulf war)
BINGO!! You win a cookie.

The Kurds wanted independence, and were doubly cursed by helping the Iranians. Saddam put down the rebellion.

If California wanted to cede from the US, does anyone really think that it would just be a matter of signing a few documents and a round of handshakes? Not bloody likely and I stress the word bloody.

BINGO!! You win a cookie.

The Kurds wanted independence, and were doubly cursed by helping the Iranians. Saddam put down the rebellion.

If California wanted to cede from the US, does anyone really think that it would just be a matter of signing a few documents and a round of handshakes? Not bloody likely and I stress the word bloody.
while attacking the other states with Mexico (or Canada? :O )

If California wanted to cede from the US, does anyone really think that it would just be a matter of signing a few documents and a round of handshakes? Not bloody likely and I stress the word bloody.

California seceding from the U.S.? Only in my dreams...

Sorry to any Californians here, but I'm from Colorado and my state is being overrun by Californians (and Texans, and Floridians, and New Yorkers, and...)

And no, of course California's secession wouldn't be a peaceful matter of treaties and handshakes and champagne and the strains of the glorious new Californian National Anthem playing alongside The Star-Spangled Banner. We've had states try to secede once before, and it didn't work so well for either side. It was called the Civil War, and it was the costliest conflict in American history (although I say, "If they wanted their slaves so damn much, let them go and be their own bigoted, backwards nation"). In addition, a HUGE percentage of the goods coming into the U.S. go through San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, and the American economy would be in the lurch without California. There is NO WAY any President would allow such a travesty. (If, say, Wyoming were to secede, that would make me sad, but the rest of the country would probably shrug and say, "Eh...whatever.")

That said, I believe it is the right of any state to secede and give a big :upyours: to the federal government.

Lastly, the Kurds DID want independence, and they WERE helping Iran. Yes, yes, they must be criticized for this--how DARE they desire escape from under the thumb of a cruel megalomaniac...the AUDACITY of trying to help a regime slightly less oppressive than their own.

If by "Saddam put down the rebellion," you mean he used poison gas (a weapon of mass destruction) to kill 5,000 civilians, then yes--yes, he did.

Seriously. I think his secular leadership was good for Iraq and the region in general.
Heh, exactly what i said, he may have been a nutjob but he brought stability to the region.

Heh, exactly what i said, he may have been a nutjob but he brought stability to the region.

But you must consider at what cost he brought stability. Oppression and genocide do, in most cases, bring stability, but stability is, and ought to be in the minds of all right-thinking people, secondary to liberty. King George III of England tried to bring stability to the American colonies in the 1770's by imposing unfair regulations and economic restrictions, and a brave group of men decided that they were willing to forfeit their stable lives to fight for liberty--the ultimate cause.

I wonder how many Americans realize how remarkable their nation is in the history of the world. The Roman Empire (and many other nations, especially during the ancient and Middle Ages) had stability, but not liberty. Late-18th century France (and many other nations, espcially during the Renaissance and Enlightenment) had liberty, but not stability. The United States was the first nation to have both for any considerable period of time.

Stability's nice, but it isn't paramount. If we don't let our governments know that we will rise up and throw out stability to fight for our rights, we issue them a gilt-edged, gold-filigreed invitation to impose tyranny against us.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if someday Iraqis looked back with fondness on Saddam's days. Bad as they were, at least Iraq was peaceful and stable. Just as many Congolese today long for the days of Mobutu Sese Seko, even though he was a rampantly corrupt, ruthless, totalitarian bastard, so too may Iraqis wish for Saddam back- if they don't already.

Hey...no problem. :)

You're very nice.

Originally posted by Minnesotan Confederacy
...many Congolese today long for the days of Mobutu Sese Seko...

I must protest. One of my instructors spent twelve years teaching in Africa and spent considerable time in Congo. After hearing about his experiences and interviews with real, modern Congolese, I can tell you that NOBODY wants Mobutu Sese Seko back.

I defy you to find me ONE Congolese, other than those who had positions of power and influence in his regime (or those he bribed to keep quiet), who wants him back.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if someday Iraqis looked back with fondness on Saddam's days. Bad as they were, at least Iraq was peaceful and stable.

Again, peace and stability aren't (or at least shouldn't be) priority one. And why would anyone "look back with fondness" on days that you yourself called bad? Doesn't "bad" necessarily rule out "fondness"?

I must protest. One of my instructors spent twelve years teaching in Africa and spent considerable time in Congo. After hearing about his experiences and interviews with real, modern Congolese, I can tell you that NOBODY wants Mobutu Sese Seko back.

I defy you to find me ONE Congolese, other than those who had positions of power and influence in his regime (or those he bribed to keep quiet), who wants him back.

Again, peace and stability aren't (or at least shouldn't be) priority one. And why would anyone "look back with fondness" on days that you yourself called bad? Doesn't "bad" necessarily rule out "fondness"?

Look at this way. Under Mobutu, the country was held together- by deplorable means, of course, but still. Now, it's a nation mired in the deadliest conflict since World War II. Many Congolese would rather live under the oppressive regime of Mobutu than live in a warzone. It doesn't necessarily mean they like him. It's like DCD's comparison to surgery and cancer, with the war being cancer, Mobutu being surgery.

Well, I still think that the vast majority of Congolese would choose now over then, but I must admit that there is a certain (macabre) logic in your argument. I'll concede that point. Well reasoned.

But my argument on the larger point stands--I am firmly convinced that, once Iraq is stabilized, no Iraqi will dispute the superiority of post-Hussein Iraq over Iraq with Hussein. This war has been inestimably devastating to the Iraqi people, and I oppose it completely, but, slowly, things are improving there. I simply cannot believe that a group of people would willingly choose a (relatively) long period of peaceful but brutal dictatorship over a (relatively) short period of violence and turmoil followed by an indefinite period of freedom and prosperity.

Perhaps, if/when Congo is stabilized, the Congolese people will be faced with a similar choice.

But you must consider at what cost he brought stability. Oppression and genocide do, in most cases, bring stability, but stability is, and ought to be in the minds of all right-thinking people, secondary to liberty. King George III of England tried to bring stability to the American colonies in the 1770's by imposing unfair regulations and economic restrictions, and a brave group of men decided that they were willing to forfeit their stable lives to fight for liberty--the ultimate cause.

I wonder how many Americans realize how remarkable their nation is in the history of the world. The Roman Empire (and many other nations, especially during the ancient and Middle Ages) had stability, but not liberty. Late-18th century France (and many other nations, espcially during the Renaissance and Enlightenment) had liberty, but not stability. The United States was the first nation to have both for any considerable period of time.

Stability's nice, but it isn't paramount. If we don't let our governments know that we will rise up and throw out stability to fight for our rights, we issue them a gilt-edged, gold-filigreed invitation to impose tyranny against us.
Meh, he had rioters killed discenters his sons tortured people but the people were generally safe.

Do you have MSN or YIM? I'd like to hear more about your instructor's experiences. I'm a big Africa buff. But anyway, please TG me. I don't want to clog up this thread.

Originally Posted by Harlesburg
Meh, he had rioters killed discenters his sons tortured people but the people were generally safe.

Okay, since you've probably figured it out by now, I'll admit it: I'm a libertarian. One of my favorite hobbies is trawling through the infinite expanses of cyberspace, looking for government excess or abuses of personal rights, and writing angry e-mails to my congressmen about them.

Being a libertarian, I'd be willing to give up every bit of safety and stability I have, for the rest of my life if necessary, if my rights were coming under attack, and I hope plenty of other people feel that way. I'm confident enough in my intelligence and my ability to defend myself that I'd be willing to go to war to protect my liberties.

So the people were "generally safe." I don't give a flying f--- if they're safe, I care if they're FREE--and they certainly weren't.

But maybe I'm in the minority. Certainly, in this country, it seems a lot of people will put up the "Big Brother is Watching You" posters and give up their right to vote, just so long as they have their clean drinking water and their efficient police forces.

In America, that question is a pure hypothetical because we know we will always have our safety AND our liberty. But in most other countries, the people don't have the luxury of dealing in hypotheticals. How many executed Kurds, Shia Muslims, and Baath Party opponents would have given up all of their possessions and securities for one tiny bite of the delicious apple of personal rights?

Firstly: Saddam Hussein was a merciless and brutal dictator who murdered thousands of his own people. That's it. Game over. End of story. The fact that he wasn't ruling under a religious guise, as so many Middle Eastern rulers do, is, in my view, a moot point when given his atrocious human rights failures.

Secondly: George W. Bush is not clinically retarded--he is a Yale graduate (an IQ test administered by the U.S. Army in 2004 showed that Bush had a higher IQ than John Kerry), but he has made some highly questionable public policy decisions that call into question his competence as a leader.

Thirdly: The Iraqi people will, eventually, be better off once their nation is stabilized and they have a reliable economy. To live in a democratic republic, with a free market economy, free of the terror and political oppression of a Saddam Hussein, is the optimal human condition.

Fourthly: The United States military is not raping teenage girls or killing innocent civilians wantonly, as many left-wing blogs (and certain sectors of the mainstream media) would have you believe. While tragedies like Abu Ghraib may have taken place, the United States military is, in general, known the world over for following the ROE to the letter (the CIA is a different story...)

Fifthly, and finally: I am not a shill in favor of the Iraq War. In my opinion, this war was one of President Bush's costliest mistakes, and I have opposed our entering into it since the beginning. Ruthless and capricious as he may have been, Saddam Hussein was still a world leader, Iraq was still a sovereign nation, and the United States has no authority to act as the world's watchdog.



First: Prove it. Where are these records of these tens of thousands of deaths?

Second: HAHA! Prove it! Even if it is true, you can be the smartest person in Yale but a common, poor man can have more common sense. If Kerry didn't take the same IQ test along with Bush, you hold ZERO merit. He didn't make the cut for Harvard law school so he had his daddy pull strings at Yale. A man who keeps talking about a pig for dinner at an important conference with Germany is clinically retarded.

Third: No one but a secular dictator can control that region. The British already tried and failed. We've already tried and are failing.

Fourth: The United States military has poor redneck assholes raping teenage girls. Not even ONE situation of that should occur. Not even one. And no the US military isn't known to follow the ROE to the letter. Vietnam is a prime example with many Iraq situations following.

Fifth: The smartest thing you've said. Too bad you can't continue saying smart things.

To Istenbul:

Firstly: I didn't say tens of thousands, I said thousands. And how can you possibly ask for proof? We've exhumed the mass graves! We've found the torture chambers! We've found documents and tape recordings of Saddam himself ordering these things! I won't give you a single URL because that proof is all over the Internet (what a wonderful invention), the television, the newspapers, etc. I find it utterly unbelievable that you will not accept what even the mainstream media (grudgingly) has.

Secondly: The original Army report has been expunged from their website because the content is more than two years old, but I'll do my best to track the results down elsewhere.

