Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Muckmaw1 on October 13, 2004, 12:19:44 PM
-
Bodies of babies found in Saddam's 'killing field'
By Joe Murphy
A mass grave containing the bodies of children, babies and their mothers has been unearthed in Iraq.
Shocked investigators reported finding "thighbones the size of matchsticks" at what they believe is the site of one of Saddam Hussein's atrocities. Among the findings-were the skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys.
A baby had been shot in the back of its head and was found still being clutched by its mother, who had been shot in the face. The discovery was reported as Tony Blair came under mounting pressure to apologise to Parliament for the misleading intelligence claiming Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
It will strengthen the Prime Minister's case that despite the intelligencefailures the war to topple the Iraqi dictator was justified by his record as a mass killer of his own people. Mr Blair is facing MPs for the first time since the Iraq Survey Group report last week admitted there were no illegal chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.
Liberal Democrat leader Charles
Kennedy demanded he make a full Commons statement on the findings but Mr Blair was hoping to escape by merely answering questions at his regular weekly appearance.
The mass grave was being excavated near Hatra, a village in northern Iraq with a large Kurdish population. US-led investigators have located nine trenches so far containing hundreds of bodies, believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the Eighties. The bodies had been bulldozed into the ground.
Evidence from the graves will be used at the Iraqi Special Tribunal where Saddam will face trial for war crimes. "It is my personal opinion that this is a killing field," said Greg Kehoe, a US official. "Someone used this field on significant occasions over time to take people up there and execute them."
One trench contains only women and children while another contains only men. "The youngest foetus we have was 18 to 20 foetal weeks," said a US investigating anthropologist. "Tiny bones, femurs - thighbones the size of a matchstick."
Some 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam's regime. Iraq's human rights ministry has reportedly identified 40 possible mass graves across the country.
Meanwhile, Saddam underwent an operation to repair a hernia about 10 days ago and has made a full recovery, Iraqi sources said today.
He has been in US custody since 13 December and appeared in court in July for a preliminary hearing.
-
Sadaam should be out there digging.
-
Oh but we must FIRST find WMD to justify this war! Don't you know its about WMD and not the horrific man that once threatened to engulf the world in Oil Fire smoke?!?
-
Ripsnort, the Beemer driving eco-warrior. Now I've seen it all.
WMD was the casus belli. You'll never escape that, no matter how much you obfuscate or use capitalization in your inane postings.
Saddam has always been a monster - including the time we all best buds in the 80's.
BTW, our old buddies the Saudis and are new 'friends' the Pakistanis aren't exactly whiter than white in the humanitarian stakes. Humanitarian concern is another exercise in the use of smoke and mirrrors.
-
It was the wrong war.
Hussein wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people.
If the U.S. is now in the business of protecting the third world from their own governments, we're going to be at this for a long long time.
Happily pay your ever increasing taxes to fund these endeavors and move on.
Flip. Anyone remember Bush talking about nation building during the campaign? He was against it. Flop.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It was the wrong war.
Hussein wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people.
If the U.S. is now in the business of protecting the third world from their own governments, we're going to be at this for a long long time.
Happily pay your ever increasing taxes to fund these endeavors and move on.
Flip. Anyone remember Bush talking about nation building during the campaign? He was against it. Flop.
yes lets start getting involved into african politics. there is lots of misery there. if not just to prove to the world that we are just not in it for the oil money.
-
It is a sad ting knowing that all those people over there are dieing. But it is not our problem, we do not need to be the world police.
There are people all over the world that die becasue of the people controlling there lives, but unless it is in out country, i dont care. hussein could put to death evey person over there and it would be a bad thing, but it is not our fight. This is the only reason i am voting for kerry this year,
I thought clinton was bad for pushing our military into ever little problem around the world. But bush has managed to do even more. I want a potus that will keep his eye on the country, not what every one else is doing
-
So now our military should be used to save the world? So much for conservatism.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
So now our military should be used to save the world? So much for conservatism.
And ridding the world of safehavens for terrorists. I pretty sure we are just using Iraq as a "lessons learned" until Syria and Iran get invaded.
-
Well, why wasn't the war started because of the tortured and executed people?
Instead it was about WMD and terrorism links... plus all the hype etc.
Thats what was done wrong.
IF you want to now excuse it with the humanitarian side, you can as well mop up half the africa... for the starters.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
And ridding the world of safehavens for terrorists. I pretty sure we are just using Iraq as a "lessons learned" until Syria and Iran get invaded.
of course, irish men living in canada and the us sending money and arms to there ira friends dont count.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
And ridding the world of safehavens for terrorists. I pretty sure we are just using Iraq as a "lessons learned" until Syria and Iran get invaded.
No connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
Face it, Bush was either dishonest or incompetent by insisting Iraq was a threat to the US.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
No connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
Face it, Bush was either dishonest or incompetent by insisting Iraq was a threat to the US.
Do we have to constantly dig this up and AGAIN provide facts? (Terrorists...not necessarily 9/11 terrorists) Sheesh. You dig this time. I'm tired of presenting facts and data. You guys just ignore it anyway.
-
if its a US policy to change regimes that mass kill, what happened in cambodia? (http://www.time.com/time/daily/polpot/1.html).
The fact of the matter is, the war was based primarily on the WMD's, you cant change the reason we went to war because of something else.
I am not against the war in Iraq, because i feel it was a lose-lose situation. If no WMD's are found, then its a failure in some people's eyes. If he has WMD's and uses them - then all these "the war is wrong" hippies would be screaming asking why we didnt do anything.
-
The mass grave was being excavated near Hatra, a village in northern Iraq with a large Kurdish population. US-led investigators have located nine trenches so far containing hundreds of bodies, believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the Eighties.
Ahhh the eighties. I remember the eighties.
(http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/01/images/Rumsfeld_Saddam.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Furball
if its a US policy to change regimes that mass kill, what happened in cambodia? (http://www.time.com/time/daily/polpot/1.html).
The fact of the matter is, the war was based primarily on the WMD's, you cant change the reason we went to war because of something else.
I am not against the war in Iraq, because i feel it was a lose-lose situation. If no WMD's are found, then its a failure in some people's eyes. If he has WMD's and uses them - then all these "the war is wrong" hippies would be screaming asking why we didnt do anything.
any americans culpable for deaths in killing fields of cambodia would come solely from the "antiwar" left. after all, according to them communism was not bad for the people ruled by it.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Ahhh the eighties. I remember the eighties.
