Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Krusher on April 19, 2005, 01:19:20 PM
-
BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 14 - Investigators have discovered several mass graves in southern Iraq that are believed to contain the bodies of people killed by Saddam Hussein's government, including one estimated to hold 5,000 bodies, Iraqi officials say.
The graves, discovered over the past three months, have not yet been dug up because of the risks posed by the continuing insurgency and the lack of qualified forensic workers, said Bakhtiar Amin, Iraq's interim human rights minister. But initial excavations have substantiated the accounts of witnesses to a number of massacres. If the estimated body counts prove correct, the new graves would be among the largest in the grim tally of mass killings that have gradually come to light since the fall of Mr. Hussein's government two years ago. At least 290 grave sites containing the remains of some 300,000 people have been found since the American invasion two years ago, Iraqi officials say.
Forensic evidence from some graves will feature prominently in the trials of Mr. Hussein and the leaders of his government. The trials are to start this spring.
One of the graves, near Basra, in the south, appears to contain about 5,000 bodies of Iraqi soldiers who joined a failed uprising against Mr. Hussein's government after the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Another, near Samawa, is believed to contain the bodies of 2,000 members of the Kurdish clad led by Massoud Barzani.
As many as 8,000 men and boys from the clan disappeared in 1983 after being rounded up in northern Iraq by security forces at the command of Ali Hassan al-Majid, widely known as Chemical Ali. It remains unclear, however, how the victims ended up in the south.
Investigators have also discovered the remains of 58 Kuwaitis spread across several sites, including what appears to be a family of two adults and five children who were crushed by a tank, Mr. Amin said. At least 605 Kuwaitis disappeared at the time of the first gulf war, and before the latest graves were discovered, fewer than 200 had been accounted for, he added.
A smaller site was discovered near Nasiriya earlier this week. Arabic satellite television showed images of residents digging up remains there.
Mr. Amin declined to give the exact locations of the graves, saying it could endanger witnesses to the massacres and anyone working at the sites.
One obstacle to exhuming bodies has been an absence of DNA labs and forensic anthropologists in Iraq, Mr. Amin said.
In the aftermath of Mr. Hussein's fall, thousands of Iraqis overran mass grave sites, digging for their relatives' remains with backhoes, shovels, even their bare hands. A number of sites were looted, making identification of victims difficult, said Hanny Megally, Middle East director for the International Center for Transitional Justice.
The American occupation authority, after some initial hesitation, began classifying grave sites, and international teams began traveling to the sites in 2003 to conduct assessments or exhumations. But toward the end of 2004, rising violence led nearly all the teams to abandon their work.
Only one site has been fully examined, a grave of Kurdish victims in northern Iraq, Mr. Megally said. That work was overseen by the Regime Crimes Liaison Office, which is gathering evidence for the trials of Mr. Hussein and his deputies.
The interim Iraqi government, working with the United Nations, has drawn up plans for a National Center for Missing and Disappeared Persons that would have authority over all aspects of the process, from exhumations to providing assistance to victims' families.
-
thats all lies..Boosch Planted them
frikn disgusting..i hope soodom and his homeboys have a slow painful death
-
not possible... if it were true then they would have been discovered before now. No way could you hide acres of bodies. or quantities of anything that large for so long.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
not possible... if it were true then they would have been discovered before now. No way could you hide acres of bodies. or quantities of anything that large for so long.
lazs
yes , it is impossible to hide WMD in the desert. the war was illegal, boosh be evil, no food for oil.
-
Think I saw somewhere that the number of people unearthed in these mass graves reached 300,000. Could have just used that as a reason didn't need the whole WMD thing.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Think I saw somewhere that the number of people unearthed in these mass graves reached 300,000. Could have just used that as a reason didn't need the whole WMD thing.
WMD and the slaughter of Saddams own people were just 2 of the reasons used.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Think I saw somewhere that the number of people unearthed in these mass graves reached 300,000. Could have just used that as a reason didn't need the whole WMD thing.
it was "used as a reason" even some of the atrocities were stated by booosh before we attacked.
-
No, what I am saying is that if the info on the WMD was iffy then it shouldn't have been used, especially as the MAIN justification of the war. Human Rights Violations should have taken precedent and it would have been enough if the administration used it properly. Using Curveball as our only source of evidence for WMD was plain stupid. Yeah bush mentioned the other stuff but it was not the "Main" reason we went in. Bush "scared" us into believing it was do something or risk another terrorist attack using WMD. The "atrocities" were just a backup excuse. But then that would get us into helping all countries in which they take place and we know this president doesn't believe in that.
All I am saying is he could have made a case without the WMD or at least say something like we have information that he might posess them, not they have roving chemical labs and he can produce a nuke in 1 year or that he has tons or Chemical weapons laying around and let that stuff be the secondary reason.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Despite what some of you think the USA is not the world police.