Thirdly: Why don't we let the Iraqis TRY to rule themselves before we write them off as hopeless? You cite the British as trying to rule them and failing--the British had a STATED interest in expanding their empire and getting large oil reserves. You cite us as trying to rule them and failing--but we're not trying to rule them, we're trying to get them to rule themselves (which we shouldn't).

Fourthly: I'll use your own tactics on you--where is YOUR proof that the United States has "poor redneck assholes raping teenage girls"? Where is YOUR proof that the U.S. military violated the ROE in Vietnam or in Iraq? I agree completely that even a single instance of these would be intolerable, but they just don't happen.

To Istenbul:

Firstly: I didn't say tens of thousands, I said thousands. And how can you possibly ask for proof? We've exhumed the mass graves! We've found the torture chambers! We've found documents and tape recordings of Saddam himself ordering these things! I won't give you a single URL because that proof is all over the Internet (what a wonderful invention), the television, the newspapers, etc.

Secondly: The original Army report has been expunged from their website because the content is more than two years old, but I'll do my best to track the results down elsewhere.

Thirdly: Why don't we let the Iraqis TRY to rule themselves before we write them off as hopeless? You cite the British as trying to rule them and failing--the British had a STATED interest in expanding their empire and getting large oil reserves. You cite us as trying to rule them and failing--but we're not trying to rule them, we're trying to get them to rule themselves (which we shouldn't).

Fourthly: I'll use your own tactics on you--where is YOUR proof that the United States has "poor redneck assholes raping teenage girls"? I agree completely that even a single instance of this would be intolerable, but it's just not happening.


First: Ha. Give me an actual piece of evidence stating this. The only source of information concerning this on the internet is the same crap you have been spouting. The same speculations and rumors. Sure, I have seen the pictures of the boxes of papers supposedly having information about the killed and tortured but I have yet to see the papers. I have yet to see actual evidence concerning this matter. Believe me, I have looked because this is not the first topic concerning this to have sprung up. You to give me an URL because you cant. You can not do this because nothing you give will show concrete evidence.

Second: You do that. I wont hold my breath for that nonsense.

Third: They have a government and they have a police force. Yet they are doing a shoddy job. How many more billions and how many more American lives should be funnel down the drain??

Fourth: Read the latest editions of Time. Hopefully you should have such reading material available to you.

Under Saddam women weren't getting acid thrown in their faces for wearing western style clothes and the country wasn't involved in a slow motion civil war. More people are dying over there as a result of the liberation than Saddam ever killed. Saddam kept theocracy out and maintained order. Plus if we'd made deals with him he would have been a reliable ally against Iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Uhm dude, you're kind of smoking crack on this one. Under Saddam women were getting raped and executed on whim by the Hussien boys, and just about any other Baath party thug who had sway in his shitty litle sector. As for the acid in the face, honor killings and the likes were still the norm in heavily devout areas in the south and even the center. Regardless of what saddam and the baath party were about in the beginning, the country always remained heavily muslim, and fundamentalist at that. Saddams biggest internal problem was a religious one, mainly his sunni minority had to put down a huge shia majority.
As to more people dying since liberation. Saddam did a couple hundred thousand, and dumped them in mass graves. Of course thats not counting any one who died because saddam intentionally withheld medicine and food that was bieng delivered to Iraq through the Oil for Food program. He was busy making sweetheart oil deals with those beacons of international morality (france, russia, china), against the day sanctions would be lifted.
As to keeping theocracy out, only in that it was a threat to his power. He was perfectly willing to host any number of nutjob wahhabi's, especially post 91 when he relied on their particularly fiery brand of anti-western, anti-anything not muslim to keep the general population cowed and not focused onhis shannanigans. That was around the same time he put the Koran verse into the Iraqi flag. Never mind that Al quada jihadists like Zarqowi, and his recent replacement were already in Iraq with the blessing of Saddam's government pre Iraq invasion.
Think what you ant about the war, but don't pretend iraq was some harmless la la land, with a poor misunderstood dictator who was just trying to find the middle path, and keep the west safe from iran.

I don't miss him so much as I think we could of used him...

Seriously. I think his secular leadership was good for Iraq and the region in general.

Seriously dude... I think the world is better off without him, i didn't even live in iraq and i noticed the effects of his "leadership". Because of him, for instance, my school as closed for several days, then there was that time that my flight wouldn't leave because he was up to something again, and that's just two of the many things! And this was just little effects that were'nt really bad effects but these these things happened as precautions or effects of other things done by him (by the way, I was living in saudi arabia so i can so that it wasn't 'good for the region')

Uhm dude, you're kind of smoking crack on this one. Under Saddam women were getting raped and executed on whim by the Hussien boys, and just about any other Baath party thug who had sway in his shitty litle sector. As for the acid in the face, honor killings and the likes were still the norm in heavily devout areas in the south and even the center. Regardless of what saddam and the baath party were about in the beginning, the country always remained heavily muslim, and fundamentalist at that. Saddams biggest internal problem was a religious one, mainly his sunni minority had to put down a huge shia majority.
As to more people dying since liberation. Saddam did a couple hundred thousand, and dumped them in mass graves. Of course thats not counting any one who died because saddam intentionally withheld medicine and food that was bieng delivered to Iraq through the Oil for Food program. He was busy making sweetheart oil deals with those beacons of international morality (france, russia, china), against the day sanctions would be lifted.
As to keeping theocracy out, only in that it was a threat to his power. He was perfectly willing to host any number of nutjob wahhabi's, especially post 91 when he relied on their particularly fiery brand of anti-western, anti-anything not muslim to keep the general population cowed and not focused onhis shannanigans. That was around the same time he put the Koran verse into the Iraqi flag. Never mind that Al quada jihadists like Zarqowi, and his recent replacement were already in Iraq with the blessing of Saddam's government pre Iraq invasion.
Think what you ant about the war, but don't pretend iraq was some harmless la la land, with a poor misunderstood dictator who was just trying to find the middle path, and keep the west safe from iran.


Again, where is your proof to these claims? Concrete evidence? Detailed report? Nothing? PHAILED.


Saddam and Al Qaeda hated each other. There was no blessing and both Saddam and Al Qaeda were complete polar opposites of one another.

But my argument on the larger point stands--I am firmly convinced that, once Iraq is stabilized, no Iraqi will dispute the superiority of post-Hussein Iraq over Iraq with Hussein. This war has been inestimably devastating to the Iraqi people, and I oppose it completely, but, slowly, things are improving there. I simply cannot believe that a group of people would willingly choose a (relatively) long period of peaceful but brutal dictatorship over a (relatively) short period of violence and turmoil followed by an indefinite period of freedom and prosperity.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But Iraq isn't stabilized. You're talking about future. You seem to know what's going to happen but I'm not as optimistic as you are. How long will it take until the indefinite (what that means? two months? 3 decades?) period of freedom will occur?

The mass graves? type it into google, because thats all I would do. The rape rooms, and torture chambers, saw them personally, but go ahead and type that into google too. while you're at it, type in Oil for Food scandal, and find out about that, since it was part of all of this.

As to Saddam and Al Quada hating eachother, prove it. Where is your credible evidence. Yeah I know, google it. However, in the face of this apparent hatred they had for eachother, known jihadist like Zarqowi were in Iraq pre 2003. The Iraqi intelligence agents were holding meetings with Al Quada operatives (what they discussed is ?, but that you can look up in the 9/11 report, or google it.). Nevermind the almost seamless joining of ex-baath officials and foreign al quada jihadists in the insurgency. Again google it, but I saw it with my own eyes. Oh yeah, and those crazy jihadists from out of country, they were in Iraq when U.S. coalition forces invaded.

First: Ha. Give me an actual piece of evidence stating this. The only source of information concerning this on the internet is the same crap you have been spouting. The same speculations and rumors. Sure, I have seen the pictures of the boxes of papers supposedly having information about the killed and tortured but I have yet to see the papers. I have yet to see actual evidence concerning this matter. Believe me, I have looked because this is not the first topic concerning this to have sprung up. You to give me an URL because you cant. You can not do this because nothing you give will show concrete evidence.



It's a very well known fact. Quite pointless to argue against it.
Google Iraq and Halabja and try to prove that it didn't happen.

As to Saddam and Al Quada hating eachother, prove it. Where is your credible evidence. Yeah I know, google it. However, in the face of this apparent hatred they had for eachother, known jihadist like Zarqowi were in Iraq pre 2003. The Iraqi intelligence agents were holding meetings with Al Quada operatives (what they discussed is ?, but that you can look up in the 9/11 report, or google it.). Nevermind the almost seamless joining of ex-baath officials and foreign al quada jihadists in the insurgency. Again google it, but I saw it with my own eyes. Oh yeah, and those crazy jihadists from out of country, they were in Iraq when U.S. coalition forces invaded.
They didn't cooperate before 9/11.

AND as far as I know they didn't cooperate after 9/11 either. They just negotiated.

The mass graves? type it into google, because thats all I would do. The rape rooms, and torture chambers, saw them personally, but go ahead and type that into google too. while you're at it, type in Oil for Food scandal, and find out about that, since it was part of all of this.

As to Saddam and Al Quada hating eachother, prove it. Where is your credible evidence. Yeah I know, google it. However, in the face of this apparent hatred they had for eachother, known jihadist like Zarqowi were in Iraq pre 2003. The Iraqi intelligence agents were holding meetings with Al Quada operatives (what they discussed is ?, but that you can look up in the 9/11 report, or google it.). Nevermind the almost seamless joining of ex-baath officials and foreign al quada jihadists in the insurgency. Again google it, but I saw it with my own eyes. Oh yeah, and those crazy jihadists from out of country, they were in Iraq when U.S. coalition forces invaded.

Search Google for Bush's rape and torture rooms. Did you see those personally too?

A pet peeve of mine is on purpose spelling Al Qaeda wrong.

The Saddam and Al Qaeda hatred can stem back for decades. Here's a more recent article though. Next time, I won't provide anything. You hold the burden of proof, not me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Your argument consists of speculations and rumors.

It's a very well known fact. Quite pointless to argue against it.
Google Iraq and Halabja and try to prove that it didn't happen.


Halabja was a kurdish town. Who were the rebels in the time of the gas attack. What exactly are you trying to prove again?

Halabja was a kurdish town. Who were the rebels in the time of the gas attack. What exactly are you trying to prove again?
What the hell? Are you trying to say that Kurds weren't Iraqis?
That it doesn't count if you gas rebels? (and every single person in the town was a terrorist?) I can't follow your logic.

wow turn off the 24-hour-network news and while your at it get rid of the prejudice

I ask you how many muslims have you actually met?
Pyotr, it's in the Koran. You're not allowed to charge interest in Islam.

What the hell? Are you trying to say that Kurds weren't Iraqis?
That it doesn't count if you gas rebels? (and every single person in the town was a terrorist?) I can't follow your logic.


Saddam was fighting a war against the rebels. We did the same to the Japanese. Was every single person in Hirosima a soldier? You can't follow my logic because you choose not to. If anything gives justification to Saddam you refuse to follow it?