(http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/01/images/Rumsfeld_Saddam.jpg)
Yes, yes, we remember them well! ;)
(http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/Photos_2003/chiracandsaddam.jpg)
-
Originally posted by anonymous
any americans culpable for deaths in killing fields of cambodia would come solely from the "antiwar" left. after all, according to them communism was not bad for the people ruled by it.
since when did the prowar right care what the antiwar left thought?
-
hitler was no threat to america, the US should have stayed out of WW2, think of all the american lives and money that could have been saved.
(for them whats too dumb to know , thats sarcasm)
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Ahhh the eighties. I remember the eighties.
(http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/01/images/Rumsfeld_Saddam.jpg)
apparently you dont remember them. or youre intentionally being naive. iraq was at war with iran who was sworn enemy of us. how dare we engage self declared enemy who stormed our embassy and took hostages by war-by-proxy. dont tell me you all of a sudden thing we should have attacked iran with us military forces and not aided iraq? in my opinion deliberately ignoring the way the world works and has always worked with regards to international relations so you can score political points in argument makes you look uneducated on the topics at hand.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
since when did the prowar right care what the antiwar left thought?
instead of prowar right more fair label would be anticommunist right. i use "anitwar" in quotes because their leadership not antiwar it pro communist and anti us. when it lead to deaths of millions of innocents. when it made us a target for every tinpot dictator in world after vietnam because reputation of us was that us would not fight tough fight to prevent bad things from happening. are you denying that antiwar left response to murder of innocent civilians in vn and cambodia after their desired result took place was a telling silence or worse antiwar left actually defended reeducation camps in now communist vn as "bold social experiment" those were words actually used by leaders of antiwar left. they were wrong about motives of enemy who duped them they were wrong about end result of their preferred outcome of war and millions of innocents murdered because of it and to this day they can not or will not face up to the results of their views.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
And ridding the world of safehavens for terrorists. I pretty sure we are just using Iraq as a "lessons learned" until Syria and Iran get invaded.
You'd better start with giving up the terrorists that you host and feed now. And cleaning up the mess you started in Kosovo supporting terrorists with air strikes against innocent civilians.
-
Originally posted by john9001
hitler was no threat to america
For those too dumb to know, Hitler declared war on the United States first.
FDR did everything he could to get us involved earlier but met with strong Republican resistance, they wanted no part of FDR's (and Wilson's earlier) mission to save the world.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
You'd better start with giving up the terrorists that you host and feed now. And cleaning up the mess you started in Kosovo supporting terrorists with air strikes against innocent civilians.
Quick! Retune your tinfoil deflector beanie, it's on the wrong channel!
-
Originally posted by anonymous
any americans culpable for deaths in killing fields of cambodia would come solely from the "antiwar" left. after all, according to them communism was not bad for the people ruled by it.
You should remember that Cambodia was liberated from Pol Pot's regime by evil pro-Soviet Vietnamese commies...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
You should remember that Cambodia was liberated from Pol Pot's regime by evil pro-Soviet Vietnamese commies...
you are right. chinese had a hand in it also didnt they? vn commies were and are evil. in stalin russia at least you had to speak bad about stalin for most part as long as you not on some other list. in commie vn they just went after teachers other educated ones and snuffed them as quickly as they could starve them. you need to learn that i dont consider all russians or even most russian to be communist. dont get defensive because i consider communist leaders of all level to be involved in evil undertaking. russian general not communist to me. hes russian military officer.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Quick! Retune your tinfoil deflector beanie, it's on the wrong channel!
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/08/06/ilyas.shtml
then: http://www.chechenpress.info/english/news/2004/09/08/03.shtml
And you probably know that US Senate declared Kosovo Liberation Army a terrorist organisation in 1998. So your unprovoked criminal agression against Yugoslavia was a direct military support to terrorist gangs.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
you are right. chinese had a hand in it also didnt they?
Chinese almost at the same time invaded Vietnam with full political support from the US, and got their tulips kicked.
History is an interesting thing...
I don't label all communists as "evil and dangerous". Sometimes they are just pragmatic and working for their nation/country benefit, unlike, for example, many modern leaders of my country :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/08/06/ilyas.shtml
then: http://www.chechenpress.info/english/news/2004/09/08/03.shtml
And you probably know that US Senate declared Kosovo Liberation Army a terrorist organisation in 1998. So your unprovoked criminal agression against Yugoslavia was a direct military support to terrorist gangs.
Quick! Retune your tinfoil deflector beanie, it's on the wrong channel!
Look on the bright side, Saddam didn't murder as many of his own people as your country did. You have him beaten there. Congratulations!
-
i dont care. hussein could put to death evey person over there and it would be a bad thing, but it is not our fight.
No man is an island friend. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by anonymous
apparently you dont remember them. or youre intentionally being naive. iraq was at war with iran who was sworn enemy of us. how dare we engage self declared enemy who stormed our embassy and took hostages by war-by-proxy. dont tell me you all of a sudden thing we should have attacked iran with us military forces and not aided iraq? in my opinion deliberately ignoring the way the world works and has always worked with regards to international relations so you can score political points in argument makes you look uneducated on the topics at hand.
Impassioned argument there, but it doesn't detract from my point - Saddam was a friend of the US while he was killing the Kurds.
You're merely attempting to justify that friendship with a genocidal maniac. And your statement prompts the question: why was Iran your sworn enemy? Why did they storm your embassy? Why was the US persona non grata in Iran? I recall something about the US installing and propping up a dictator there. But I'm sure that reprehensible act was justified, too.
So because of that justified friendship with a dictator, the US is then justified in propping up another corrupt dictator in Iraq, aiding him by giving him WMDs and the intelligence to use them, and covering up for his occasional attempts at genocide by holding the official view at the time that it was the Iranians that bombed Halabja, not Saddam.
No blame: all countries do despicable stuff in the name of National security/interest. But if you argue this you have to accept that you're really arguing the point that human rights and prevention of genocide are not really priorites for the US. So any improvement in human rights for Iraqis is merely collateral benefit: tragic, but unavoidable progress that sometimes happens in the heat of war.
Either that or you're being intentionally naive. ;)
-
Game, set and match.
-
Dead, the US never gave Iraq any WMD's. There have been other threads that discussed that issue already.
*edit* The Halabja massacre is still hotly debated on who actually used the chemical weapons there. Each side claims to have proof. I guess each of us decides for ourselves who to believe on this issue.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Game, set and match.
i think you missed a fault or two.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Impassioned argument there, but it doesn't detract from my point - Saddam was a friend of the US while he was killing the Kurds.