Ah... c'mon... we so desperately want to be. It makes me feel good about the taxes I'm paying. I'd much rather pay to liberate the third world then clean up problems right here at home. ;)
-
oops forgot where I was
-
Saddam didn't kill insurgents. He killed freedom fighters. ;)
-
Glad we went, sad about the deaths of our brave men and women, it was / is the right thing to do. Oh, and anyone that believes that Sadaam's regime did not pose a threat to the US is just kidding themselves.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ah... c'mon... we so desperately want to be. It makes me feel good about the taxes I'm paying. I'd much rather pay to liberate the third world then clean up problems right here at home. ;)
Indeed. More Nike shoes for the projects! That way they can run to find a job!
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Oh, and anyone that believes that Sadaam's regime did not pose a threat to the US is just kidding themselves.
Can you find one peice of intel that proves that? Nothing I have seen shows any work done by saddam to attack or cause harm to america outside of iraq.
Seems to me he was scared of us and we turned it into the other way around.
-
the MAIN reason bush resumed the 91 war was that saddam did not comply with the cease fire terms of 1991.
no food for oil.
-
Yeah bush mentioned the other stuff but it was not the "Main" reason we went in.
When I recall the speeches Bush made about going to war with Iraq, I recall him listing multiple reasons each and every time. I do not recall him saying that WMD was the main reason, or that any of the other reasons he gave was a main reason.
Personally, I looked at the entire list of reasons and never singled out one as a MAIN reason. I never thought Bush had a MAIN reason either.
For me, just the fact that after Bush declared war on terrorism, Saddam's support of terrorists was more than enough justification for me, WMD or not. I guess if I had to pick a MAIN reason, it would be Saddam's support of terrorism.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the MAIN reason bush resumed the 91 war was that saddam did not comply with the cease fire terms of 1991.
no food for oil.
Thats a very good point. 12 years after the first ceasefire and Saddam was still not in full compliance with several UN resolutions, especially in regards to his compliance with UN weapons inspectors and giving FULL disclosure on his WMD programs.
-
Almost forgot....300,000+ found in mass graves so far.....kinda puts to rest the argument that America has killed more Iraqis than Saddam.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the MAIN reason bush resumed the 91 war was that saddam did not comply with the cease fire terms of 1991.
no food for oil.
you mean as revenge for daddy getting his bellybutton handed to him??? :p
-
Originally posted by vorticon
you mean as revenge for daddy getting his bellybutton handed to him??? :p
bush sr destroyed the 4th largest army in the world, remember the "battle hardened republican guard"?
explane how bush sr got "his bellybutton handed to him"
-
Originally posted by vorticon
you mean as revenge for daddy getting his bellybutton handed to him??? :p
Uhh...maybe I missed something, but when did that happen?
-
Good try though ... Keep searching for justification for your criminal war of aggression.
*snicker*
Gscholz would rather see millions of Iraqis dying under the hands of Hussein and his cronies that see America succeed. Envy is a bitter pill to swallow, eh?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Can someone please show me the ceasefire treaty Iraq had with the USA?
Don't bother searching; it doesn't exist. The ceasefire treaty was between Iraq and the U.N.
Good try though ... Keep searching for justification for your criminal war of aggression.
The UN also told Saddam to get out of Kuwait.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, and your point is?
My point is that the UN had little or nothing to do with either taking place.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Glad we went, sad about the deaths of our brave men and women, it was / is the right thing to do. Oh, and anyone that believes that Sadaam's regime did not pose a threat to the US is just kidding themselves.
Havent you figured it out yet?
Nobody thinks anyone is a real threat untill some major tavesty actually happens.
Even after the first WTC bombing who really cared about OBL untill 9/11?
Not many. Not enough people died.
It was only afterwards people wanted to know why nothing was done about hiim before hand.
But its typical. Nobody pays any attention to things that may be a threat or a danger untill something actually happens. Then everyone wants to know why something wasnt done before to prevent it.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Uhh...maybe I missed something, but when did that happen?
hmm...maybe a :D would have helped...wasnt being serious or anything, and was refering to the first gulf war.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The U.N. mandated the liberation of Kuwait. The force that expelled the Iraqi forces was a U.N. coalition force ... whether you like it or not.
Okay.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Can you find one peice of intel that proves that? Nothing I have seen shows any work done by saddam to attack or cause harm to america outside of iraq.
Seems to me he was scared of us and we turned it into the other way around.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
-
I wonder how the UN would have gotten Iraq to leave Kuwait if the US was not involed?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
When I recall the speeches Bush made about going to war with Iraq, I recall him listing multiple reasons each and every time. I do not recall him saying that WMD was the main reason, or that any of the other reasons he gave was a main reason.
Personally, I looked at the entire list of reasons and never singled out one as a MAIN reason. I never thought Bush had a MAIN reason either.
For me, just the fact that after Bush declared war on terrorism, Saddam's support of terrorists was more than enough justification for me, WMD or not. I guess if I had to pick a MAIN reason, it would be Saddam's support of terrorism.
Here you go, night before invasion
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
Another 3 days before invasion
It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.
more from 3 days before invasion
We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over.
Like I said yeah he does mention other things but the danger of allowing him to stockpile WMD is the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Very unlikely.
I wonder if the USA would have gotten Iraq to leave Kuwait without the support of the Arab nations?
Very unlikely.