I find this article interesting about your so-called 'evidence' to refute me. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0703-01.htm

Uhm dude, you're kind of smoking crack on this one. Under Saddam women were getting raped and executed on whim by the Hussien boys, and just about any other Baath party thug who had sway in his shitty litle sector. As for the acid in the face, honor killings and the likes were still the norm in heavily devout areas in the south and even the center. Regardless of what saddam and the baath party were about in the beginning, the country always remained heavily muslim, and fundamentalist at that. Saddams biggest internal problem was a religious one, mainly his sunni minority had to put down a huge shia majority.
As to more people dying since liberation. Saddam did a couple hundred thousand, and dumped them in mass graves. Of course thats not counting any one who died because saddam intentionally withheld medicine and food that was bieng delivered to Iraq through the Oil for Food program. He was busy making sweetheart oil deals with those beacons of international morality (france, russia, china), against the day sanctions would be lifted.
As to keeping theocracy out, only in that it was a threat to his power. He was perfectly willing to host any number of nutjob wahhabi's, especially post 91 when he relied on their particularly fiery brand of anti-western, anti-anything not muslim to keep the general population cowed and not focused onhis shannanigans. That was around the same time he put the Koran verse into the Iraqi flag. Never mind that Al quada jihadists like Zarqowi, and his recent replacement were already in Iraq with the blessing of Saddam's government pre Iraq invasion.
Think what you ant about the war, but don't pretend iraq was some harmless la la land, with a poor misunderstood dictator who was just trying to find the middle path, and keep the west safe from iran.


HA! you don't know anything about pre-war Iraq.

Iraq was the most western arabic country before the US got involved. My grandmother used to wear sleeveless tops, went to university both at home and abroad, was a dentist that would work with men all day, and that was considered absolutely fine, she was not breaking the cultural norm at all. She was one of the more "liberal" women, but not one that was outside of the tolerance zone. Those honour killings happened outside of the governments influence, and the country practiced moderate islam. No women wore a viel, and few wore a headscarf, if they did, it was out of their choice, it was in no way the symbol of oppression it is seen as now. This knocks over your arguements of iraq being a women oppressing fundamentalist muslim country.

The sunni-shia conflict is difficult to understand or to explain, im sure you do not even know the difference between the two sects. I personally, am a sunni. but really, saddam was not ruling under a "sunni minority oppressing a shia majority." The ba'ath party was a party full of shias, it was brought to iraq by shias. The vice president was a kurd, the deputy prime minister was christian. the sunni triangle and all other inventions created to divide iraq was created by the west. Now lets explain this, 50 years ago the shias were the minority in iraq, however, after extensive breeding, they outbred the sunnis to become the majority in iraq. Shias were the sect that generally had a lower socio-economic status in iraq, you find that in the US with blacks and in new zealand with maoris, becoming the majority however did not change their position, especially if it is difficult for them to simply feed their children (our shia servant had 13 children and was a single mother, she did not have the time to look after her kids well). This meant that most educated people in iraq were sunni, and so it does not really matter if the sunnis were over represented in higher income proffessions. You find the same phenomenon in india with sikhs or america with jews. That explains how the sunnis had a large proportion of power even though they were the minority. The conflict arose from shias being the islamic fundamentals, not the sunnis. The shias wanted to merge south iraq with iran, since iran became a shia theocracy, for this reason, the shia islamic party, called the dawa party, which is currently ruling iraq and is backed by iran, started a number of terrorist activities in iraq, notable ones include bombing baghdad university where Tariq Aziz was giving a speech, the act which started the iraq-iran war, and also attempting to assassinate saddam at dujail, which saddam is currently on trial for. (Personally, regarding dujail, i think that saddam is correct, those people deserved to die, they attempted to assassinate him, is he meant to shake their hand? that wouldve happened in any other country.)

Saddam did not intentionally hold back medicine and food, the problem with the oil for food program was the corruption from western firms. Saddam, until the wars, brought iraq into the 20th century, in the 70s, while saddam was de facto ruler, he made iraq a developed nation. He built huge road networks, made education free and compulsory, ended religious rule, used oil revenue to invest in the iraqi economy. Economically, he wanted what was best for iraq, he was not trying to starve the people.

Saddam did not kill hundreds of thousands of people, in fact, he killed under 10 000 people. Really, if you just did not try to kill him, or topple his regime, or say bad things about him or his regime, you would've been quite happy living in iraq. For under 10 000 people though, that was not enough.

"That koranic verse" on the iraqi flag is not a koranic verse, it is allahu akbar, which means "god is great." He did not add it in order to keep the population cowed, and nor did he add it post 91. He added it in 1990 in order to try to improve relations with saudi arabia, which was getting hostile after he invaded and annexed kuwait. Wahabbis hated him, he was far too secular for them, and Wahabbism is only found in Saudi Arabia, and they hated him for invading Kuwait.

Al Zarqawi and Al Qaeda in Iraq enterred Iraq after the US occupied Baghdad, when it foolishly disbanded the Iraqi army. This left all borders freely open so that Jordanian, Iranian, Saudi Arabian, and Syrian terrorists could all literally walk into iraq and start their terror campaigns. One of them was Al Zarqawi, from Jordan. also, the group was not Al Qaeda in Iraq until the end of 2003, when he pledged allegience with Al Qaeda, earlier Zarqawi had a seperate group.

Iraq did help keep the west, and other arab nations, safe from Iran, this was why they gave Iraq so much aid and weapons in order to protect them from Iran. If it wasn't for him, Iran would've overrun the entire Middle East, imagine todays situation if that had happened, imagine the amount of power Ahmedinejad would've held.

VERDICT: Iraq was better with Saddam at the helm, and it was quite close to a la la land, especially when you look at its geographic location (the middle east)

Saddam was fighting a war against the rebels. We did the same to the Japanese. Was every single person in Hirosima a soldier? You can't follow my logic because you choose not to. If anything gives justification to Saddam you refuse to follow it?

I find this article interesting about your so-called 'evidence' to refute me. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0703-01.htm
Read post 137. The fact that Kurds rebelled against Saddan doesn't change the fact that he killed thousands of them. Japanese aren't Americans. Those Kurds were Iraqis.

I have already given justification to Saddam. By your logic a kill is not a kill if the victim is a rebel? Yeah, I quess Americans didn't kill any Japanese on Hiroshima either :rolleyes:

I can't believe this. This is the man who ordered the gassing of thousands of Kurds, whose helicopters gunned down people in the streets, whose secret police routinely tortured men, women, and children, who allowed his kids to make videotapes of electrocuting people while laughing...The man was a beast, a disgusting, horrific beast and some pitiful excuse about him "keeping order" cannot justify the acts committed under his regime. No man like him should ever remain in power, and the current chaos does not mean we should turn back to butchers of his like. It simply means that we must do better in our efforts to forge democracy.

Oh, and Istenbul, you want proof? Here it is.

-- According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."
-- Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.
-- 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
-- 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 the "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."
-- The U.S. Committee for Refugees, in 2002, estimated that nearly 100,000 Kurds, Assyrians and Turkomans had previously been expelled, by the regime, from the "central-government-controlled Kirkuk and surrounding districts in the oil-rich region bordering the Kurdish controlled north."
-- "Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003)
-- Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies.
-- Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0703-01.htm
http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html

I can't believe this. This is the man who ordered the gassing of thousands of Kurds, whose helicopters gunned down people in the streets, whose secret police routinely tortured men, women, and children, who allowed his kids to make videotapes of electrocuting people while laughing...The man was a beast, a disgusting, horrific beast and some pitiful excuse about him "keeping order" cannot justify the acts committed under his regime. No man like him should ever remain in power, and the current chaos does not mean we should turn back to butchers of his like. It simply means that we must do better in our efforts to forge democracy.

Oh, and Istenbul, you want proof? Here it is.

-- According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."
-- Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.
-- 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
-- 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 the "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."
-- The U.S. Committee for Refugees, in 2002, estimated that nearly 100,000 Kurds, Assyrians and Turkomans had previously been expelled, by the regime, from the "central-government-controlled Kirkuk and surrounding districts in the oil-rich region bordering the Kurdish controlled north."
-- "Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003)
-- Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies.
-- Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.


Since you provided a quote from Tony Blair you must win automatically.

Seriously, Tony Blair also said that Saddam had weapons of MASS destruction, and it was a farse.

You keep mentioning Kurds and I keep mentioning rebels. Your list is still nothing but full of speculation,estimates, and rumors. I believe I asked for proof.

the following URL's are under the mass graves search


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901191.html - mass graves

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/world/middleeast/05grave.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=f61682fbc3536b01&ex=1307160000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/809E8529-86DB-4A93-8AEA-21AED3A713B2.htm

these are under oil for food the national review is biased politically (knowingly and openly so), but browse it for the links it provides if for nothing else

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041206/gordon

next we get al quada and iraq (note the oil for food links already discuss some of this). oh yeah, and lets also take note of any other religious zealot jihadi organization that Iraq was in bed with, but may have not been named Al Quada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf


there are many more. and yes its the internet, and you can find folks who disagree on some of this, or all of it with the same search.

the following URL's are under the mass graves search


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042901191.html - mass graves

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/world/middleeast/05grave.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=f61682fbc3536b01&ex=1307160000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/809E8529-86DB-4A93-8AEA-21AED3A713B2.htm

these are under oil for food the national review is biased politically (knowingly and openly so), but browse it for the links it provides if for nothing else

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041206/gordon

next we get al quada and iraq (note the oil for food links already discuss some of this). oh yeah, and lets also take note of any other religious zealot jihadi organization that Iraq was in bed with, but may have not been named Al Quada.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf


there are many more. and yes its the internet, and you can find folks who disagree on some of this, or all of it with the same search.

Almost all of them, especially the third link involved revolts against Saddam. You only prove what I've been saying.

They didn't cooperate before 9/11.

AND as far as I know they didn't cooperate after 9/11 either. They just negotiated.


Zarqawi recieved medical treatment in Baghdad, and lived in Iraq prior to and through to the 2003 invasion.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf


"to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
a quotw from that report.

Read post 137. The fact that Kurds rebelled against Saddan doesn't change the fact that he killed thousands of them. Japanese aren't Americans. Those Kurds were Iraqis.

I have already given justification to Saddam. By your logic a kill is not a kill if the victim is a rebel? Yeah, I quess Americans didn't kill any Japanese on Hiroshima either :rolleyes:

i am sure a kurd would not appreciate it if u called him an iraqi. They are pretty hellbent on saying they are from "kurdistan." Also, do you have a better idea as to what saddam should do if there is a mass rebellion against him? Of course he killed them.

Zarqawi recieved medical treatment in Baghdad, and lived in Iraq prior to and through to the 2003 invasion.

Living in Baghdad means what exactly? Do you know of any communication between Saddam and him? No you don't.

Zarqawi recieved medical treatment in Baghdad, and lived in Iraq prior to and through to the 2003 invasion.
Is that cooperation?

Read post 137. The fact that Kurds rebelled against Saddan doesn't change the fact that he killed thousands of them. Japanese aren't Americans. Those Kurds were Iraqis.