You're merely attempting to justify that friendship with a genocidal maniac. And your statement prompts the question: why was Iran your sworn enemy? Why did they storm your embassy? Why was the US persona non grata in Iran? I recall something about the US installing and propping up a dictator there. But I'm sure that reprehensible act was justified, too.
So because of that justified friendship with a dictator, the US is then justified in propping up another corrupt dictator in Iraq, aiding him by giving him WMDs and the intelligence to use them, and covering up for his occasional attempts at genocide by holding the official view at the time that it was the Iranians that bombed Halabja, not Saddam.
No blame: all countries do despicable stuff in the name of National security/interest. But if you argue this you have to accept that you're really arguing the point that human rights and prevention of genocide are not really priorites for the US. So any improvement in human rights for Iraqis is merely collateral benefit: tragic, but unavoidable progress that sometimes happens in the heat of war.
Either that or you're being intentionally naive. ;)
friendship is a little strong as far as terminology goes. we helped him with military equipment. so did several other major nations all of whom didnt want to see "crazy iran" the number one power in the middle east and adjacent to the persian gulf and its oil fields. i dont see you mentioning anyone but the us here. that shows how little you know about the situation. you see a picture of current secdef on moveon.org and thats all you need to know before you march off to chant the party line. you say human rights is a collateral benefit then you are ignoring that us has sacrificed more for others human rights than any other nation. even if you were right and it was only collateral effect it doesnt make the super lefties who cant admit that world is better with hussein gone any less stupid. and so i have it clearly are you saying that the leaders of revolution to oust the shah were somehow more deserving to be leaders of iran than shahs regime was? if they were really a "peoples movement" then why were so many iranians so eager to flee to us in aftermath of revolution? i dont think your heros are all that heroic.
your comments about providing with iraq with "wmd" show youre cliffs notes views on world history.
-
Boroda it appears that the administration attempted to intervene in the case of Akhmadov's request for asylum. Appeal was denied, so the Boston immigration court's ruling stands. In your post you sound like the US welcomed him with open arms. That doesnt appear to be the case from the link you gave us.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
apparently you dont remember them. or youre intentionally being naive. iraq was at war with iran who was sworn enemy of us.
Sworn Enemy?
I wonder where they got those F-14s from?
I think our Diplomatic Goal for the Middle East then was to help them kill each other the quickest way possible.
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
Sworn Enemy?
I wonder where they got those F-14s from?
I think our Diplomatic Goal for the Middle East then was to help them kill each other the quickest way possible.
Iran was sold F-14's during the Shah's regime. Although the Iran-Contra scandal showed that the US was still in fact supplying spare parts for those F-14's while at the same time supporting Iraq in that war.
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
Sworn Enemy?
I wonder where they got those F-14s from?
I think our Diplomatic Goal for the Middle East then was to help them kill each other the quickest way possible.
the f14s were given to govt of shah. sworn enemy of us was iranian revolutionary leaders. they inherited military equipment of shahs iranian military. and goal was to keep oil source as secure and stable as possible.
-
Amazing how they left out the fact that those bodies were likely buried in '88 or '89.
-
blasted flip floppers.
one minute there insisting that people accept there mistakes and move to correct them.
the next minute there b*ing about saddam and how we were "friends" with them 20 years ago, and using it as ammo against the current war.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Amazing how they left out the fact that those bodies were likely buried in '88 or '89.
that could be true. and plenty more in those years who got buried by family not in mass grave. but also same guy responsible should have been removed way sooner. cant and wont blame clinton for not dropping the hammer in mid 90s always more than cic responsible for making that kind of call. i just hope that next time situation like that comes up we and others pull the trigger sooner than later.
-
Face it, Bush was either dishonest or incompetent by insisting Iraq was a threat to the US.
i have to concur with this statement.. if the real reason for this war was to get rid of Saddam why not just have open discussion with the world that he has to go.. Explain your reasons and your case in open forum and garner the respect and admiration that comes with such..
We do the exact opposite.. we shun the world and preump a war under false pretences undermining our credibility and our response for future world conflict..
As MZ said either lies or incompetence; I will let the american public choose which is worse...
And note that while the end at one time may justify the means, my personal opinion on Iraq is that its a cluster ****. Do your history as soon as we leave get ready for 4 way battle royal between sunni, shia, Kurds, and others (christians)...
My money is on the kurds.. place your bets..
Utter incompetence across the board. No stability in the power vacuum, hypocrisy and freaking savage treatment of the arab world.. Lets not forget nuclear prolif.. wtf......
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1013/p06s01-woiq.html
Some may say who cares.. If your fighting a so called global war on terror you need friends who are willing to help you both logistically and intelligence wise.. forming pyramids of naked flesh and mass doesn't earn their respect.. Also consider that most of these terrorists are Arab you would think that garnering Arab support would be key in undermining this wasabi extremism..
Our current admin is doing the exact opposite.. make your own deductions as to why..
The truth on Iraq is trickling out one report at a time and the current admin has its work cut out for it if it thinks they can continue to try the hide the facts in the information age / Internet..
heres a small taste ..
http://www.sftt.org you can read about the general who pads his hooch up with sandbags/barriers while his troops are sucking mortar shrapnel on a daily basis.. Then threatens anyone with critical infomation of his command with carreer stagnation "Army of one" hits pretty close to his character..
Weak leadership is a direct reflection all the way up the chain of command.. all the way to the top.. And accountability is key for a stong America. Not he said, she said..
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
http://www.sftt.org you can read about the general who pads his hooch up with sandbags/barriers while his troops are sucking mortar shrapnel on a daily basis.. Then threatens anyone with critical infomation of his command with carreer stagnation "Army of one" hits pretty close to his character..
Weak leadership is a direct reflection all the way up the chain of command.. all the way to the top.. And accountability is key for a stong America. Not he said, she said..
DoctorYo
sure theres bad leaders in military. in combat unit they exception not the norm. been getting better all the time as far as ratios go since afghanistan. and sftt has some good stuff and some bs just like everyplace else. you say weak leadership up chain of command i say you dont know what youre talking about.
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
i have to concur with this statement.. if the real reason for this war was to get rid of Saddam why not just have open discussion with the world that he has to go.. Explain your reasons and your case in open forum and garner the respect and admiration that comes with such..
We do the exact opposite.. we shun the world and preump a war under false pretences undermining our credibility and our response for future world conflict..