What support did the Arab nations offer, other than Saudi Arabia offering their land as a base ?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What support did the Arab nations offer, other than Saudi Arabia offering their land as a base ?
true true true,
Being present during this specific moment in history I do remember the iraqies pointing themselves at saudi Arabia in a "your next" type fassion.
The 81st (or 101st cant remember) landed there to act as "speed bumbs" the Marines were there a few hours later at the request of the saudi govt.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Oh goodie! A picture book of misinformation!
wow what elequintly documented referenced misinformation!
BTW you're wrong ( I say this because you havnt backed up your statement so why back up mine)
1. “Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror.” The Hudson Institute: American Outlook, Fall 2003, pages 46 – 52. GO TO ARTICLE
2. “Dems, Then & Now: Iraq terror-tie facts changed with the campaign season for Kerry and Co.” National Review Online (NRO), October 7, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
3. “There Is a C-O-N-N-E-C-T-I-O-N,” NRO, July 21, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
4. “Baathist Fingerprints,” NRO, June 3, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
5. “Clarke’s Not Blind,” NRO, March 26, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
6. “Graves of Mass Evidence,” NRO, March 19, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
7. “The Road to Hell Is Paved with Acts of Terror,” NRO, March 10, 2004 GO TO ARTICLE
8. “On the Interrogation List: How did Saddam help 9/11 happen?” NRO, December 15, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
9. “Saddam’s Terror Ties: Iraq-war critics ignore ample evidence,” NRO, October 21, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
10. “WMD & More: Remember what we have found in Iraq,” NRO, June 17, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
11. “Another Terror Tie: The evidence against Saddam Hussein continues to stack up,” NRO, April 16, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
12. “At Salman Pak: Iraq’s terror ties,” NRO, April 7, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
13. “The 9/11 Connection: What Salman Pak could reveal,” NRO, April 3, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
14. “Disarmament Not Good Enough: Getting rid of Saddam,” NRO, March 17, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
15. “Iraq’s Capability: Let’s not wait for a mushroom cloud,” NRO, September 24, 2002. GO TO ARTICLE
-
So like the majority of the sites are from those golden Reagan years, Saddam must be yearning.
-
Originally posted by Torque
So like the majority of the sites are from those golden Reagan years, Saddam must be yearning.
What does Reagan have to do with anything? Are you saying Reagan is responsible for Saddam?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
wow what elequintly documented referenced misinformation!
BTW you're wrong ( I say this because you havnt backed up your statement so why back up mine)
1. “Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror.” The Hudson Institute: American Outlook, Fall 2003, pages 46 – 52. GO TO ARTICLE
2. “Dems, Then & Now: Iraq terror-tie facts changed with the campaign season for Kerry and Co.” National Review Online (NRO), October 7, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
3. “There Is a C-O-N-N-E-C-T-I-O-N,” NRO, July 21, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
4. “Baathist Fingerprints,” NRO, June 3, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
5. “Clarke’s Not Blind,” NRO, March 26, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
6. “Graves of Mass Evidence,” NRO, March 19, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
7. “The Road to Hell Is Paved with Acts of Terror,” NRO, March 10, 2004 GO TO ARTICLE
8. “On the Interrogation List: How did Saddam help 9/11 happen?” NRO, December 15, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
9. “Saddam’s Terror Ties: Iraq-war critics ignore ample evidence,” NRO, October 21, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
10. “WMD & More: Remember what we have found in Iraq,” NRO, June 17, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
11. “Another Terror Tie: The evidence against Saddam Hussein continues to stack up,” NRO, April 16, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
12. “At Salman Pak: Iraq’s terror ties,” NRO, April 7, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
13. “The 9/11 Connection: What Salman Pak could reveal,” NRO, April 3, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
14. “Disarmament Not Good Enough: Getting rid of Saddam,” NRO, March 17, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
15. “Iraq’s Capability: Let’s not wait for a mushroom cloud,” NRO, September 24, 2002. GO TO ARTICLE
The opinions expressed in a neo-con op-ed journal are somehow relevant?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Can you find one peice of intel that proves that? Nothing I have seen shows any work done by saddam to attack or cause harm to america outside of iraq.
Seems to me he was scared of us and we turned it into the other way around.
Tell ya what, I have seen more than I care to of photos to support the cause. Taken by those I trust IMPLICITLY.
For the life of me I can not understand why this has never gone public. I am not a policy maker, so I can not make excuses or give reasons.
As for more proof, well Sadaam was shown to possess documentation and research on nuclear devices, biological devices, and chemical. These are not argued facts.
Why are these items always conviently overlooked in these discussions?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Very unlikely.
I wonder if the USA would have gotten Iraq to leave Kuwait without the support of the Arab nations?
Very unlikely.
pretty ignorant statement GS...
Had the US not invaded, and I stress the US, the entire Saudi Peninsula would have been under Iraqi occupation. Oh wait, maybe they could have waited for the "mighty" UN to role in and help minus the US contingent :rofl
Keep living in fantasy land, just keep on living.
While you are at it, remember one simple thing mr amerihater, the only reason you are not speaking russian or not dead in an unmarked grave is because the "evil" US stood up to a bigger bully than Sadaam. You would do well to remember that someday knucklehead. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Tell ya what, I have seen more than I care to of photos to support the cause. Taken by those I trust IMPLICITLY.