I have already given justification to Saddam. By your logic a kill is not a kill if the victim is a rebel? Yeah, I quess Americans didn't kill any Japanese on Hiroshima either :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter. Whoever mentioned it first held the logic that not all of them were rebels. Of course the Japanese aren't Americans, but the Kurds were rebelling to not be Iraqis anymore. You hold a flimsy argument.

EDIT: I'm off to bed, hopefully the argument won't be totally different tomorrow afternoon.

Search Google for Bush's rape and torture rooms. Did you see those personally too?

A pet peeve of mine is on purpose spelling Al Qaeda wrong.

The Saddam and Al Qaeda hatred can stem back for decades. Here's a more recent article though. Next time, I won't provide anything. You hold the burden of proof, not me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Your argument consists of speculations and rumors.

Yeah, I hold the burden of proof. Of course you don't have to prove anything. As to speculation and rumors, have it your own ignorant way. I know what I've read, and what I've seen personally. Which is far more convincing to me than anything a nutjob like you has to say about it. Oh yeah, I can care less about your pet peeves. Al quada, al qaeda, al fuckislamofascistsya, I just spell Arabic phonetically, since no one seems to agree on how to spell any of it anyways.

i am sure a kurd would not appreciate it if u called him an iraqi. They are pretty hellbent on saying they are from "kurdistan." Also, do you have a better idea as to what saddam should do if there is a mass rebellion against him? Of course he killed them.
Thank you. I have asked the very same question (again post 137). He's reaction was brutal. It wasn't necessary to let go of all limits of legality. Not to mention human rights.

Thank you. I have asked the very same question (again post 137). He's reaction was brutal. It wasn't necessary to let go of all limits of legality. Not to mention human rights.

we must remember who we are dealing with here. Saddam was in fact nicer to kurds than the iranians, turks, and syrians. Saddam gave their province alot of autonomy, allowed them to have radio stations in kurdish, teach kurdish to their children, and have schools that teach in kurdish. Iran, Turkey, and Syria, the other nations where kurds live, would never allow that, it is in those countries that Kurds are oppressed. If you see the methods those nations use, and how the kurds still attempt to start rebellions, you will see that the only way to end and prevent future rebellions was to take the Saddam Hussein route. It is ugly, it is brutal, however, it was the only choice. I would've done the same thing.

it is good to see someone agrees with me and knows who the kurds are.

Firstly: Saddam Hussein was a merciless and brutal dictator who murdered thousands of his own people. That's it. Game over. End of story.

First: Prove it. Where are these records of these tens of thousands of deaths?


It doesn't matter. Whoever mentioned it first held the logic that not all of them were rebels. Of course the Japanese aren't Americans, but the Kurds were rebelling to not be Iraqis anymore. You hold a flimsy argument.
The CO Springs School said that Saddam murdered his own people. Which is a fact. You are the one who started to talk about rebels.

btw, not all of them were rebels.

HA! you don't know anything about pre-war Iraq.

Iraq was the most western arabic country before the US got involved. My grandmother used to wear sleeveless tops, went to university both at home and abroad, was a dentist that would work with men all day, and that was considered absolutely fine, she was not breaking the cultural norm at all. She was one of the more "liberal" women, but not one that was outside of the tolerance zone. Those honour killings happened outside of the governments influence, and the country practiced moderate islam. No women wore a viel, and few wore a headscarf, if they did, it was out of their choice, it was in no way the symbol of oppression it is seen as now. This knocks over your arguements of iraq being a women oppressing fundamentalist muslim country.

The sunni-shia conflict is difficult to understand or to explain, im sure you do not even know the difference between the two sects. I personally, am a sunni. but really, saddam was not ruling under a "sunni minority oppressing a shia majority." The ba'ath party was a party full of shias, it was brought to iraq by shias. The vice president was a kurd, the deputy prime minister was christian. the sunni triangle and all other inventions created to divide iraq was created by the west. Now lets explain this, 50 years ago the shias were the minority in iraq, however, after extensive breeding, they outbred the sunnis to become the majority in iraq. Shias were the sect that generally had a lower socio-economic status in iraq, you find that in the US with blacks and in new zealand with maoris, becoming the majority however did not change their position, especially if it is difficult for them to simply feed their children (our shia servant had 13 children and was a single mother, she did not have the time to look after her kids well). This meant that most educated people in iraq were sunni, and so it does not really matter if the sunnis were over represented in higher income proffessions. You find the same phenomenon in india with sikhs or america with jews. That explains how the sunnis had a large proportion of power even though they were the minority. The conflict arose from shias being the islamic fundamentals, not the sunnis. The shias wanted to merge south iraq with iran, since iran became a shia theocracy, for this reason, the shia islamic party, called the dawa party, which is currently ruling iraq and is backed by iran, started a number of terrorist activities in iraq, notable ones include bombing baghdad university where Tariq Aziz was giving a speech, the act which started the iraq-iran war, and also attempting to assassinate saddam at dujail, which saddam is currently on trial for. (Personally, regarding dujail, i think that saddam is correct, those people deserved to die, they attempted to assassinate him, is he meant to shake their hand? that wouldve happened in any other country.)

Saddam did not intentionally hold back medicine and food, the problem with the oil for food program was the corruption from western firms. Saddam, until the wars, brought iraq into the 20th century, in the 70s, while saddam was de facto ruler, he made iraq a developed nation. He built huge road networks, made education free and compulsory, ended religious rule, used oil revenue to invest in the iraqi economy. Economically, he wanted what was best for iraq, he was not trying to starve the people.

Saddam did not kill hundreds of thousands of people, in fact, he killed under 10 000 people. Really, if you just did not try to kill him, or topple his regime, or say bad things about him or his regime, you would've been quite happy living in iraq. For under 10 000 people though, that was not enough.

"That koranic verse" on the iraqi flag is not a koranic verse, it is allahu akbar, which means "god is great." He did not add it in order to keep the population cowed, and nor did he add it post 91. He added it in 1990 in order to try to improve relations with saudi arabia, which was getting hostile after he invaded and annexed kuwait. Wahabbis hated him, he was far too secular for them, and Wahabbism is only found in Saudi Arabia, and they hated him for invading Kuwait.

Al Zarqawi and Al Qaeda in Iraq enterred Iraq after the US occupied Baghdad, when it foolishly disbanded the Iraqi army. This left all borders freely open so that Jordanian, Iranian, Saudi Arabian, and Syrian terrorists could all literally walk into iraq and start their terror campaigns. One of them was Al Zarqawi, from Jordan. also, the group was not Al Qaeda in Iraq until the end of 2003, when he pledged allegience with Al Qaeda, earlier Zarqawi had a seperate group.

Iraq did help keep the west, and other arab nations, safe from Iran, this was why they gave Iraq so much aid and weapons in order to protect them from Iran. If it wasn't for him, Iran would've overrun the entire Middle East, imagine todays situation if that had happened, imagine the amount of power Ahmedinejad would've held.

VERDICT: Iraq was better with Saddam at the helm, and it was quite close to a la la land, especially when you look at its geographic location (the middle east)

Dude I never said Iraq was a fundamentalsit Islamic country. I argued that such a thing exsisted in Iraq regardless of the government. Kind of like what you just reiterated. And you're right I don't know all the ins and outs of what differentiates a sunni from a shia. I was led to believe that it mostly had to do with who you consider to be the legitamate heir to Mohammed, at least in terms of religious matters. I could have it backwards but the Shia believe it was the 4th Caliphate (sp?) who I think was named Ali. Fill me in on the rest if you want to.

As to your claim of less than 10000, well the mass graves were there. Unless those folks did it themselves in some crazy scheme to get press coverage twenty years down the road, you'll have a hard time convincing me it wasn't Hussien.
And I'm sure hussien was real intimidated by Saudi Arabia, the paragon of military might they are in that region. And fine it isn't from the Koran, but its sounds pretty Islamic to me. Isn't that what the Zarqawi types all chant when they're beheading journalists and dismembering still living soldiers?
As to Zarqawi and other Al Qaeda types in Iraq. Zarqawi was living in Iraq when we crossed the border from Kuwait. He had also been in Baghdad were he had surgery ( a leg amputation I beleive ), then he moved up north, still Iraq though. When the US invaded they fought foreign jihadists from the get go, even before they reached Baghdad.

Thanks for the Iraq civics lesson though. Tell your grandma I said what up, and hope the sleevless thing is still working out for her.

The CO Springs School said that Saddam murdered his own people. Which is a fact. You are the one who started to talk about rebels.

btw, not all of them were rebels.

The rest were casualties. Of course, if a large group of people start a rebellion, you cannot avoid casualties. Every war in history, and every large rebellion, resulted in casualties. The civilians were not purposely killed, they were collateral damage.

"to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
a quotw from that report.

I never once argued that Saddam was involved in the attacks against the United States. However, the 911 report does acknowledge contacts, and meetings. To say the two entitites were diametricly opposed to eachother, and would never ever at any time work together flies in the face of what is known.

we must remember who we are dealing with here. Saddam was in fact nicer to kurds than the iranians, turks, and syrians. Saddam gave their province alot of autonomy, allowed them to have radio stations in kurdish, teach kurdish to their children, and have schools that teach in kurdish. Iran, Turkey, and Syria, the other nations where kurds live, would never allow that, it is in those countries that Kurds are oppressed. If you see the methods those nations use, and how the kurds still attempt to start rebellions, you will see that the only way to end and prevent future rebellions was to take the Saddam Hussein route. It is ugly, it is brutal, however, it was the only choice. I would've done the same thing.

it is good to see someone agrees with me and knows who the kurds are.
Just some minor corrections.
Kurds had all the liberties til 1960's when the new leaders carried a campaign of arabization. Many kurds were forced to move from Kurdish areas and many arabs moved into Kurdish areas etc. Kurds rebelled, Saddam crushed the resistance and continued with even harsher restrictions. For example teaching in Kurdish was illegal. Oh yes, Saddam gave a lot of freedoms for Kurds...

I never once argued that Saddam was involved in the attacks against the United States. However, the 911 report does acknowledge contacts, and meetings. To say the two entitites were diametricly opposed to eachother, and would never ever at any time work together flies in the face of what is known.
I'm not arguing that. But there's no evidence that they have cooperated either. (before the war started, after that, everything's possible)
It's also known that al Qaeda terrorists have trained in rural areas in Iraq. But that doesn't prove anything. They have trained in US too.

edit: I posted that quote just because I had read it about 15 seconds before I saw your post with that url. For me, it was just a funny coincidence.

Living in Baghdad means what exactly? Do you know of any communication between Saddam and him? No you don't.

No. You're right. I'm sure Saddam had no idea that his hospital was treating a known terrorist, with ties to a group you claim he hated with a passion. I'm also sure he was seething at not bieng able to do anything about that Zarqawi guy setting up residence in his capitol city. I mean whats the point of being a murderous dictator if anyone can just settle down as they please.
Sorry, what was I thinking.
Oh wait a buddy of mine works for Verizon and he says he's got Zarqi's phone bill from then, and he was chatting it up with Saddam like every other night.