As MZ said either lies or incompetence; I will let the american public choose which is worse...
And note that while the end at one time may justify the means, my personal opinion on Iraq is that its a cluster ****. Do your history as soon as we leave get ready for 4 way battle royal between sunni, shia, Kurds, and others (christians)...
My money is on the kurds.. place your bets..
Utter incompetence across the board. No stability in the power vacuum, hypocrisy and freaking savage treatment of the arab world.. Lets not forget nuclear prolif.. wtf......
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1013/p06s01-woiq.html
Some may say who cares.. If your fighting a so called global war on terror you need friends who are willing to help you both logistically and intelligence wise.. forming pyramids of naked flesh and mass doesn't earn their respect.. Also consider that most of these terrorists are Arab you would think that garnering Arab support would be key in undermining this wasabi extremism..
Our current admin is doing the exact opposite.. make your own deductions as to why..
The truth on Iraq is trickling out one report at a time and the current admin has its work cut out for it if it thinks they can continue to try the hide the facts in the information age / Internet..
heres a small taste ..
http://www.sftt.org you can read about the general who pads his hooch up with sandbags/barriers while his troops are sucking mortar shrapnel on a daily basis.. Then threatens anyone with critical infomation of his command with carreer stagnation "Army of one" hits pretty close to his character..
Weak leadership is a direct reflection all the way up the chain of command.. all the way to the top.. And accountability is key for a stong America. Not he said, she said..
DoctorYo
youre not really up on current events much are you? iraqis going after arab foreigner insurgent in iraq and labeling them terrorist. i say your predictions are way off.
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
i have to concur with this statement..
if you concur with that statement you have no idea of how us govt us military us intelligence agency work or work together. saying iraq was "fault" or "mistake" by "bush" is playing politics and nothing else.
-
So...
Cuba, North Korea, virtually all of Africa, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc.
If this is the new motif we are using - how many body bags filled with Americans are worth all of their freedom from warlords/dictators that they themselves won't fight for?
-SW
-
Originally posted by anonymous
if you concur with that statement you have no idea of how us govt us military us intelligence agency work or work together. saying iraq was "fault" or "mistake" by "bush" is playing politics and nothing else.
You'd also have to say the entire intelligence committee, Congress, Kerry, etc etc were also dishonest and incompetent.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
So...
Cuba, North Korea, virtually all of Africa, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc.
If this is the new motif we are using - how many body bags filled with Americans are worth all of their freedom from warlords/dictators that they themselves won't fight for?
-SW
its the motif youre using. your motif or lack of ability to "get it" isnt my problem thank goodness.
-
It was wrong to go to war in Iraq.
-
were any of the skeletons a little girl clutching a kite by any chance?
lazs
-
Can't answer the question?
The problem isn't me not getting it, I get it perfectly well. The problem is you refusing to see the conditions for war we've set in motion. If we don't follow through with it, we're just hypocrits.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Can't answer the question?
The problem isn't me not getting it, I get it perfectly well. The problem is you refusing to see the conditions for war we've set in motion. If we don't follow through with it, we're just hypocrits.
-SW
cant answer or dont want to waste the time. you pick. ill give you a little taste though. castro almost dead. you think communism going to reign supreme after he gone? north korea has power to remove seoul from map in first hour of any war. north korea running out of food power and spare parts. expert opinion on north korea is "soft regime change" during next ten maybe fifteen years if they dont lose it and threaten to nuke someone first. hmmmm lose seoul no matter what or sit and wait? you make the call. africa were there right now hunting cells so it doesnt go off the deep end. africa dont have standing army that is scope of iraqs no need for full scale war. syria and iran well if iraq becomes a working democratic republic in five or ten years do you think theres maybe a chance for pressure for soft regime change in both iran and syria? you think their opressed are going to be as happily opressed as they are today when they see iraqis across the border voting and being allowed to criticize govt without fear of getting rounded up in the night? theres your answer. i think you assinged a stupidly simple line of reasoning to a bunch of complicated and very different situations. do a little reading on the subjects and stop wasting peoples time.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
were any of the skeletons a little girl clutching a kite by any chance?
lazs
ouch. lazs2 with a perfectly timed counterpunch left hook to the jaw coming up off the left bob.
-
castro almost dead. you think communism going to reign supreme after he gone?
Saddam's health has been questionable since 2001.
expert opinion on north korea is "soft regime change" during next ten maybe fifteen years if they dont lose it and threaten to nuke someone first. hmmmm lose seoul no matter what or sit and wait?
Rhetorical question. Saddam's WMDs were reported as capable of taking out initial frontline coalition forces. We still went in.
syria and iran well if iraq becomes a working democratic republic in five or ten years do you think theres maybe a chance for pressure for soft regime change in both iran and syria? you think their opressed are going to be as happily opressed as they are today when they see iraqis across the border voting and being allowed to criticize govt without fear of getting rounded up in the night? theres your answer.
Speculation.
africa dont have standing army that is scope of iraqs no need for full scale war.
So basically, the people there aren't worth it.
Great answers, they provided nothing.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Rhetorical question. Saddam's WMDs were reported as capable of taking out initial frontline coalition forces. We still went in.
-SW
rhetorical? its well documented fact. north korea has twenty thousand or more artillery or rocket or howitzer in hard shelter within range of seoul. you say "reported". maybe thats the root of your problems with these topics. theres a difference between war planning scenarios and reports on tv news. a big difference. youre comparing expected casualties of bio and chem attack on troops prepared for this attack in nbc gear to effect of tens of thousands of artillery on a major modern city filled with civilians. you dont know much about chem and bio weapons do you? i could go on about other comments by you but even if you bark "cant answer" not playing anymore. when it comes to who knows more on things like this ill let people draw their own conclusions. that my answers provided nothing to you is not a surprise to me. i get the feeling you dont think you have anything to learn from anyone. i wont keep you from tonights nsc briefing. :lol
-
Originally posted by Trell
It is a sad ting knowing that all those people over there are dieing. But it is not our problem......
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
-
Reported, as in from our intelligence - I didn't get that off the news.
You edited this in : youre comparing expected casualties of bio and chem attack on troops prepared for this attack in nbc gear to effect of tens of thousands of artillery on a major modern city filled with civilians.
And, no I'm not.
Your "who knows more" didn't say anything about not applying the same conditions for going to war in Iraq as in several of the countries I listed. For the rest, imagine I inserted a ghey emoticon like yours.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Reported, as in from our intelligence - I didn't get that off the news.