For the life of me I can not understand why this has never gone public. I am not a policy maker, so I can not make excuses or give reasons.
As for more proof, well Sadaam was shown to possess documentation and research on nuclear devices, biological devices, and chemical. These are not argued facts.
Why are these items always conviently overlooked in these discussions?
So thats a No, right? Sorry if "trust me I have seen" it isnt gonna cut it for me.
And this is what you said "Oh, and anyone that believes that Sadaam's regime did not pose a threat to the US is just kidding themselves." So how is anyone without access to your "privileged photos" gonna make that same judgement as you?
He had documentation? thats it? He actually had WMD during Gulf war 1 and he didnt use it. Sorry but that Saddam was out to get us thing was overplayed. He just didnt want to get overthrown by a coup or by us.
Although I do agree with you that the Saudi Peninsula would have been Iraqi Territory had we not intervened in 91.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
pretty ignorant statement GS...
Had the US not invaded, and I stress the US, the entire Saudi Peninsula would have been under Iraqi occupation. Oh wait, maybe they could have waited for the "mighty" UN to role in and help minus the US contingent :rofl
Keep living in fantasy land, just keep on living.
While you are at it, remember one simple thing mr amerihater, the only reason you are not speaking russian or not dead in an unmarked grave is because the "evil" US stood up to a bigger bully than Sadaam. You would do well to remember that someday knucklehead. :rolleyes:
Oh my... we have the rolleyes, personal attack and underlining all in the same post. Bodhi is serious this time, better back down GS.
:D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Very unlikely.
I wonder if the USA would have gotten Iraq to leave Kuwait without the support of the Arab nations?
Very unlikely.
Thats funny.
By "Arab nations" may I assume that you mean those other than Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Because those had a clear reason to want Saddam attcaked circa 1991, UN or no UN. Unless you are saying the UN convinced Kuwait that they should want to be liberated, or Saudi arabia that they want to to be protected from one of the worlds largest armies massing on their borders just after conquering another neighbor?
If I'm assuming right, then please do tell what Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, qatar, Bahrian, UAE and the PLO could have REALISTICALLY done to stop the USA from attcaking Saddam and driving his invasion forces from Kuwait.
Would they have joined the Iraqi lines in Kuwait? Attcaked US ships in the Gulf or Med? Cut off oil when IIRC the saudis were giving it to us for free and paying for much of the war? Lemme see, what does Egypt choose, billions of dollars in US aid or siding with saddam against the America?
What could they have done? Whine in the UN as the USA vetoed nay of thir resolutions? Protested in the streets in support of the secular Saddam invading Kuwait and poaaibly the holy land of Saudi Arabia?
What could they have done GS to stop the US Military from removing Saddam from Kuwait as long as the Saudis and Kuwaitis logically wanted us there?
-
some are so blinded by hate of the US, this admin or both - it is a waste of time to reply to their warped view of reality
Wtg Bush, our Armed Forces and our Allies who started a global change in 10/01 and took the next step in 03/03 towards peace in the Middle East.
-
Yes we dont agree with what you do so we hate you :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
wow what elequintly documented referenced misinformation!
BTW you're wrong ( I say this because you havnt backed up your statement so why back up mine) 1. “Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror.” The Hudson Institute: American Outlook, Fall 2003, pages 46 – 52. GO TO ARTICLE
2. “Dems, Then & Now: Iraq terror-tie facts changed with the campaign season for Kerry and Co.” National Review Online (NRO), October 7, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
3. “There Is a C-O-N-N-E-C-T-I-O-N,” NRO, July 21, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
4. “Baathist Fingerprints,” NRO, June 3, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
5. “Clarke’s Not Blind,” NRO, March 26, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
6. “Graves of Mass Evidence,” NRO, March 19, 2004. GO TO ARTICLE
7. “The Road to Hell Is Paved with Acts of Terror,” NRO, March 10, 2004 GO TO ARTICLE
8. “On the Interrogation List: How did Saddam help 9/11 happen?” NRO, December 15, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
9. “Saddam’s Terror Ties: Iraq-war critics ignore ample evidence,” NRO, October 21, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
10. “WMD & More: Remember what we have found in Iraq,” NRO, June 17, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
11. “Another Terror Tie: The evidence against Saddam Hussein continues to stack up,” NRO, April 16, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
12. “At Salman Pak: Iraq’s terror ties,” NRO, April 7, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
13. “The 9/11 Connection: What Salman Pak could reveal,” NRO, April 3, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
14. “Disarmament Not Good Enough: Getting rid of Saddam,” NRO, March 17, 2003. GO TO ARTICLE
15. “Iraq’s Capability: Let’s not wait for a mushroom cloud,” NRO, September 24, 2002. GO TO ARTICLE
Man... learn to branch out a bit on your reading material. Start with Google News. You can read Papers from the US and around the World. I'm not saying you are wrong... it's just that anyone who basically gives all his references from NRO loses a bit of credibility with me. :p
Woof
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
That domain is owned by a political PR company headed by an ex-Reaganite hack and conservative activist. Impartial it certainly isn't. It also makes a number of assertions that are severely lacking in context, and its central thrust seems to be that Saddam was supporting anti-Israeli groups. Given that most arab nations are to a greater or lesser extent involved in similar activities, not least the USA key ally Saudia Arabia, I'm not sure what the significance of the material is other than to convince the ignorant of a less than truthful contention.