Dude I never said Iraq was a fundamentalsit Islamic country. I argued that such a thing exsisted in Iraq regardless of the government. Kind of like what you just reiterated. And you're right I don't know all the ins and outs of what differentiates a sunni from a shia. I was led to believe that it mostly had to do with who you consider to be the legitamate heir to Mohammed, at least in terms of religious matters. I could have it backwards but the Shia believe it was the 4th Caliphate (sp?) who I think was named Ali. Fill me in on the rest if you want to.

As to your claim of less than 10000, well the mass graves were there. Unless those folks did it themselves in some crazy scheme to get press coverage twenty years down the road, you'll have a hard time convincing me it wasn't Hussien.
And I'm sure hussien was real intimidated by Saudi Arabia, the paragon of military might they are in that region. And fine it isn't from the Koran, but its sounds pretty Islamic to me. Isn't that what the Zarqawi types all chant when they're beheading journalists and dismembering still living soldiers?
As to Zarqawi and other Al Qaeda types in Iraq. Zarqawi was living in Iraq when we crossed the border from Kuwait. He had also been in Baghdad were he had surgery ( a leg amputation I beleive ), then he moved up north, still Iraq though. When the US invaded they fought foreign jihadists from the get go, even before they reached Baghdad.

Thanks for the Iraq civics lesson though. Tell your grandma I said what up, and hope the sleevless thing is still working out for her.

Well, my grandma actually died, 4 years before I was born, after a brutal, decade long fight with breast cancer.

Thelegitamite heir to Muhammad issue was what started the split between sunni and shia, it has developed passed that, it has little relevance in current affairs, its only relevance is in history.

It is not "pretty islamic." Arab christians say it all the time, it is exactly like saying "god almighty" in english, many people say it when they are surprised, even if they are not christian. However, it was put in the flag to look islamic, to improve relations with Saudi Arabia. It was not fear of Saudi Arabia, but he did not want the relationship to deteriorate further, from a political and economic view, this was not in Iraqs interest, even if we forgo the military aspect (where Iraq would crush the Saudi army)

The mass graves have found 4000 dead, and when I said under 10000, i meant 9000-10000, so really, it still fits with my calculation.

Zarqawi crossed the border from Jordan, not Kuwait. Also, Zarqawi recieving medical treatment does not meant that he was supported by the regime, for all you know, Iraq couldve been looking for him at the time. However, it is unethical, for any doctor, to any patient looking for treatment, to refuse it to him, no matter who the person is. During many wars, an injured soldier would go to a hospital in the enemy country, and would be treated by the doctors, its in the hippocrates oath. Both my parents are doctors, so I would know.

The US fought the fedayeen Saddam before foreign jihadists, and they were pro-saddam Iraqis

Just some minor corrections.
Kurds had all the liberties til 1960's when the new leaders carried a campaign of arabization. Many kurds were forced to move from Kurdish areas and many arabs moved into Kurdish areas etc. Kurds rebelled, Saddam crushed the resistance and continued with even harsher restrictions. For example teaching in Kurdish was illegal. Oh yes, Saddam gave a lot of freedoms for Kurds...

Not in Iraq my friend, kurds were taught in kurdish all the time. For example, if you watch the trial of Saddam, you will notice Saddam laughing when the Kurdish judge makes mistakes in Arabic, because it is his second language.

Don't forget he was building a megagun, he was one component short.

Not in Iraq my friend, kurds were taught in kurdish all the time. For example, if you watch the trial of Saddam, you will notice Saddam laughing when the Kurdish judge makes mistakes in Arabic, because it is his second language.
The fact that something is illegal rarely means that it doesn't happen. I bet they also speak Kurdish at home, even if they can't study in Kurdish.

edit
They did have limited autonomy, that's true. (just to clear it up)

I'm not arguing that. But there's no evidence that they have cooperated either. (before the war started, after that, everything's possible)
It's also known that al Qaeda terrorists have trained in rural areas in Iraq. But that doesn't prove anything. They have trained in US too.

edit: I posted that quote just because I had read it about 15 seconds before I saw your post with that url. For me, it was just a funny coincidence.

Well Saddam didn't seem so concerned that some group he hated and who hated him in return was training out in the sticks in his own country. He'll gas Kurds and Shia by the boatload, not to mention the regular folk he did in on mere whim, or in the name of the Baath party, but those terrorist out there training he doesn't do anything about, or even seem to care.
And the foreign jihadists, while maybe not claiming Al Qaeda then, which they all do now, were in Iraq fighting from the moment we crossed the border. I'm sure there was no prior coordination there though.

Well, my grandma actually died, 4 years before I was born, after a brutal, decade long fight with breast cancer.

Thelegitamite heir to Muhammad issue was what started the split between sunni and shia, it has developed passed that, it has little relevance in current affairs, its only relevance is in history.

It is not "pretty islamic." Arab christians say it all the time, it is exactly like saying "god almighty" in english, many people say it when they are surprised, even if they are not christian. However, it was put in the flag to look islamic, to improve relations with Saudi Arabia. It was not fear of Saudi Arabia, but he did not want the relationship to deteriorate further, from a political and economic view, this was not in Iraqs interest, even if we forgo the military aspect (where Iraq would crush the Saudi army)

The mass graves have found 4000 dead, and when I said under 10000, i meant 9000-10000, so really, it still fits with my calculation.

Zarqawi crossed the border from Jordan, not Kuwait. Also, Zarqawi recieving medical treatment does not meant that he was supported by the regime, for all you know, Iraq couldve been looking for him at the time. However, it is unethical, for any doctor, to any patient looking for treatment, to refuse it to him, no matter who the person is. During many wars, an injured soldier would go to a hospital in the enemy country, and would be treated by the doctors, its in the hippocrates oath. Both my parents are doctors, so I would know.

The US fought the fedayeen Saddam before foreign jihadists, and they were pro-saddam Iraqis

I said when the US crossed the Kuwaiti border. I didn't really care what border Zarqawi crossed when he entered. I'm also not convinced that the Baath party was all too concerned with ethics,and hypocratic oaths. Or would have any problem finding a high profile guy like Zarqawi while he was laid up in a Baghdad hospital.
Yes I know who the fedayeen were, I also know who the foreign jihadis were. We fought both, in the initial invasion and ever since.
Sorry to hear about your grandma.

Well Saddam didn't seem so concerned that some group he hated and who hated him in return was training out in the sticks in his own country. He'll gas Kurds and Shia by the boatload, not to mention the regular folk he did in on mere whim, or in the name of the Baath party, but those terrorist out there training he doesn't do anything about, or even seem to care.
And the foreign jihadists, while maybe not claiming Al Qaeda then, which they all do now, were in Iraq fighting from the moment we crossed the border. I'm sure there was no prior coordination there though.
My quess is that he didn't care. In any case they had a mutual enemy. I've never said that they hated each other. Just that I haven't seen any proof that they have done anything else than negotiated together.
heh, al Qaeda is a western concept. They used to have hundreds of different names for themselves, now everyone is a member of al qaeda.

I'm also not convinced that the Baath party was all too concerned with ethics,and hypocratic oaths.
Was Hippocrate a hypocrite?

To everyone who thinks we should just have let Saddam have his way: have you seen how happy his people where in the beginning when the Americans had just arrived?

I called you out because your first claim was 50,000 and then it went to 70,000. I guess I could have waited until you got to 100,000 and then I could have called BINGO!!


I already said I reduced that (in the very post I claimed 55,000, I do believe) The 70,000 is also reduced because I included only FOUR incidents of Saddams terror. Human Rights watch called what was going on in Iraq "GENOCIDE". The deaths in iraq probably would top 100,000 a year but to compile the literally thousands of incidences is more than I care to undertake.

I think that by using only four instances, though any THINKING person can see that the number of deaths of this sort have been DRAMATICALLY reduced since we got rid of Saddam.

To you, it appears that anyone who doesn't worship the ground that George W. walks on is anti-American. And ummm no I don't hate America as much as you want to think I do. You on the other hand hate democracy.


Then I guess I am Anti-American also. :rolleyes: What I think is anti-amercian is makeing up or spreading lies about America. You do that with nearly every post. The actions you promote will END democracy.

Lets see now, I promote peace and you promote wars. How does that make your world well and mine sick?

Because you are unable to realize that sometimes war IS neccessary. People of your beliefs allowed Hitler to gain power and even supported Stalin in his day. THAT is sick.

People like me who believe that sometimes, as distasteful as it may be, it is necessary to eliminate evil people. People like that have saved people like yourself - despite yourself - time and time again. THEN you have the nerve to complain and lie.


If my memory of history serves me well, the US fully backed Saddam in his war against Iran and even threw in some intel, some equipment, oh yeah and some of those WMD that you have been looking for.


We did support Saddam in the Iran - Iraq war. At that point he was relatively benign as far as anyone knew (for the region) and Iran was threatening to dominate the region. (Besides the fact that Iran had just taken a large amount of American hostages and held them for over a year.) We supplied intel a small amount of equipment but I defy you to show me where we gave him WMD's. It did not happen. In fact, from the moment we confirmed that he used WMD's against Iran, we condemned him and began withdrawing support. Our relationship deteriorated steadily from that point on.


How many innocents have been killed by US firepower in this current war on Iraq? And I know that the US doesn't target hospitals, schools, market places, and mosques, but damn some of those got hit by US bombs and arty. I know, I know...collateral damage and all.

VERY FEW. The VAST majority of innocent deaths in Iraq were and continue to be because of terrorist bombings etc. - yet you decry the very people who are trying to end that. That is like blaming the policeman for the victims of a murderer. You absolutely refuse to see what we are fighting against. They do not care about you and would kill you too - if we let them.

By the way - Your welcome ( even though you refuse to thank us)


When I get more time, I will address the numbers that you have put up on the scoreboard and by the end of the official counting, your "official" tally will be whittled down to a more realistic number.

The sourcing was Human RIghts watch and generally known and acknowleged tolls in the Iran - Iraq war. If you negate those, then you must negate EVERY SINGLE death in the current situation.

Stay tuned for Part 2.


I can't wait.:rolleyes:

The fact that something is illegal rarely means that it doesn't happen. I bet they also speak Kurdish at home, even if they can't study in Kurdish.

edit
They did have limited autonomy, that's true. (just to clear it up)

I shall ask you a question. How would you feel, if in the largely latino suburbs in LA, they opened schools which only teach in Spanish? Note also that these are public schools. I bet everyone would want them closed down, Spanish is not Americas official language.

Saddam however, allowed them to be taught Kurdish at school, as long as Arabic was taught as well. He allowed them to have radio stations which were in Kurdish, so that they can develop their culture. Saddam was very nice to the Kurds.

I shall ask you a question. How would you feel, if in the largely latino suburbs in LA, they opened schools which only teach in Spanish? Note also that these are public schools. I bet everyone would want them closed down, Spanish is not Americas official language.