Your "who knows more" didn't say anything about not applying the same conditions for going to war in Iraq as in several of the countries I listed. For the rest, imagine I inserted a ghey emoticon like yours.
-SW
our intelligence never reported expected casualties among coalition forces from chem and bio attack that were anywhere near the expected casualties from seoul population in first hour of any conflict with north korea. you made that comparison all by yourself. your reasoning about same conditions is a joke. i could answer you by saying well go into africa when theyve been under un sanction for a decade and shooting sam at our aircraft for decade. one more time each situation is different in important ways. you say "we dont care" about people of africa because we killing terrorist cell instead of invading country. youre not making a lot of sense. "we dont care about african people" doesnt jive with all the us money rolling into africa very well. as for the ghey emoticon i need them im not "clever" like you are. :cool:
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
And, no I'm not.
yes you were. "Rhetorical question. Saddam's WMDs were reported as capable of taking out initial frontline coalition forces. We still went in."
you were comparing expected losses from iraqi special weapons to threat posed to seoul when i pointed out that situations were different.
-
our intelligence never reported expected casualties among coalition forces from chem and bio attack that were anywhere near the expected casualties from seoul population in first hour of any conflict with north korea.
I never compared the amount of loss. I know it won't be the same. We started at the bottom rung of our enemies list.
i could answer you by saying well go into africa when theyve been under un sanction for a decade and shooting sam at our aircraft for decade.
Wait, this thread is about justification of the Iraq war because of the massacre of Iraqis. Not about UN sanctions or SAMs. If the massacring of a country's population by their government is to be used as reasons for war, THEN the countries I listed come into play.
you say "we dont care" about people of africa because we killing terrorist cell instead of invading country.
There was no 'we' in my statement. Terrorists are only one part of the equation. I clearly stated warlords/dictators as the problem.
-SW
-
amazing, the anti iraq war people always ask why we don't invade north korea,iran,syria, africa, etc , etc all at the same time , ...what, the iraq war is too small for you ?
did you want a bigger war? how can you be "anti-war" and want a bigger war?
blah blah blah ..too big , too small , too hot , too cold, too tall, too short, blah blah blah it's not iraq that you cry about, it's america...america too much blah blah, america not enough blah blah.
you just can't stand the fact that a country only 200 years old is better and has done more in only 200 years than your countrys have done in 2000 years
-
Originally posted by anonymous
yes you were. "Rhetorical question. Saddam's WMDs were reported as capable of taking out initial frontline coalition forces. We still went in."
you were comparing expected losses from iraqi special weapons to threat posed to seoul when i pointed out that situations were different.
Okay, we will be in this situation for a while if you keep insisting that's what I said.
North Korea's capabilities are/were well known. Cause to pause.
Saddam's capabilities were well known, to be later found out as not well known at all, and we went in.
I was only comparing the 'well known' intial losses in terms of expected loss. Not numbers, just the fact it existed.
-SW
-
Tell me again how Iraq was the wrong war?
...not wrong, it was stupid.
Its one thing to start a war, but a different Story to finish a war,
especialy a war based on speculations.
R
Gh0stFT
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Okay, we will be in this situation for a while if you keep insisting that's what I said.
North Korea's capabilities are/were well known. Cause to pause.
Saddam's capabilities were well known, to be later found out as not well known at all, and we went in.
I was only comparing the 'well known' intial losses in terms of expected loss. Not numbers, just the fact it existed.
-SW
if sadaam had the ability to destroy tel aviv with special weapon and special preemption could not remove that ability the decision to attack iraq would have been much harder. part of reasoning for iraq was hussein is someone if he get that capability he will use it as threat and be much bigger problem. report of bio and chem weapons bad but he only had ability to reliably hit coalition military force with these weapon. losses from these weapons against troop prepared for attack not great. these weapon not intended to kill combat troop prepared for this type attack. meant to be fired at supply hub air base staging area and force all activity in those area to be conducted in nbc gear and thus reduce effectiveness of supply and logistics. chem worked good against iran and kurd because they had no training and no countermeasure. im saying threat of special weapon against coalition troop was nowhere near simulated and predicted carnage of attack on north korea. look at africa we send same military force to africa that we have in iraq-to hit what? right now biggest trouble makers in africa are in form best handled by special operations. cuba could be invaded but the slaughter in iraq by sadaam hasnt been going on in cuba for some time. still people being tortured but nowhere near the numbers of iraq. and castro looking much rougher than hussein. you mention iran and syria but not that simple. leader of syria caught between his own extremist miliitary elements and not wanting to get rolled by us. iran could be next in line if they push for nuke and dont listen safe bet something will be done to them before they get a couple of nuke and way to deploy them. if this whole argument over "we went to iraq only to save iraqi some say" then this huge mistake i dont agree with that reasoning and you dont either. but if some dictator slaughtering his own people it does weigh into decision with us. we went to kosovo and helped in bosnia with other nation for those reasons alone. intervened in haiti for similar reason. if castro and one third of cubans were opressing killing terrorizing other two thirds of population i think its a safe bet cuba would be "handled" differently than it has. my call would be every civilized power should hammer a despot the minute he shows his face and his true colors. only way you going to call things down worldwide is to do that for fifty years straight. it has to be known by every "up and coming" hussein pol pot hitler that the second he starts with the brutality all of europe russia america uk going to kick his skull in before next tuesday. if that becomes a certainty over the course of fifty years of examples id say the world is better off. certainly not worse off.
-
Ya know anonymous, from the little I've read of your posts I think you might have something interesting to say from time to time. But there is no way in heck I'm going to read a Wall-o-Lower-Case-Minimal-Punctuation-and-No-Paragraphing, like that one.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
ouch. lazs2 with a perfectly timed counterpunch left hook to the jaw coming up off the left bob.
you mean left boob..:D
-
We're pretty much in agreement in the respect of a country getting the ability to destroy a neighboring country EDIT: and the intent, should they get the capability or are seeking it. Same with killing their own country's population. Although, for the latter, it would be better - as you mentioned - to get more country's on the same page with regards to that aspect (well, both really)
My whole problem with Iraq in regards to the will to destroy a neighbor should they get the weapons, is that we were led into this war with the statement that Iraq did indeed have that capability at the present. For the record, I was for the Iraq war concerning the information supplied that they did indeed have weapons capable of that nature. We were decieved big time on that issue.