-
If the socialist squareheads hate us we must be doing something right.
say... aren't they sitting on a bunch of oil that they don't use for anything except to further socialism in the world?
lazs
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'll let President Bush senior (a man whom I greatly respect) have the final word:
"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. 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 those circumstances, 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 U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
that was stated when?
how about: Time (2 March 1998)
why don't you go find quotes against the US heading into ww2 5 to 10 years b4 she entered it...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Some complete non-sequitur
lazs
There, fixed.
-
yep.. the first rule of communism is to get rid of free speech and control the writen word.
lazs
-
Originally posted by GScholz
After the war you mean. President Bush was talking abut the first Gulf War you twit.
you "TWIT" :)
you were using his quote as to express the error his son made in this war
LOL
like using WW1 to stay out of WW2
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep.. the first rule of communism is to get rid of free speech and control the writen word.
lazs
Then maybe you should stop.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes we dont agree with what you do so we hate you :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
So you do not agree that sadam killed an estimated 300,000 people?
Not counting the Iran war and the invasion of kuwait that tacked on another million or so.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you "TWIT" :)
you were using his quote as to express the error his son made in this war
LOL
like using WW1 to stay out of WW2
Wouldnt you love to have seen GS reply to WWII if he was alive and google was invented :lol
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep.. the first rule of communism is to get rid of free speech and control the writen word.
Ah, the hoary old "anyone who disagrees with the USA is a communist" argument, second only to the "we saved your tulips in 2 world wars so we should get a free pass now" argument. Nice work!
-
Originally posted by Krusher
So you do not agree that sadam killed an estimated 300,000 people?
Not counting the Iran war and the invasion of kuwait that tacked on another million or so.
Im just a humble commie proletar trying to get by in life so what do I know?. I dont know if he has killed 1 or 500000 people and neither do you.
But whats your point really? Because you are taking my reply out of context.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Im just a humble commie proletar trying to get by in life so what do I know?. I dont know if he has killed 1 or 500000 people and neither do you.
But whats your point really? Because you are taking my reply out of context.
what context, you had a one line reply? If you were refering to the post above yours (I just looked) my apologies.
I may not know the exact number of people murdered by sadam but I do know it was more than 1 and very likely more than 300,000.
-
Before you collectively pat your self on the back for ridding the world of Saddam,You should look into the US contribution in to creating him.Yes saddam was your boy for a long time and the US did GOOOOD business with our evil dictator.Mr Rumsfeld shook hands with are evil friend NICE.Oh and thanks for selling him the mustard gas,nice one.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
That domain is owned by a political PR company headed by an ex-Reaganite hack and conservative activist.
Oh the irony, reagan must be turning.
-
Originally posted by scott123
Before you collectively pat your self on the back for ridding the world of Saddam,You should look into the US contribution in to creating him.Yes saddam was your boy for a long time and the US did GOOOOD business with our evil dictator.Mr Rumsfeld shook hands with are evil friend NICE.Oh and thanks for selling him the mustard gas,nice one.
BS. The US may have done business with him (so did most of the world) but to say we created him shows a breathtaking lack of perspective. As far as selling him mustard gas, how many times does this myth have to be debunked.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
what context, you had a one line reply? If you were refering to the post above yours (I just looked) my apologies.
I may not know the exact number of people murdered by sadam but I do know it was more than 1 and very likely more than 300,000.
Yes was replying to Eaglers comment, and no apolgy needed but its still accepted. Its easy to get carried away and misunderstood around here. :)
-
Originally posted by Krusher
BS. The US may have done business with him (so did most of the world) but to say we created him shows a breathtaking lack of perspective. As far as selling him mustard gas, how many times does this myth have to be debunked.
Yeah it was anthrax and botulism toxin....
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqgermsusfrance.html
A copy of the pages of the Iraqi declaration dealing with biological weapons was provided to The New York Times, and it reveals the full variety of germs that Iraq says it obtained from abroad for its biological weapons program.
The document shows that the American and French supply houses shipped 17 types of biological agents to Iraq in the 1980's that were used in the weapons programs. Those included anthrax and the bacteria needed to make botulinum toxin, among the most deadly poisons known. It also discloses that Iraq had tried unsuccessfully to obtain biological agents in the late 1980's from other biological supply houses around the world
and west nile virus
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/Perspective/How_Iraq_built_its_we.shtml
American Type Culture Collection was not the only supplier to send biological materials to Iraq in the decade before the Gulf War, when the Reagan and first Bush administrations tilted toward Iraq in its eight-year war with Iran. Also between 1985 and 1989, the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 agents "with biological warfare significance," including West Nile virus, according to Riegle's investigators.
"We did work with Iraq's scientists along with other scientists on microbiological agents and reagents," said CDC spokesman LLelwyn Grant last week. "That did occur in the mid-80s but . . . there were no other shipments that were sent after the incident involving Iraq's invasion of Kuwait."
