Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on October 29, 2004, 01:45:26 PM
-
Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.
According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south." Refugees International reports that "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."
Source
And lets not forget the carnage of human life that took place in Kuwait. I myself lost a good friend who returned to Kuwait 6 months before the invasion, he was on a student visa over here in the U.S.A. No ones heard from him since, nor knows what became of him. But he was in contact with several of us up to the point of invasion.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes good point Ripsnort! Let's add those to the killed in Iraq now.
Btw. why did you support Hussein and blame the Iranians for those massacres?
The same reason I support England now though it has killed hundreds of thousands of my ancestors? Foolish point, son.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The same reason I support England now though it has killed hundreds of thousands of my ancestors? Foolish point, son.
ripsnort IS FRENCH?!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The USA supported Hussein at the same time he allegedly killed off hundreds of thousands of Kurds, and the USA blamed it all on Iran. Nice going there, America is indeed the yardstick of superior morality.
Spin it any way you'd like, your distaste for America will not change. Stay home too, we'd prefer it that way. Thank you for cooperating.
-
Drives a BMW, whines, afraid to enlist. Hmmmm...
(http://www.birdseyefoods.com/productImg/nalley/french.gif)
-
Rip, why are you bringing this up again. Forensic scientists are investigating the issue. I'm going to reserve judgement on actually numbers until they have actual numbers.
-
I thought the CIA reported that the chemicals were of US origin indicating they came from Iran? Or they were not of US origin indicating they came from Iran?
One had WMD that were provided by the US and the other didnt. They coudl tell by the pictures of the result that it was probably from Iran not Iraq.
-
In 1987, the United States was in a forgiving mood, at least in the case of Iraq. Remember the USS Stark?
>>The administration argued that to withdraw from the gulf would be to surrender America's role as leader of the free world, and that if oil shipments were disrupted, prices would soar, adversely affecting the U.S. economy. As one Western diplomat put it, if the U.S. backed out, it wouldn't "have enough credibility to float a teacup." Furthermore, the Soviet Union had increased its naval presence in the gulf, and the fear was that if the U.S. faltered, the Soviets would gain the upper hand in the region -- and growing Soviet influence in the region would pose a long-term threat to the West's oil supplies. "We will not be intimidated," said Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. "We will not be driven from the gulf." He described the attack on the Stark as a "horrible error," and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was quick to apologize for the "unintentional incident." Evidently, the Mirage pilot had mistaken the Stark for an Iranian tanker. Iraq promised to pay compensation to the families of the 37 slain seamen, and reparations for damages to the frigate. Officially the United States was neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict, but the administration had decided that geopolitic considerations required that Iraq not lose the war. In the aftermath of the Stark incident, the rhetoric coming out of Washington was of a forgiving nature where Iraq was concerned, while growing increasingly hostile in reference to Iran.
<<
Hmmm I wonder if the US knew Saddam Huessein was lieing in 1987? I think they did, but there was a bigger picture. There's a bigger picture now too, and I think anyone who believes Iraq was a matter of removing a tyrant or killing terrorists, are not seeing the big picture. We can never leave Iraq.
-
I could care less for this whole thread, but this was beyond rude.
You're a real class act... :rolleyes:
Originally posted by GScholz
Nice going there, America is indeed the yardstick of superior morality.
-
everyone needs to just chill out and realize that we ARE in Iraq and beating eachother up over it isnt going to help.We will be there for a long time if we want it to work out right. It would be a mistake to leave now. As for the thing GScholz said, that was uncalled for, maybe the americans u have met felt that way, but the ones i know have respect for other countries. So just drop it drive the few hours and smoke a doobie in Amsterdam:aok
-
I think Riptard wins this one handsdown, yet again proving he does live in the United States of Hypocrisy.
Atta boy, you're a Timex .....:aok
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You shouldn't have gone there in the first place.
if the U.S. backed out, it wouldn't "have enough credibility to float a teacup." Furthermore, the Soviet Union had increased its naval presence in the gulf, and the fear was that if the U.S. faltered, the Soviets would gain the upper hand in the region -- and growing Soviet influence in the region would pose a long-term threat to the West's oil supplies. "We will not be intimidated," said Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. "We will not be driven from the gulf."
What part of that can't you figure out you moron? Are you really that stupid when it comes to the overall picture?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I must have missed 60 minutes. When did Iraq fight the Soviets? Last time I checked Iraq's army was supplied by the USSR. Oh no, this was no USA/USSR war by proxy (not that you didn't do that enough, much to Africa's detriment), Iraq was your proxy in the war against Iran. A war Iraq started, and fought with the help of US military intelligence. So what if your personal little dictator killed off a few thousand Kurds? Didn't seem to bother the Turks. Nobody cared about the Kurds ... that is, until it became politically convenient to do so to demonize your former ally and (no longer controllable) puppet. United States of Hypocrisy, aye.
Triple:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: for hatred laced post
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes I do hate hypocrisy. Don't you?
Your good and drunk now? Figures. Have another. Enjoy your liver in 20 years. :rofl You Nor-wee-gens are funny!
BORK BORK BORK (Okay, Swedish chef applies here when I think of G-I'mdrunk-Shultz.
-
<----
nope..cant be a hater...nope cant do it...nope nope nope.......
BUT....believe me when I say that the list is LONG and Distinguished of those I dislike terribly:lol
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/204_1099100867_thread_direction.gif)
-
ROFL Wolfala...how you doin bud...MY PC is dead
-
I'm living. How did you kill it?