The original post I made about those other countries had to do with the recent rash of attempts to justify the Iraq war with the massacre of the country's inhabitants. If we are going to do one country for that, I think we should do them all... I'd prefer to not do any though because I have to weigh the American lives lost vs another populace unwilling to stand up for their lives. My opinion naturally.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Dead, the US never gave Iraq any WMD's. There have been other threads that discussed that issue already.
Ummmm:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Dead, the US never gave Iraq any WMD's. There have been other threads that discussed that issue already.
*edit* The Halabja massacre is still hotly debated on who actually used the chemical weapons there. Each side claims to have proof. I guess each of us decides for ourselves who to believe on this issue.
The 1994 Senate Banking Committee report, as well as a follow-up letter from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, verifying the U.S. transfer to Iraq of germs and bioagents such as anthrax, botulism toxin, gas gangrene, and other pathogens, including West Nile virus.
It's a matter of public record, lookup the report for yourself. I've seen the actual invoice, quite remarkable what one can purchase for a mere $2000 from the CDC.
As for Halabja, it was the Iranians who called in the UN and Humanitarian groups, they verified through eyewitness accounts who the perpetrators were.
Disinformation from the CIA was levied in an effort to help Reagan squash "The Prevention of Genocide Act" which was in the house at the time. It would be rather hard for Reagan to give Saddam more billions in loans, if it was reported that he was using WMD for the genocide of his own people.
So it goes, four months after Halabja Reagan did give Saddam another billion in loans. At this point trade between Iraq and the US was at an all time high.
The whole thing stinks....
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
It was wrong to go to war in Iraq.
How can any of you really just forget this kind of stuff (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101689,00.html) and still sleep at night out of fear of being wrong?
-
Amazing how people will argue with BTDT types about something they only know about from TV or a hippie website.
-
You think BTDT types are bad?
Try WDFS types... Or just watch the spittle fly when talking to an AVGTHF type.
The KJVGHFDTSDF types? Fahgetaboudit.
-
Wait! I think I got it.... "Been there done that?"
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
My whole problem with Iraq in regards to the will to destroy a neighbor should they get the weapons, is that we were led into this war with the statement that Iraq did indeed have that capability at the present. For the record, I was for the Iraq war concerning the information supplied that they did indeed have weapons capable of that nature. We were decieved big time on that issue.
-SW
Who were you deceived by?
And Please don't say Bush.
Fact of the matter is the majority of this Gov. Both Dems and Reps based on the information they had believed Saddam had WMDs
Were they mis informed? Faulty Intel? obviously now yes.
But Hindsight is always 20/20
I for one was in favor of the war also.
Im still in favor of the war because I believe it was the right thing to do.
Diplomacy after 10+ years was not working and we now know the sanctions were falling apart
Far as I'm concerned Genocide is a legit reason to go in also As the saying goes "all that's needed for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing"
So yea I would be in favor of going after countries that do similar atrocities
because its another sovereign country is not an excuse to allow the slaughter large portions of its population
Back to Iraq.
Far as I'm concerned Iraq conducted an act of war with the assassination attempt on Bush, Sr.
And for that reason alone I would have been in favor of going in
But there are other considerations
There is no question Saddam Even if he didn't have them, desired WMD's including Nuclear weapons.
It is now evident that the sanctions were falling apart and it was only a matter of time they would have been lifted altogether due to lack of support.
With the lifting of the sanctions which would undoubtedly include the cessation of the no fly Zone and withdrawal of our forces And would leave us with nothing more then a policy of containment and eventually a situation much like we currently have in North Korea.
I personally would rather not see that mistake made again particularly in the case of someone who in the past has shown has no reservations whatsoever about using whatever weapons he has at his disposal including WMDs
Now I've heard several people ask "Well if you go after Saddam why not go after Iran and NK?"
There is a good reason for that.
NK and Iran hasn't shown a particular disposition to USING WMDs. Saddam has and without hesitation.
There is also the possibility that diplomacy might work with either of the two where it became more then obvious that after 10+ years diplomacy with Saddam wasn't working
So really for me it was a deal with him now or deal with him later situation.
I'd rather deal with him now
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Amazing how people will argue with BTDT types about something they only know about from TV or a hippie website.
Oh teacher, wtf is a BTDT?
-
Been there done that?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Amazing how people will argue with BTDT types about something they only know about from TV or a hippie website.
Agree. It's easy to say "Bush lied to the US/world." Sounds silly to me. So our President is also the chief analyst of intelligence? Doesn't it sound silly if you just admitted you've been had by someone you think is as dumb as a stone? Making a statement like "it was wrong to go to war in Iraq," is pretty strong when you aren't privy to all the information that is required. Just how much do you think the media or anyone in the public knows when it comes to decisions made at that level?
Of course, this is all just politiking and Monday morning quarterbacking of state-level decision making no less. And this is, as a BTDT on another board has mentioned before, the errornet (or intardnet if you're so inclined).
mauser
-
Bush Sr. made a mistake at the end of the Gulf War by not coming to the support of the uprising in Basra. My unit was actually on standby to give them support but was mysteriously (at the time) put on hold. Had we reacted and supported the uprising we would have had a much bigger base of support with the Iraqi people. As it is, they still remember that we left them hanging and I don't blame them. In the Right War (by world opinion) we did the wrong thing (my 2 cents). If there were ever a perfect time for a regime change in Iraq, it was the first Gulf War when we had the support of many nations.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
you are right. chinese had a hand in it also didnt they? vn commies were and are evil. in stalin russia at least you had to speak bad about stalin for most part as long as you not on some other list. in commie vn they just went after teachers other educated ones and snuffed them as quickly as they could starve them. you need to learn that i dont consider all russians or even most russian to be communist. dont get defensive because i consider communist leaders of all level to be involved in evil undertaking. russian general not communist to me. hes russian military officer.
Ummm, perhaps you should research the subject before putting your foot in your mouth.
The Vietnamese "liberated" Cambodia in a similar fashion to how the US has "liberated" Iraq. The Vietnamese did not kill teachers, or educated people, that was the Khmer Rouge. Basically the Vietnamese could not stand by and watch Pol Pot commit any more genocide and decided to intervene while the UN stood idlely by (and the Thai's exploited it as much as the could).
The only problems the Cambodians had with the Vietnamese was the usual low level misbehaviour you get with troops in an occupational role.
Pol Pot is/was considered a complete crackpot by the communists. In fact he wasn't even really a communist, he was more inline with a sort of cult.
Interesting isn't it, how uneducated and uninformed you appear to be ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Ummm, perhaps you should research the subject before putting your foot in your mouth.