-
Oh and thanks for selling him the mustard gas,nice one.
That has been debunked so many times.
From your first link Raider:
Jonathan Tucker, a former United Nations weapons inspector who is a visiting fellow at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, said that the 1980's "were a more innocent time, and the default in those days was to supply these cultures to academic research labs without asking many questions."
Anthrax spores were sold to Iraq with the understanding that they were going to be used in making anthrax vaccine for livestock. You imply that the US and France both provided germs to Iraq with full knowledge that they would be used to advance bio-weapons research.
From your second link:
Grant and Wysocki both said that Iraqi clients could not have acquired biological materials without setting forth a legitimate research purpose. In a 1995 letter to Sen. Riegle, then-CDC director David Satcher disclosed a shipment that had been hand-carried to Iraq by Dr. Mahammad Mahmud after three months of training in a CDC laboratory. Most of those materials, Satcher said, were "non-infectious diagnostic reagents for detecting evidence of infections to mosquito-borne viruses."
Germs have uses other than making bio-weapons. Things like legitimate research and vaccines.
Btw, both of those links are 2 years old. No new news in them.
Raider, read your other reply to me about Bush's speeches. I dont think I saw those particular speeches just before the war started. From those speeches I can see how you would come up with WMD as a MAIN reason for going to war with Iraq.
-
"Ah, the hoary old "anyone who disagrees with the USA is a communist" argument, second only to the "we saved your tulips in 2 world wars so we should get a free pass now" argument. Nice work!"
hardly (this goes for nielsen too)... I never censor anyone on this board of purposly change what they said by misquoting or deleting... it is you who are guilty of that. Heck... I don't even have anyone on ignore. I don't think disagreeing with the U.S. makes you a communist.... communist ideals make you a commie tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
"Ah, the hoary old "anyone who disagrees with the USA is a communist" argument, second only to the "we saved your tulips in 2 world wars so we should get a free pass now" argument. Nice work!"
hardly (this goes for nielsen too)... I never censor anyone on this board of purposly change what they said by misquoting or deleting... it is you who are guilty of that. Heck... I don't even have anyone on ignore. I don't think disagreeing with the U.S. makes you a communist.... communist ideals make you a commie tho.
lazs
Whom do I have on ignore, and what have i deleted or misquoted?
-
nielsen the part that pertained to you was the part where you claimed that I censor anyone. I have denied it. you are wrong.
lazs
-
Oh way up there.. that was an attempt to be funny, but you didnt get that so im sorry lazse.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
That has been debunked so many times.
From your first link Raider:
Jonathan Tucker, a former United Nations weapons inspector who is a visiting fellow at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, said that the 1980's "were a more innocent time, and the default in those days was to supply these cultures to academic research labs without asking many questions."
Anthrax spores were sold to Iraq with the understanding that they were going to be used in making anthrax vaccine for livestock. You imply that the US and France both provided germs to Iraq with full knowledge that they would be used to advance bio-weapons research.
From your second link:
Grant and Wysocki both said that Iraqi clients could not have acquired biological materials without setting forth a legitimate research purpose. In a 1995 letter to Sen. Riegle, then-CDC director David Satcher disclosed a shipment that had been hand-carried to Iraq by Dr. Mahammad Mahmud after three months of training in a CDC laboratory. Most of those materials, Satcher said, were "non-infectious diagnostic reagents for detecting evidence of infections to mosquito-borne viruses."
Germs have uses other than making bio-weapons. Things like legitimate research and vaccines.
Btw, both of those links are 2 years old. No new news in them.
Raider, read your other reply to me about Bush's speeches. I dont think I saw those particular speeches just before the war started. From those speeches I can see how you would come up with WMD as a MAIN reason for going to war with Iraq.
Not sure what you are saying?? We gave it to them. They might have lied about what they were gonna do with it but doesnt change the facts it came from us.
Here's a question...why did we just not sell them the vaccine and make boatloads of money?
There is no new news because that is exactly it, that info is old. Its not disputed or false. I couldn't find the document Iraq released that gave all this info but I am sure it is out there somewhere.
One of the things I noticed was that Satcher said "MOST" of the materials. That means some of them were.
-
So I guess if a "neo-con" takes a DIRECT QUOTE from somone or reports REAL history it is not to be trusted because history and quotes are misinformation???????
Don't beleive it prove it wrong...
I allways thought it was well known and widely reported that Sadam gave familys of suicide bombers money....
-
Iraq lied about what their intentions were concerning the various germs and chemicals the US and other Western countries sold them. Does that make us responsible for what they did with them? Not imo it doesnt.
A decent enough analogy from one of your links:
Say you run a filling station, says Nancy Wysocki, and one of your customers buys some gasoline and commits arson. "Does the person at the gas station feel bad about it?"
To say we gave him the stuff to make chemical/bio weapons implies that we did so knowing exactly what Saddam was going to use that stuff for. I have never seen any evidence that supports this. The evidence I have seen is quite the opposite. You cant blame the one who was lied to, well you can but it just doesnt hold water :)
Here's a question...why did we just not sell them the vaccine and make boatloads of money?