Saddam however, allowed them to be taught Kurdish at school, as long as Arabic was taught as well. He allowed them to have radio stations which were in Kurdish, so that they can develop their culture. Saddam was very nice to the Kurds.


I sure hope you are being sarcastic.

If not,

Maybe this will wake you from your stupor.


http://www.beyan.net/halabja/
[/URL]

[URL="http://www.aidainternational.nl/halabja/images/Halabja%20kl.jpg"]http://www.aidainternational.nl/halabja/images/halabja2.jpg (http://www.aidainternational.nl/halabja/images/Halabja%20kl.jpg)

But you must consider at what cost he brought stability. Oppression and genocide do, in most cases, bring stability, but stability is, and ought to be in the minds of all right-thinking people, secondary to liberty. King George III of England tried to bring stability to the American colonies in the 1770's by imposing unfair regulations and economic restrictions, and a brave group of men decided that they were willing to forfeit their stable lives to fight for liberty--the ultimate cause.

I wonder how many Americans realize how remarkable their nation is in the history of the world. The Roman Empire (and many other nations, especially during the ancient and Middle Ages) had stability, but not liberty. Late-18th century France (and many other nations, espcially during the Renaissance and Enlightenment) had liberty, but not stability. The United States was the first nation to have both for any considerable period of time.

Stability's nice, but it isn't paramount. If we don't let our governments know that we will rise up and throw out stability to fight for our rights, we issue them a gilt-edged, gold-filigreed invitation to impose tyranny against us.
Liberty is fine for people who's culture is advanced enough to deal with it. What have Iraqis done with their liberty? They've begun a low intensity holy war/civil war, and turned the clock back on civil liberties for women. Until Arab culture joins us in the modern world trusting them with liberty is like trusting a 5 year old with a driver's license.

Well Saddam didn't seem so concerned that some group he hated and who hated him in return was training out in the sticks in his own country. He'll gas Kurds and Shia by the boatload, not to mention the regular folk he did in on mere whim, or in the name of the Baath party, but those terrorist out there training he doesn't do anything about, or even seem to care.
And the foreign jihadists, while maybe not claiming Al Qaeda then, which they all do now, were in Iraq fighting from the moment we crossed the border. I'm sure there was no prior coordination there though.
When did the US realise terrorists were training there? When they crashed a few jetliners into stuff. I guess if it took them that long to realise it, they must have been complacent with the training of terrorists and are a terrorist supporting nation.

Uhm dude, you're kind of smoking crack on this one. Under Saddam women were getting raped and executed on whim by the Hussien boys, and just about any other Baath party thug who had sway in his shitty litle sector. As for the acid in the face, honor killings and the likes were still the norm in heavily devout areas in the south and even the center. Regardless of what saddam and the baath party were about in the beginning, the country always remained heavily muslim, and fundamentalist at that. Saddams biggest internal problem was a religious one, mainly his sunni minority had to put down a huge shia majority.
As to more people dying since liberation. Saddam did a couple hundred thousand, and dumped them in mass graves. Of course thats not counting any one who died because saddam intentionally withheld medicine and food that was bieng delivered to Iraq through the Oil for Food program. He was busy making sweetheart oil deals with those beacons of international morality (france, russia, china), against the day sanctions would be lifted.
As to keeping theocracy out, only in that it was a threat to his power. He was perfectly willing to host any number of nutjob wahhabi's, especially post 91 when he relied on their particularly fiery brand of anti-western, anti-anything not muslim to keep the general population cowed and not focused onhis shannanigans. That was around the same time he put the Koran verse into the Iraqi flag. Never mind that Al quada jihadists like Zarqowi, and his recent replacement were already in Iraq with the blessing of Saddam's government pre Iraq invasion.
Think what you ant about the war, but don't pretend iraq was some harmless la la land, with a poor misunderstood dictator who was just trying to find the middle path, and keep the west safe from iran.
I'm smoking crack? If Saddam tolerated crazy fundamentalists so much why was Muqtada al Sadr's father killed? Why was al Sader's father in law executed? Iraq was a very secular state. Fundies were kept in check by Saddam's inteligence and law enforcemet agencies.

He was also a counterweight against Iranian plans to dominate the region, which we could use right about now. Because we've invaded Iraq we've handed Iran control over the mainly Shi'ite government, we've removed Iraq's strongest enemy, and we've tied up our forces and reduced our ability to threaten Iran.

I'm not an Idealist. Saddam could have barbecued his political opponents alive and fed their corpses to their families for all I care. All I care about is that the region that provides the oil that keeps the US economy functioning doesn't erupt into complete and total war or fall completely under the control of our enemies in Iran.

Seriously dude... I think the world is better off without him, i didn't even live in iraq and i noticed the effects of his "leadership". Because of him, for instance, my school as closed for several days, then there was that time that my flight wouldn't leave because he was up to something again, and that's just two of the many things! And this was just little effects that were'nt really bad effects but these these things happened as precautions or effects of other things done by him (by the way, I was living in saudi arabia so i can so that it wasn't 'good for the region')
I contend that anyone who threatens Saudi Arabia and Iran IS good for the region. Saudi Arabia is a source for funding and ideological support and recruits for Sunni terrorist organizations.

Read post 137. The fact that Kurds rebelled against Saddan doesn't change the fact that he killed thousands of them. Japanese aren't Americans. Those Kurds were Iraqis.

I have already given justification to Saddam. By your logic a kill is not a kill if the victim is a rebel? Yeah, I quess Americans didn't kill any Japanese on Hiroshima either :rolleyes:
In the US civil war Atlanta was burned to the ground by Union troops. If they'd had chemical weapons, there's a good chance that they would have been used.

To everyone who thinks we should just have let Saddam have his way: have you seen how happy his people where in the beginning when the Americans had just arrived?
Yes, in the Shi'ite areas where Saddam forced them to live by secular laws they were happy that they could once again enforce their oppressive religious laws. I'm sure Al Qaeda and Taliban sympathizers would be dancing in the streets of Kandahar if a foreign nation overthrew the Karzai government.

I sure hope you are being sarcastic.

If not,

Maybe this will wake you from your stupor.


http://www.beyan.net/halabja/
[/URL]

[URL="http://www.aidainternational.nl/halabja/images/Halabja%20kl.jpg"]http://www.aidainternational.nl/halabja/images/halabja2.jpg (http://www.aidainternational.nl/halabja/images/Halabja%20kl.jpg)


ah yes, trying to use emotion to stir up support for the poor kurds. This is not clear cut, america has been wishy washy as who to blame for this. I shall now show you the background to the event:

Halabja residents, wishing to have Iran occupy Iraq so they can be given their own "Kurdistan," give intelligence and accomodation to Iranian troops so they can use their town to come into Iraq. Halabja is 15km from the Iranian border.
Iran occupies Halabja, residents accomodate and help Iranian soldiers, the same soldiers trying to occupy Iraq. Meanwhile, Iraqi troops are still fighting around Halabja.

March 16, a group of 8 aircraft bomb Halabja with chemical weapons. An estimated 5000 people died.

the US blamed Iran. A DIA (Defence Intelligence Agency) investigation said that it was in fact Iran, by using the photos of victims to determine the chemicals used.

However, when the US was trying to gain support for the first gulf war, it switched its position to saying Iraq was to blame.

Seriously. I think his secular leadership was good for Iraq and the region in general.

Don't take this offensivly or anything, but thats is the stupidest thing i have ever heard on these forums.

Don't take this offensivly or anything, but thats is the stupidest thing i have ever heard on these forums.
And I think the stupidest thing I have ever heard is the idea that a Saddham led Iraq was the most dangerous thing in the Middle East. Now it is going to turn into an elected fundamentalist regime like Iran and the rest of the nations and will openly support terrorism.

ah yes, trying to use emotion to stir up support for the poor kurds. This is not clear cut, america has been wishy washy as who to blame for this. I shall now show you the background to the event:

Halabja residents, wishing to have Iran occupy Iraq so they can be given their own "Kurdistan," give intelligence and accomodation to Iranian troops so they can use their town to come into Iraq. Halabja is 15km from the Iranian border.
Iran occupies Halabja, residents accomodate and help Iranian soldiers, the same soldiers trying to occupy Iraq. Meanwhile, Iraqi troops are still fighting around Halabja.

March 16, a group of 8 aircraft bomb Halabja with chemical weapons. An estimated 5000 people died.

the US blamed Iran. A DIA (Defence Intelligence Agency) investigation said that it was in fact Iran, by using the photos of victims to determine the chemicals used.

However, when the US was trying to gain support for the first gulf war, it switched its position to saying Iraq was to blame.



Saddam used WMD's to kill thousands of innocent townspeople. STFU. There was no justification. ESPECIALLY when you claim Saddam "treated the kurds well" ! If that is treating them well, than the WORST that individual soldiers are accused of, must be rolling out the red carpet! - right???

Saddam used WMD's to kill thousands of innocent townspeople. STFU. There was no justification. ESPECIALLY when you claim Saddam "treated the kurds well" ! If that is treating them well, than the WORST that individual soldiers are accused of, must be rolling out the red carpet! - right???
Hurray, we havn't killed as many people as an iron fisted dictator, let's throw a fucking party!

Liberty is fine for people who's culture is advanced enough to deal with it. What have Iraqis done with their liberty? They've begun a low intensity holy war/civil war, and turned the clock back on civil liberties for women. Until Arab culture joins us in the modern world trusting them with liberty is like trusting a 5 year old with a driver's license.

I wonder if you're one of those who thinks that modern American society is racist. If so, perhaps you ought to read your own post. You're insinuating that a free society has worked in America because it is a predominantly white nation, but that it can't work in Iraq because they are faraway non-white Muslims who are too primitive to act responsibly with their freedom.

There is NO civil war in Iraq. I live in Colorado Springs and listen to the Denver talk station 850 KOA, a fairly liberal station, quite frequently. One of their most liberal anchors, Steffan Tubbs, recently returned from a tour with American troops in Iraq and even he was forced to admit that what is going on there is a group of random attacks by a relatively small group of insurgents. It is not even a small-scale civil war. Even if it was, you can't say that they aren't acting responsibly with their freedom because Iraq is still overseen by coalition troops and is not yet a free nation.

I also can't see how you can say they've turned back the clock on women's rights. While it's true that they weren't as conservative about women's rights under Hussein as the Ayatollah's Iran or the Taliban's Afghanistan, Hussein's policy toward women was still anything but enlightened. Now the constitution specifically decrees that a certain percentage of the seats in the national legislature must be filled by women. We don't even have that in the United States.

I wonder if you're one of those who thinks that modern American society is racist. If so, perhaps you ought to read your own post. You're insinuating that a free society has worked in America because it is a predominantly white nation, but that it can't work in Iraq because they are faraway non-white Muslims who are too primitive to act responsibly with their freedom.