The Vietnamese "liberated" Cambodia in a similar fashion to how the US has "liberated" Iraq. The Vietnamese did not kill teachers, or educated people, that was the Khmer Rouge. Basically the Vietnamese could not stand by and watch Pol Pot commit any more genocide and decided to intervene while the UN stood idlely by (and the Thai's exploited it as much as the could).
The only problems the Cambodians had with the Vietnamese was the usual low level misbehaviour you get with troops in an occupational role.
Pol Pot is/was considered a complete crackpot by the communists. In fact he wasn't even really a communist, he was more inline with a sort of cult.
Interesting isn't it, how uneducated and uninformed you appear to be ;)
ive read several first person accounts of communist vietnamese reeducation camps. one was written by a guy who was a school teacher in south vietnam before the commies took over.
there is a great deal of documentation both on internet and in books about brutal vietnamese reeducation program. torture, execution, being worked to death or starved to death. i dont think communist vietnam reeducation program has anything in common with us policy in iraq.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
ive read many accounts written by vietnamese who managed to flee communist vietnam after they survived brutal reeducation camps.
Read many accounts huh?
How about having Cambodian in-laws for oh around 17 years now.
-
............\\//.............
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Read many accounts huh?
How about having Cambodian in-laws for oh around 17 years now.
They were Vietnamese Cambodians who fled Vietnamese re-education camps?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Read many accounts huh?
How about having Cambodian in-laws for oh around 17 years now.
...that just means you're biased...
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Read many accounts huh?
How about having Cambodian in-laws for oh around 17 years now.
did your inlaws tell you there were no reeducation camps in communist vietnam or that they didnt commit torture and murder at these camps? what do you think about all the first person accounts of the vietnamese that were in these reeducation camps?
-
makes me laugh ,its all oil greed and more oil seems we look to deep into things like we care about anyone but us and our back pockets and how much fuel cost us.
its a waste to back up more lies and make them some sort of fact for the need to feel like we care about others when we dont.
oil ,power ,money etc
-
Originally posted by anonymous
did your inlaws tell you there were no reeducation camps in communist vietnam or that they didnt commit torture and murder at these camps? what do you think about all the first person accounts of the vietnamese that were in these reeducation camps?
Well, for a start I was talking about Cambodia, to your response to Boroda's. You specificly talked about the execution of teachers, educated people etc, that was the trait of Pol Pot's regime, not the Vietnamese.
Get your story straight first.
Also, given my from what my inlaws told me, and the fact that one side of my "extended" family is in fact from Vietnam, there were obviously attrocities carried out, but not on a huge scale. They won the war, then they beat the snot of those they saw as their opposition. IIRC the USA and South Vietnamese weren't exactly angels during the war, if you won a war and came across someone that booted your brother out of a Huey at a 1000 feet I'm guessing you might decide to inflict a little karma too.
Originally posted by anonymous
i dont think communist vietnam reeducation program has anything in common with us policy in iraq.
As far as the US link to Vietnam goes, you might try attending an adult education clas where you can learn to read, for your obviously obsessive yet simple mind heres what I said again: "The Vietnamese "liberated" Cambodia in a similar fashion to how the US has "liberated" Iraq."
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Bush Sr. made a mistake at the end of the Gulf War by not coming to the support of the uprising in Basra. My unit was actually on standby to give them support but was mysteriously (at the time) put on hold. Had we reacted and supported the uprising we would have had a much bigger base of support with the Iraqi people. As it is, they still remember that we left them hanging and I don't blame them. In the Right War (by world opinion) we did the wrong thing (my 2 cents). If there were ever a perfect time for a regime change in Iraq, it was the first Gulf War when we had the support of many nations.
At the time I thought it was a mistake to take the foot of saddam's throat as well. But judging from what he wrote in his memoirs "A World Transformed" in 1998 Bush Sr had other considerations to take into account:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome"
In light of whats happened with iraq and all the bs that has been generated because of it in the last two years he was probably more prophetic than mistaken.
Excel
-
Well Funked, if that was directed at me - I assure you I don't read hippie websites, nor do I pay much attention to TV news.
Drediock, the government decieved us. How far up it went, with knowledge of using bad intel, I can't say.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Drediock, the government decieved us. How far up it went, with knowledge of using bad intel, I can't say.
-SW
Thats speculation. Possible yes but still speculation
Even the Iraqis thought they had WMDs
-
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040709-073537-1396r.htm
Not so much speculation.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040709-073537-1396r.htm
Not so much speculation.
-SW
Bad intel may = misleading intel
Bad intel doesnt = being intentionally misled
the only ones seeming to draw that conclusion are the Democrats.
Which somehow doesnt surprise me.
I suspect that had it been Gore in office and in the same situation the Republicans would be drawing the same conclusions
According to a news report I saw yesterday there were 4 seperate investigations on the matter in England and none found any evidence of Blair being intentionally misleading.
And thats the real sticking point. is were we, was everyone including the administration intentionally misled?
Did the Administration intentionally mislead?
While it is possible on both counts if true I would tend to think the former is more the case then the latter.
But thats just my speculation
and hindsight is always 20/20
-
Bad intel may = misleading intel
Bad intel doesnt = being intentionally misled
It could be either, depends just how bad someone wants to use it.
Hindsight is 20/20 for the public... foresight is usually 20/20 or damn close for the intelligence community.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Bad intel may = misleading intel
Bad intel doesnt = being intentionally misled
It could be either, depends just how bad someone wants to use it.
Hindsight is 20/20 for the public... foresight is usually 20/20 or damn close for the intelligence community.
-SW
In light of everything. Is it really?
Or have we just placed too much faith in that community
On thinking about it. Is it possible the Intel Community was misled themselves by the Iraqis.
After all we did supposedly have people inside when we were trying tohit Saddam during the war.
Is it possible the Iraqis themselves misled intentionally or otherwise our intel services in order to get rid of Saddam?
Wouldnt be the first conspiracy to oust him and I would imagine that alot of our intel came from the Iraqis themselves
-
It's possible, but then I don't think we were really operating our intel community as intensely within, or concerning Iraq, as we were in and around the middle east searching for Osama for the past 10 or so years.
For example : There was an abundance of evidence within our intelligence community that a terrorist attack was imminent, and how it would be carried out. Unfortunately, there were no red flags for this information which would have led to investigating this data and potentially identifying what to expect.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
It's possible, but then I don't think we were really operating our intel community as intensely within, or concerning Iraq, as we were in and around the middle east searching for Osama for the past 10 or so years.