Why give a man a fish when you can teach him how to fish for himself? We were trying to improve relations with Iraq during the 80's. Helping them make their own vaccines would help their economy would it not? Helping their economy would help improve relations between the 2 countries as well.
-
I allways thought it was well known and widely reported that Sadam gave familys of suicide bombers money....
It was widely reported and is common knowledge, except to those who choose to ignore it :)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I allways thought it was well known and widely reported that Sadam gave familys of suicide bombers money....
Yep he did to palestinians fighting Israeli's.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Iraq lied about what their intentions were concerning the various germs and chemicals the US and other Western countries sold them. Does that make us responsible for what they did with them? Not imo it doesnt.
A decent enough analogy from one of your links:
To say we gave him the stuff to make chemical/bio weapons implies that we did so knowing exactly what Saddam was going to use that stuff for. I have never seen any evidence that supports this. The evidence I have seen is quite the opposite. You cant blame the one who was lied to, well you can but it just doesnt hold water :)
Why give a man a fish when you can teach him how to fish for himself? We were trying to improve relations with Iraq during the 80's. Helping them make their own vaccines would help their economy would it not? Helping their economy would help improve relations between the 2 countries as well.
Ahhhh I see what you are saying. I never said we gave it to him knowing he would use it for weapons. All I did was clear up the mustard gas thing with what we actually did give him.
Using analogies is tenuous at best.
I could say if I give a drunk driver his keys and he goes out and kills someone am I responsible? Yep, not fully but I do have some blame because he didn't have his keys before hand.
As for teaching someone to fish I just dont know. We like to put countries into financial debt so that we have leverage against them. I still feel like it was a "gift" to Saddam so he could use it to pay back the Iranians for us. But that is just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What does Reagan have to do with anything? Are you saying Reagan is responsible for Saddam?
We all know that his mommy and daddy are responsible for him:)
-
I could say if I give a drunk driver his keys and he goes out and kills someone am I responsible? Yep, not fully but I do have some blame because he didn't have his keys before hand.
That analogy doesnt assume you were lied to in the first place ;)
We did give him chemicals as well, all of the ones we gave him had a dual-use. He lied about his intents with those as well.
I dont think we are responsible for what he did with them, not considering he lied about why he wanted them. Now, IF we had known what his real intent was, then yes we would be at least partly responsible.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
He never gave money to any suicide bomber. *lol* What would be the point. :lol
He did however give money to every family who had lost a family member in the "fight against Israel".
Saddam gave money to the surviving families of suicide bombers. Palestinians knew this. It's still a reward for suicide bombings imo.
-
Who wants to pitch in a little money to buy GScholz a plane ticket to Iraq so he can explain to the Shi'ite Muslims there why it was a mistake for the U.S. to oust Saddam from power?
Anybody?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Who wants to pitch in a little money to buy GScholz a plane ticket to Iraq so he can explain to the Shi'ite Muslims there why it was a mistake for the U.S. to oust Saddam from power?
Anybody?
I would :p
-
Take a trip to Teheran instead and see how popular Americans are among the Shiites
Does it matter? Who cares?
Iran may well collapse from within, according to what I've read.
G****z, face it. USA is the most powerful nation in the world and you can't stand it. No, I'm not saying you do not come from a great nation, I'm saying you have superpower envy.
-
Shi'ite support for the radical mullahs in Iran has been slipping for years. The intellectual classes are more favorably disposed toward the U.S. than outsiders realize.
By the way...say what you want about the criminality of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It would have been a far greater crime against humanity to have left Saddam in power. Pooh pooh the mass graves in Iraq if you are so inclined. You seem more disposed toward bashing the U.S. than toward expressing any outrage over the revelation of so great a crime.
Oh, and say whatever you please about the U.S. making a mistake by having a part in Hussein's rise to power.
Unlike some nations, we believe in correcting our errors in judgement. I prefer an honest mistake to the vile moral turpitude of those governments who opposed the invasion because of close economic ties to a murderous, dictatorial thug.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
He never gave money to any suicide bomber. *lol* What would be the point. :lol
He did however give money to every family who had lost a family member in the "fight against Israel".
and I said
I allways thought it was well known and widely reported that Sadam gave familys of suicide bombers money....
so once again I fail to see your point. Are you defending mass graves and support of suicide bombers?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Save the money. Take a trip to Teheran instead and see how popular Americans are among the Shiites.
cant they just go to canada? :D
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
By the way...say what you want about the criminality of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It would have been a far greater crime against humanity to have left Saddam in power. Pooh pooh the mass graves in Iraq if you are so inclined. You seem more disposed toward bashing the U.S. than toward expressing any outrage over the revelation of so great a crime.
Oh, and say whatever you please about the U.S. making a mistake by having a part in Hussein's rise to power.
Unlike some nations, we believe in correcting our errors in judgement. I prefer an honest mistake to the vile moral turpitude of those governments who opposed the invasion because of close economic ties to a murderous, dictatorial thug.
Where were you when the bush speech writers needed a little help... Well said, would have preferred to hear it from Bush but well done anyway!