There is NO civil war in Iraq. I live in Colorado Springs and listen to the Denver talk station 850 KOA, a fairly liberal station, quite frequently. One of their most liberal anchors, Steffan Tubbs, recently returned from a tour with American troops in Iraq and even he was forced to admit that what is going on there is a group of random attacks by a relatively small group of insurgents. It is not even a small-scale civil war. Even if it was, you can't say that they aren't acting responsibly with their freedom because Iraq is still overseen by coalition troops and is not yet a free nation.

I also can't see how you can say they've turned back the clock on women's rights. While it's true that they weren't as conservative about women's rights under Hussein as the Ayatollah's Iran or the Taliban's Afghanistan, Hussein's policy toward women was still anything but enlightened. Now the constitution specifically decrees that a certain percentage of the seats in the national legislature must be filled by women. We don't even have that in the United States.
I was talking about culture, not race. Maybe I should have been talking about reading comprehension.

Almost all of them, especially the third link involved revolts against Saddam. You only prove what I've been saying.

So, Istenbul, if those deaths were of people who were revolting, are you saying that they don't count? If there was a potentially violent rebellion in the United States, would the president respond by brutally hunting down, torturing, and killing every revolutionary he could find? Would he gas the entire metropolitan area of, say, Tulsa, Oklahoma (population about 800,000, representing a proportion of the American population approximately equal to Saddam's estimated 75,000 killed)? Not if he didn't want to be forcibly taken by Blue Helmets to The Hague, tried for war crimes, surely convicted, and sent to a hellhole of a prison for the rest of his miserable life.

If you continue to refute all of the proof (yes, it is proof) of Saddam's malfeasance, then you are a demagogue who will blindly follow his own point of view to the end of the Earth without stopping to consider a scrap of evidence to the contrary (before you accuse me of being the same, consider that I've conceded a point or two over the course of these arguments--not to you, but to others). But, congratulations--there is so much in the realm of intellectual thought you refuse to accept that you ensure that you will win every argument because your opponents will quit in the futility of the effort. It's a tactic, I suppose...

P.S. Okay, fine, I finally said it. Saddam killed an estimated 75,000, so, yes, he killed tens of thousands of people.

Originally Posted by Drunk commies deleted
I was talking about culture, not race. Maybe I should have been talking about reading comprehension.

You cannot deny that race plays a large part in culture, but yes, I suppose you're right. However, maybe next time you should overlook the semantics errors, or touch on them briefly before moving on, and try to refute the main point.

If there was a potentially violent rebellion in the United States, would the president respond by brutally hunting down, torturing, and killing every revolutionary he could find?
Refresh your memory mate...

Refresh your memory mate...

If you're referring to the Civil War, the Union didn't brutally destroy every "enemy combatant" (today's popular buzzword). On the contrary, many high-ranking Confederate officials returned to relatively peaceful lives in the South after the war (although their pocketbooks were hurt after the abolition of slavery eliminated the possibility of their lucrative plantation arrangements). Go to the South and you'll still see, even to this day, plenty of bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc. emblazoned with the Confederate flag (heck, until recently, the flag of the CSA flew over the South Carolina statehouse, and it may still--I'm not sure). The severest penalty Jefferson Davis, the leader of the opposition, received was being banned from holding public office, and the U.S. Congress even apologized to him posthumously for that. That's a far cry from having your tongue cut out.

If you're referring to the brutal Indian massacres of the 19th century--you're right, that was pretty despicable. That is perhaps the darkest chapter in America's history, when our policy towards Native Americans was bigoted, barbaric, and cruel. But I was referring to modern America, where we live in such a politically polarized climate that each of the last three presidents has been linguine-spined in the face of opposition. I've not heard of a modern American politician who'd have the grapes, or the unabashed sadism, bigotry, cruelty, and megalomania, to do what Hussein did to revolts in his country.

I can't imagine what else you'd be talking about, except maybe the Japanese internment camps during World War II. While they were stupid, unjustifiable infringements on the rights of Japanese-Americans, they never came anywhere close to the cruelty of Saddam's torture chambers or Hitler's Auschwitzes and Bergen-Belsens; nobody was tortured there, and extraordinarily few (like maybe a handful), if any, died of malnutrition, mistreatment, overwork, etc. Compare that to Hussein's 75,000 or Hitler's six million.

If there are any Holocaust deniers here, please speak up. It'll be only too easy...;)

Nope, try again

(hint: Texas)

Still no idea (unless you're talking about the Mexican War?)

The only "massacre" I found that took place in Texas was the Goliad massacre, when 342 Texan prisoners of war were murdered at Goliad in 1836. But that was perpetrated by the Mexicans.

So, please enlighten me. I'm honestly in the dark about this, and I'd like to know what you're referring to so that I can address it.

Hurray, we havn't killed as many people as an iron fisted dictator, let's throw a fucking party!

We have eliminated the killing of nearly 60,000 Iraqi's per year. When we finish (if you allow us to) we will have eliminated the deaths of well over 70,000 per year. All the while, we liberated 53 million people from tyranny and wiped out two safe havens for the world's terrorists.

Damn good reason to throw a party - unless you support dictators and terrorists.

*steals popcorn*
Steals YOUR stolen popcorn... (it's high priced stuff... extra butter)

We have eliminated the killing of nearly 60,000 Iraqi's per year. When we finish (if you allow us to) we will have eliminated the deaths of well over 70,000 per year. All the while, we liberated 53 million people from tyranny and wiped out two safe havens for the world's terrorists.

Damn good reason to throw a party - unless you support dictators and terrorists.
Well, the US knows a little bit about supporting dictators.....Hussein, Suharto, Pol Pot, and Pinochet quickly come to mind. However, in regards to your numbers, it would appear that Iraqiya's posts kinda put a dent in them and that they appear, according to him, far lower than you claim.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11366928&postcount=169

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11367065&postcount=192

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11368370&postcount=210

BTW, that picture you displayed, what is that supposed to represent?

I miss Baghdad Bob-- Saddam's Information Minister.
It has been rumored that we have fired Scud missiles into Kuwait. I am here now to tell you, we do not have any Scud missiles and I don't know why they were fired into Kuwait.

Well, the US knows a little bit about supporting dictators.....Hussein, Suharto, Pol Pot, and Pinochet quickly come to mind. However, in regards to your numbers, it would appear that Iraqiya's posts kinda put a dent in them and that they appear, according to him, far lower than you claim.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11366928&postcount=169

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11367065&postcount=192

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11368370&postcount=210

BTW, that picture you displayed, what is that supposed to represent?

BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

I'm sorry! I spit my iced tea all over the monitor at that post.

I am SOOOOOO sorry! I will absolutely conceed that Iraqiya is more likely to have the correct numbers than Human Rights Watch. :rolleyes:

What lengths will you go to for a lie?????

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11368370&postcount=210

BTW, that picture you displayed, what is that supposed to represent?

Seriously. I think his secular leadership was good for Iraq and the region in general.


He invaded 2 countries for oil and power, tortured and oppressed his people...yeah. he was awesome! :rolleyes:

I wasn't in favor of him to begin with, but I really prefer him to the current chaos in Iraq. At least when he was in power, the Iraqi people had order and twice as much electricity as they did before the war began. But all in all, Iraq is just a war that didn't need to have happened.

He invaded 2 countries for oil and power, tortured and oppressed his people...yeah. he was awesome! :rolleyes:

Not to mention the fact that he squandered oil wealth on palaces and weapons while infrastructure decayed; Saddam was a monster whose "secular" leadership prolonged the problems of tribalism and fanned the flames of Islamic extremism in his country while simultaneously building sympathy for Iran.

[QUOTE=USalpenstock]http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11368370&postcount=210

BTW, that picture you displayed, what is that supposed to represent?

It is one of the photographs of a family killed by Saddam's Chemical weapons attack on Halabja.

Not to mention the fact that he squandered oil wealth on palaces and weapons while infrastructure decayed; Saddam was a monster whose "secular" leadership prolonged the problems of tribalism and fanned the flames of Islamic extremism in his country while simultaneously building sympathy for Iran.


You are far to awesome for words to describe! VETALIA FOR ADMIN!:D

I wasn't in favor of him to begin with, but I really prefer him to the current chaos in Iraq. At least when he was in power, the Iraqi people had order and twice as much electricity as they did before the war began. But all in all, Iraq is just a war that didn't need to have happened.

The Current chaos is temporary. After 23 years of a murderous thug being in charge, the Iraqi people finally have an opportunity for freedom.

The Electricity situation is not quite accurate, Saddam made sure his family and Sunni supporters had electricity, but the poor and the Shiites often went without. In addition, we currently are dealing with constant sabotage of the electrical plants/lines at the hand of the terrorists. Without them, Iraq would be prospering right now. As it is, life looks a lot better now to them than before we went in.

no brain no pain, but no oil no big car to be stupid in

[QUOTE=USalpenstock]http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11368370&postcount=210

BTW, that picture you displayed, what is that supposed to represent?


CH, please look at my sourcing, even you have to admit that Human Rights Watch has no bias toward George Bush. - Besides most of those articles were written before he was even President.

They called what Saddam was doing "GENOCIDE". I think that is pretty clear.

It is one of the photographs of a family killed by Saddam's Chemical weapons attack on Halabja.
It looks like they are sleeping? The picture is poor quality and the photo appears to be photo shopped. The face of the man leaning over has been disguised?

BTW, did you see any pictures of the Iraqis (men, women and children) who were killed in Fallujah after being firebombed by white phosphorus?

[QUOTE=USalpenstock]
It looks like they are sleeping? The picture is poor quality and the photo appears to be photo shopped. The face of the man leaning over has been disguised?

BTW, did you see any pictures of the Iraqis (men, women and children) who were killed in Fallujah after being firebombed by white phosphorus?

Where'd ya go! You just deleted your post and left?:p

[B][SIZE="5"]I got my estimate of Iraqi deaths in the current war from Iraq Body Count - another anti-war site. (I used their high-end estimate)

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
However, there are claims that the number of Iraqi deaths could actually exceed 100,000.

The Iran- Iraq war where a million or so lost their lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll
Well, I think that is bogus throwing the Iran/Iraq War in here, especially considering this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, demands for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, and secret encouragement by the US administration (Jimmy Carter, conveyed through Saudi Arabia) which was embroiled in a dispute with the new regime in Iran.
Damn that complicy aspect?

To make matters worse:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Under Reagan, in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism.

Then the US goes even further:

On November 26, 1984, Iraq and the U.S. restored diplomatic relations. This is after Iraq has used chemical weapons on Iran, and after US diplomatic maneouvers at the UN to keep Iraq from being described in an Iranian Resolution regarding the use of chemical weapons.

So, if you want to use this against Saddam, then you can also use it against the US? Damn that complicity?

Also interesting reading:

Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php)

I figure that reduces your claim by 1,000,000.

That whittles your claim of 1,640,000 total over 23 years OR 71,304 per year, down to 640,000 total over 23 years or 27,826.

More whittling to come.

Part 3 later.

I didn't vote on this one because there was not suitable option. In theory it's good that Saddam is out of the way but US is completely fucked up in iraq imho. For many people the situtation is much worse than before the attack..

Well not a big surprise when looking back to US gov. history.. :rolleyes:
eg. many of the us "enemies" are created by US gov funding them..

Yeah, considering what is going on now. He wasn't really a threat and isn't as bad as many others.

It looks like they are sleeping? The picture is poor quality and the photo appears to be photo shopped. The face of the man leaning over has been disguised?

BTW, did you see any pictures of the Iraqis (men, women and children) who were killed in Fallujah after being firebombed by white phosphorus?

Nice moral equivalance - and you claim not to hate America???

The 5,000 innocents killed in Hallabja were innocents and there was no military action that they were unfortunate enough to get caught up in. THEY WERE TARGETED.

Any innocents killed in Fallujah were killed because the terrorists used them as human shields. So go get bent.

Your hero's hide among women and children. They target those women and children and when some are injured or killed they point the finger at our troops. This BULLSHIT you bring up is straight out of AL-Qaeda's propoganda machine. Be glad we are there, they would just as soon kill you.

However, there are claims that the number of Iraqi deaths could actually exceed 100,000.


Well, I think that is bogus throwing the Iran/Iraq War in here, especially considering this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War


Damn that complicy aspect?

To make matters worse:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Under Reagan, in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism.

Then the US goes even further:

On November 26, 1984, Iraq and the U.S. restored diplomatic relations. This is after Iraq has used chemical weapons on Iran, and after US diplomatic maneouvers at the UN to keep Iraq from being described in an Iranian Resolution regarding the use of chemical weapons.

So, if you want to use this against Saddam, then you can also use it against the US? Damn that complicity?

Also interesting reading:

Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php)

I figure that reduces your claim by 1,000,000.

That whittles your claim of 1,640,000 total over 23 years OR 71,304 per year, down to 640,000 total over 23 years or 27,826.

More whittling to come.

Part 3 later.


How does the fact that we sent him weapons - after he started the war, mean that he is not the one responsible for starting it?????

You are blind and WILLFULLY Ignorant.


The Lancet report is bogus and has been thouroughly debunked. Even if you use that figure, however, you STILL have an awfully long way to go.

Seriously. I think his secular leadership was good for Iraq and the region in general.

You are absolutely right Drunk Commie. I think part of the reason that Bush is attacking Iraq and Syria is that they both had a progressive socialist party in power. President Hussein was secular and inspired confidence in the Iraqi people. Plus, he DID routinely hold elections and won them over and over again.

George W. Bush is the bigger threat to peace. He should be regime changed. I hope our progressive Democratic party can do it before W bans elections. :(

You are absolutely right Drunk Commie. I think part of the reason that Bush is attacking Iraq and Syria is that they both had a progressive socialist party in power. President Hussein was secular and inspired confidence in the Iraqi people. Plus, he DID routinely hold elections and won them over and over again.

George W. Bush is the bigger threat to peace. He should be regime changed. I hope our progressive Democratic party can do it before W bans elections. :(

Of all the posts on all the threads I have ever read, this has got to be the one that displayed the most blind acceptance of idiotic beliefs and the least critical thinking. Let's point out a few of the errors/fallacies/idiocies/just plain wrong things:

Firstly: Have I been living underneath a rock? Is Damascus up in flames? Why don't I see this on CNN? Because we haven't attacked Syria, you idiot.

Secondly: The Baath Party was hardly socialist, whether progressive or no. Socialism implies that the government was actively trying to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Under Saddam's leadership, income disparity in Iraq increased. Similar events transpired in Syria, which was also under the control of the Baath Party.

Thirdly: Okay, fine, Saddam Hussein was a secular ruler. Congratulations on finally getting something right.

Fourthly: After displaying your brilliance by knowing that Hussein had no religious agenda, you dip your credibility in mud again in the next clause by saying that Hussein inspired confidence in his people. Maybe in those that he bribed or gave power to, but let's ask the Kurds, the Shia Muslims, and the Baath opponents of Iraq (especially those whose families were murdered) whether they were confident in Hussein's leadership.

Fourthly: Right again--Hussein won election after election. How? By giving voters no viable alternative. If you knew that those who voted for the opposition mysteriously disappeared from their homes at night, wouldn't you vote for the Great and Most Excellent President? His party achieved power in 1968 by a coup d'etat (not a democratic process) and he became President in 1979 by forcing the ailing President, Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, to resign (not a democratic process, either). In every election Saddam held, he garnered at least 90-95% of the vote. A landslide of those proportions simply does not occur in an open democratic election by more than ten million people. We must, therefore, conclude that Hussein assured his power the only way he could: by fraud, not by being a great ruler. Under him, Iraq became one of the poorest nations on Earth and had an abysmal record when it came to human rights and basic infrastructure. If free elections had been allowed, he surely would have been deposed.

Fifthly: Don't make me laugh. The nearly decade-long war with Iran, along with the tens of thousands Hussein had killed (there I go again, Istenbul) was far more costly to the Iraqi people than the current war. Bush can hardly be considered a bigger threat to peace when he deals with a huge and unbelievably polarized populace, a working representative body on the national level, a respect for the dealings and decisions of the United Nations (contrary to popular belief, he's never violated a UN resolution), and (again contrary to popular belief) a less-than-stranglehold grip on power.

Sixthly: I finally figured out why you're such a Bush-bashing lunatic (I, on the other hand, am a level-headed, Bush-criticizing critical thinker): you label yourself a "progressive Democrat." We all know that, in today's political jargon, "progressive Democrat" means "way too liberal to be taken seriously."

Seventhly: I told you not to make me laugh, but you did anyway. This country would not tolerate a banning of elections, under this or any President, and the President has a clear Constitutional restriction from doing so. Although I've disagreed with most of what Bush has done, including entering into this war, I have never for a second thought that he would try to eliminate opposition other than through the merit of his ideas. You must also consider the fact that there are plenty of lunatics like you who will gladly march in front of the White House, shouting "Hey hey, ho ho, the Bush regime has got to go!" and other silly meaningless platitudes into megaphones, and to wake up to that every morning is intolerable enough for eight years, let alone the rest of your life. Full, free, and fair elections have been the only constant in America's political history, and to honestly think that any President could get away with banning them (or that he would even think of doing so in the first place) is preposterous and obliterates the final shred of credibility you had left.

Lastly, your moniker made me laugh, also: Conscience and Truth. The conscience is warped, to say the least, and the truth is nowhere to be found. I've got to thank you, though--you wiped away my mind's last wispy cloud of doubt as to liberalism's utter failure as a viable political ideology.

Nice moral equivalance - and you claim not to hate America???
When will you get it through your head? I DO NOT hate America. If anything, you hate America, at least half of it. Just read your posts back. You hate millions of Americans. You believe that the right has the moral high ground and that everyone else is a traitor. Your blind support of the war on Iraq hurts your country and you can't see that. You don't seem to mind your troops dying in Iraq. I do care. Not one American needed to die in Iraq defending a lie. Believe me, you don't occupy the moral high ground.

You can't blame Saddam for the million lives lost in the Iran Iraq War, especially when your government fully supported the war. Damn complicity.

The 5,000 innocents killed in Hallabja were innocents and there was no military action that they were unfortunate enough to get caught up in. THEY WERE TARGETED.
What did Iraqya have to say about that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11368370&postcount=210)? He certainly appears to have far more credibility in this debate than you.

Any innocents killed in Fallujah were killed because the terrorists used them as human shields. So go get bent.
This is BS and you need to read more on this, especially the reports of civilians being blocked from leaving the city. Get bent indeed!!

Your hero's hide among women and children. They target those women and children and when some are injured or killed they point the finger at our troops. This BULLSHIT you bring up is straight out of AL-Qaeda's propoganda machine. Be glad we are there, they would just as soon kill you.
Your are brainwashed. They are not my hero's but your troops keep making more and more martyrs. Remember it is your country that invaded Iraq, and that they have to hide from your troops so that they may live to fight your presence. Since you shut down their armies, they have to fight you any way they can.

Speaking of propaganda, the whole Iraq fiasco has been about propaganda. WMD that didn't exist, and not allowing the inspectors to finish their job. Links to Al-Queda that didn't exist. Purchasing of uranium that never happened. Making plans to invade Iraq before 9/11 and then trying to make it appear that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Yup, you love propaganda. You love perpetuating the myths.

I could go on and on, but I think you catch my drift?

Seriously. I think his secular leadership was good for Iraq and the region in general.


Dude DCD what are you smokin' man?

How does the fact that we sent him weapons - after he started the war, mean that he is not the one responsible for starting it?????
You are blind and WILLFULLY Ignorant.

The Lancet report is bogus and has been thouroughly debunked. Even if you use that figure, however, you STILL have an awfully long way to go.
I was going to use a reasoned response to your other claims about Saddam's atrocities, but since you just want to use this debate as a platform for flaming me and hurling insults, I will just posts a few links that kinda dints your claims about 400,000 in mass graves:

Blair graves claim 'untrue' (http://www.mg.co.za/articledirect.aspx?area=%2fbreaking_news%2fbreaking_news__international_news&articleid=132936)

Iraqi Mass Graves (http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/7/19/123455/386)

Number of Iraqi Mass Graves Cited in USAID Report Discredited (http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=810)

The US should not have invaded Iraq. It is coming back to haunt America and the world. The fact that you can't see that is the sad part.

I was going to use a reasoned response to your other claims about Saddam's atrocities, but since you just want to use this debate as a platform for flaming me and hurling insults, I will just posts a few links that kinda dints your claims about 400,000 in mass graves:

Blair graves claim 'untrue' (http://www.mg.co.za/articledirect.aspx?area=%2fbreaking_news%2fbreaking_news__international_news&articleid=132936)

Iraqi Mass Graves (http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/7/19/123455/386)

Number of Iraqi Mass Graves Cited in USAID Report Discredited (http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=810)

The US should not have invaded Iraq. It is coming back to haunt America and the world. The fact that you can't see that is the sad part.

Not only should the US have invaded Iraq its one of the best things the US has done in decades . Its given iraq a fresh democratic start and has brought to the front the war on terrorism that needs to be fought SOONER not later .
History will show the invasion of Iraqs a huge turning point for the good of the region .

Not only should the US have invaded Iraq its one of the best things the US has done in decades . Its given iraq a fresh democratic start and has brought to the front the war on terrorism that needs to be fought SOONER not later .
History will show the invasion of Iraqs a huge turning point for the good of the region .
But at the expense of too much. Yes, Iraq needed regime change. And yet, the U.S. should have attempted to assess Iraq's status as a threat more clearly and, in effect, gained more international support for the operation, thereby not diverting such a large portion of our armed forces to the region and leaving us unprepared for real threats such as Iran or Korea, among others. Furthermore, the U.S. should have had a clear exit strategy. Finally, no question should have existed as to whether or not the U.S. government lied in order to justify their actions (Downing Street anyone? Or has the liberal American media neglected to report that?).

Saddam is awesome, he went to hell and made the Devil his bitch.