For example : There was an abundance of evidence within our intelligence community that a terrorist attack was imminent, and how it would be carried out. Unfortunately, there were no red flags for this information which would have led to investigating this data and potentially identifying what to expect.
-SW
Have this under another thread called 911 timeline
http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11timeline60pg (http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11timeline60pg)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Well, for a start I was talking about Cambodia, to your response to Boroda's. You specificly talked about the execution of teachers, educated people etc, that was the trait of Pol Pot's regime, not the Vietnamese.
Get your story straight first.
Also, given my from what my inlaws told me, and the fact that one side of my "extended" family is in fact from Vietnam, there were obviously attrocities carried out, but not on a huge scale. They won the war, then they beat the snot of those they saw as their opposition. IIRC the USA and South Vietnamese weren't exactly angels during the war, if you won a war and came across someone that booted your brother out of a Huey at a 1000 feet I'm guessing you might decide to inflict a little karma too.
As far as the US link to Vietnam goes, you might try attending an adult education clas where you can learn to read, for your obviously obsessive yet simple mind heres what I said again: "The Vietnamese "liberated" Cambodia in a similar fashion to how the US has "liberated" Iraq."
before you claim that the communist vietnamese didnt execute teachers and educated people in the reeducation camps id say you should read what the vietnamese survivors have to say about it instead of relying on the opinion of a couple of cambodians who havent documented a thing on the matter. i say youre wrong. just google "communist vietnam" +"reeducation camp" and try browsing and reading a little. theres plenty of first person accounts. i cant speak for the south vietnamese but there isnt a single verified account of us servicement tossing anyone out of a helicopter to "interrogate them". your "reality" appears to be heavily based on the movies. even if it did happen your ease with "instant karma" is pretty telling. i get it now. all those south vietnamese-well-they deserved what they got. and you werent talking about cambodia when you said "The Vietnamese did not kill teachers, or educated people, that was the Khmer Rouge." and then implied i was uneducated and uninformed on the matter. i say that there is ample proof that the communist reeducation policy targeted the teachers and educated people as well as others and you were not aware of this when you showed me how "smart" you were. i tried to be civil. do i have to go post all those links and quotes again?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
"The Vietnamese "liberated" Cambodia in a similar fashion to how the US has "liberated" Iraq."
what are the similarities? and by their own admission the leadership of communist vietnam didnt invade cambodia "to stop the killing".
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Bad intel may = misleading intel
Bad intel doesnt = being intentionally misled
the only ones seeming to draw that conclusion are the Democrats.
Which somehow doesnt surprise me.
It wasn't about bad intel, it was about overstating the intel.
CIA etc: Iraq probably has WMD.
Bush Adminstration: Iraq has WMD.
See the difference?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Boroda it appears that the administration attempted to intervene in the case of Akhmadov's request for asylum. Appeal was denied, so the Boston immigration court's ruling stands. In your post you sound like the US welcomed him with open arms. That doesnt appear to be the case from the link you gave us.
AFAIK Akhmadov was welcomed by US Department of State, and got a well-paid job and accomodation from them.
Akhmadov is still welcome, and treated as an important guest and ally of the US....
Look here: Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, and Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II view as inappropriate the statement by the US Stgate Department on continuation of meetings with Chechen separatists. (http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=4823666&startrow=31&date=2004-09-08&do_alert=0)
If you believe that courts make such decisions regardless to political requests - you are very naive :(
Can you imagine Russia giving political asylum to Usama Bin Laden, because Russian court doesn't have an "evidence" of his terrorist activities?... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by anonymous
what are the similarities? and by their own admission the leadership of communist vietnam didnt invade cambodia "to stop the killing".
Well there ain't oil in Cambodia, they didn't plunder it, they invaded, sorted out the Khmer Rouge, and pulled out
On the point of killing teachers/educated people, my point is the communists did not target "educated" people, they targeted non-communists. IE, if you're a non-communist treacher you're in for a rough ride, but a pro-communist teacher is fine. Whereas Pol Pot didn't care what you were pro/anti, if you were educated, you died.
As for people falling out of helicopters, theres plenty of admissions of it and other brutalities, the South Vietnamese Army was notorious for it. Documented? Hell if you were the US Army would you document it?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Well there ain't oil in Cambodia, they didn't plunder it, they invaded, sorted out the Khmer Rouge, and pulled out
On the point of killing teachers/educated people, my point is the communists did not target "educated" people, they targeted non-communists. IE, if you're a non-communist treacher you're in for a rough ride, but a pro-communist teacher is fine. Whereas Pol Pot didn't care what you were pro/anti, if you were educated, you died.
As for people falling out of helicopters, theres plenty of admissions of it and other brutalities, the South Vietnamese Army was notorious for it. Documented? Hell if you were the US Army would you document it?
youre totally wrong about communist vietnam and cambodia. at height of killings in cambodia communist vietnam was trying to normalize relations with cambodia. by the time they attacked cambodia most of the killing had already been done. by communist vietnams own admissions they settled 400,000-600,000 vietnamese commies into cambodia between 1979 and 1984. in 1989 there were still 80,000 communist vietnamese troops in cambodia thats a decade after they attacked. thats not "sorting out the khmer rouge and pulling out" to me. they tried to occupy the country. even after last troops pulled out international observers claim that over 200,000 commie vietnamese were trained soldiers that had been relocated to cambodia as "settlers". commie vietnamese didnt go into cambodia to stop killing by pol pot who buy the way had many advisors raised and trained by commie vietnamese. there was long standing hostility between north vietnam and cambodia. back to mid fifties when cambodia govt support partition of vietnam into north and south. there were guerilla incidents between cambodia and communist vietnamese well before killing fields ever existed. cambodia asked to get slapped by provoking communist vietnam theyre no angles. but you strike me as communist vietnamese apologist. or someone who doesnt have an accurate understanding of what happened. as for the helicopter stories maybe you should do a little research. as far as the us goes i say its a myth. you tell me why it isnt. i could go into military reasons why it wouldnt happen from an individual standpoint if youre interested in hearing.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It wasn't about bad intel, it was about overstating the intel.
CIA etc: Iraq probably has WMD.
Bush Adminstration: Iraq has WMD.
See the difference?
Pure Speculation on your part.
If Bush was overstating it then so was Clinton and a TON of others before bush even took office.
You really need to see the proof again?
Nice rhetoric but no substance