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
cant they just go to canada? :D
No canada is shipping them back. They didnt like our cattle embargo.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Shi'ite support for the radical mullahs in Iran has been slipping for years. The intellectual classes are more favorably disposed toward the U.S. than outsiders realize.
By the way...say what you want about the criminality of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It would have been a far greater crime against humanity to have left Saddam in power. Pooh pooh the mass graves in Iraq if you are so inclined. You seem more disposed toward bashing the U.S. than toward expressing any outrage over the revelation of so great a crime.
Oh, and say whatever you please about the U.S. making a mistake by having a part in Hussein's rise to power.
Unlike some nations, we believe in correcting our errors in judgement. I prefer an honest mistake to the vile moral turpitude of those governments who opposed the invasion because of close economic ties to a murderous, dictatorial thug.
Very well said Shuckins. I think way to many people overstate the support we gave him.
We played Saddam against the Iranians, and played the Iranians against Saddam. I think the US administration in power at that time didnt want a clear cut winner in that war. I dont agree with that policy at all.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
No canada is shipping them back. They didnt like our cattle embargo.
But the point was to send the americans to some place they were not welcome, and Candada is prolly a cheaper place to go than all the way over to Teheran :D
-
I say we tell the russians... "you want norway and finland? we got no beef with that."
lazs
-
Saddam was a threat to his own people as the discovery of these graves proves.
He was not a threat to the UK or the US.
Mugabe is a threat to his own people, Karadice was a threat to his own people. Half the African states are a threat to their own people. As are many Former Soviet republics, North Korea etc etc.
So if we accept that the WMD argument was a lie used to scare the US and UK public into backing a war. So not realy a justification for war then as a lie should not justify war.
Ok lets fall back on the "we liberated the Iraqi people" Ah now theres a moral reason to go to war. Ok but if thats the case then we'd better go to war against every nation that tortures and kills its own people! Lots and lots of wars to fight. great for the Military Industrial complex but probably political suicide not to mention unpopular with the families of the increasing casualty list.
Theres no way either the UK or the USA is going to take that high a moral stance. If that be the case why attack one nation at all?
There must be more to this than the WMD nonsense or the "High Moral ground"
My thinking. We either fight everyone who tortures and kills their people or we fight no one. That is the least hypocritical way!
Selfish maybe but we ought only to fight when as a nation we are directly threatened or one of our allies is directly threatened.
Iraq was no direct threat.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
By the way...say what you want about the criminality of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It would have been a far greater crime against humanity to have left Saddam in power. Pooh pooh the mass graves in Iraq if you are so inclined. You seem more disposed toward bashing the U.S. than toward expressing any outrage over the revelation of so great a crime.
The thing is, we invaded Iraq on a bogus pretext using a faulty interpretation of the principal of pre-emptive self defence, not out of humanitarian concern for the general iraqi population. If you rob a bank and while running away drop a bag of cash that is later picked up by a homeless person, it does not make you a philanthropist. To bemoan the fate of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead of the 1990's after having urged-on both sides in the 1980s Iran-Iraq conflict that produced millions of dead looks like dumb hypocrisy from where I'm standing. To the hawks, the Iraqi victims are only important when it is politically expedient.
Unlike some nations, we believe in correcting our errors in judgement. I prefer an honest mistake to the vile moral turpitude of those governments who opposed the invasion because of close economic ties to a murderous, dictatorial thug.
That's very emotive, but it is basically nonsense.
(http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/images/300bush6.jpg)
Here's Islam Karimov, "president" of Uzbekistan, who is well known for systematic human rights abuses including torture and extra-judicial killings. Now, it just so happens that Uzbekistan, like Iraq, sits on huge potential mineral wealth; do you think this has anything to do with his cosy relationship with the current US administration? Do you think that if Karimov steps out of line like Hussein eventually did that we might start seeing people like Gunslinger posting URLs like http://www.stopdictatorkarimov.com/ (http://www.stopdictatorkarimov.com/) as the government PR machine kicks in and our leaders prepare us for yet another regime change?
What about those other paragons of human rights and democracy, the Saudi and Egyptian regimes? How do you square your statement above with the fact that they are key US allies and also practise widespread torture and other human rights abuses?
If you're going to take a moral standpoint on these issues, then you need to be consistent. Villifying the government's latest bogeyman while simultaeneously leaving the other bad apples out of the equation just makes you look ignorant. Alternatively, you can put aside the government-sanctioned hysteria, hyperbole and false rationalisations and look at the bigger picture in terms of realpolitik and the very pressing geo-political and strategic reasons for the US enforced Iraqi regime change.
-
and history will bare this out
US and those that had the nuts to stand beside her
the rest of you hand wringers can now go back to your knitting class
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I say we tell the russians... "you want norway and finland? we got no beef with that."
lazs
oh, so now you are protecting us from the russians are you :rofl :rofl
-
yes..We will Attack..and kill State Sponsored Terrorism
and the AmeraTrolls...will always cry liek little girls
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
yes..We will Attack..and kill State Sponsored Terrorism
and the AmeraTrolls...will always cry liek little girls
Are you a russian :confused: