Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on May 14, 2003, 04:16:10 PM
-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-679716,00.html
Babylon weeps as grave of 10,000 gives up secrets
By Steven Farrell
Our correspondent reports from a burial site where Saddam took revenge after the 1991 uprising
BABYLON has no river beside which to weep any more, but, just a few miles from Nebuchadnezzar’s ancient capital, mourners and seekers of the disappeared are gathering in their hundreds on farm-land that is rapidly delivering up a necropolis of Saddam Hussein’s victims.
In the largest mass grave uncovered so far, Iraqis claim to have found 3,000 bodies of people thought to have been murdered during the Baathist regime’s brutal suppression of the 1991 post-Gulf War uprising.
Yesterday, I counted more than 1,000 piles of desiccated remains, some in plastic bags, scattered in half a dozen clusters around the football-sized field 50 miles south of Baghdad and just north of al-Hillah.
-
Sad, and we've always known what he was capable of. No surprises I'm afraid.
-
Didn't we just find a mobil chem lab recently too?
-
We (the world as a whole) should be angry as hell at ourselves for not doing more sooner. While the blood of the massacred may not be directly on our hands, certainly we could have done something. I know hindsite is 20-20... but the feeling of having done nothing while so many were slaughtered is unsettling for me.
-
Yep Mid. we did as far as I can tell, however no-one was in it at the time cooking bugs and filling 120mm morter warheads so "it don't count".
-
Yes they are indeed worthy victims.
-
Originally posted by Steve
We (the world as a whole) should be angry as hell at ourselves for not doing more sooner. While the blood of the massacred may not be directly on our hands, certainly we could have done something. I know hindsite is 20-20... but the feeling of having done nothing while so many were slaughtered is unsettling for me.
Yoiu hit my thoughts right on the head steve.
America should be ashamed. We are the strongest country in the world and sat on our fat tulips 12 years and let atrocitys happen.
I know there are more going on in the world and it sickens me.
This is not the first time I said this because I feel it deep, shame on us.
If you know the right thing to do and dont do it you are a coward.
This war was just.
-
Those corpses were planted by the CIA.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Those corpses were planted by the CIA.
I am going to forget you said this, even in jest!
-
Get off your high horses.
As bad as Saddam was, there are far, far worse "governments" to live under in other places on this world and I don't see any outpouring of sympathy or demands that we fix those places.
You rightists are only gungho about having stopped this one barbarian because your leaders have endorsed it. Everytime a member of the opposition suggests doing something because it would be a "Just War" you guys all scream and cry like babies.
Don't make me laugh.
Just War.
:rolleyes:
-
If "we" finished off Sudam in 91, we wouldn't have those dead bodies and encouraging Iraqis to stand up and fight didn't help.
-
Originally posted by Russian
If "we" finished off Sudam in 91, we wouldn't have those dead bodies and encouraging Iraqis to stand up and fight didn't help.
Bush 41 was just following the UN mandate. Are you suggesting that "we" should have told the UN to shove it?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Bush 41 was just following the UN mandate. Are you suggesting that "we" should have told the UN to shove it?
Did we not all ready? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Russian
Did we not all ready? :rolleyes:
Bush 41 didn't, or weren't you talking about 1991?
-
It was a just war. Maybe he was evil-tyrant-#1 and maybe he wasn't, but he was a cancer to the peoples on this planet. Good riddance.
-
The reason for going to war was still to disarm Iraq from WMD´s...
Americas intelligence agencys will take an hit if they wont find any substantial amount of WMD´s...
Regards.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
The reason for going to war was still to disarm Iraq from WMD´s...
Americas intelligence agencys will take an hit if they wont find any substantial amount of WMD´s...
Regards.
Yeah, thats why the war was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
WMD *was* a priority, and still is. I still think they'll find them, so go ahead and get your "They planted them" theories prepared.
-
Yeah, thats why the war was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
Dont even try to change the history, it really aint that long ago all this started, i may have bad short term memory but it aint that bad.......
EDIT : The reason stated to the rest of the world was "to disarm Iraq from WMD" the reason stated to the US citizens could have been different i dont know...
-
A just war?
I don't think so.
By calling it a just war you are invoking an implicit absolute morality that you assume is shared by all others. Fortunately for the rest of the world this is not the case.
Now if you can define a suitable absolute morality that is acceptable to all and if you can point to evidence of the war being consistent with that moral code , then you might be on firmer ground. Of course the tough bit is defining a absolute moral code (what is its authority? What is its provenance, God? Jeanne Kirkpatrick? Howard Stern?) let alone an absolute moral code that is universally acceptable.
(note: most absolute and universal moral codes include pronouncements on the sanctity of human life)
Calling it a just war (or an unjust war) without defining your terms is merely indicating your approval (or otherwise) of it. And, by now, we know where we stand anyway.
-
Uhhh, change history? Want me to start posting links to the pre-war press releases of this administration calling Saddams government a "Brutal Regime that has committed unspeakable acts against its own people" ??
Quit smoking dope, its giving you short term memory loss.
Like I said, yes, WMD *was* a priority. Also a priority was the freedom of the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. This is yet more proof of it. Learn to deal with the truth.
-
stop whining sheep herders.....:D
better late then sorry......at least you had the balls to do something even though a little carelessly......
-
Originally posted by bounder
A just war?
I don't think so.
By calling it a just war you are invoking an implicit absolute morality that you assume is shared by all others. Fortunately for the rest of the world this is not the case.
Now if you can define a suitable absolute morality that is acceptable to all and if you can point to evidence of the war being consistent with that moral code , then you might be on firmer ground. Of course the tough bit is defining a absolute moral code (what is its authority? What is its provenance, God? Jeanne Kirkpatrick? Howard Stern?) let alone an absolute moral code that is universally acceptable.
(note: most absolute and universal moral codes include pronouncements on the sanctity of human life)
Calling it a just war (or an unjust war) without defining your terms is merely indicating your approval (or otherwise) of it. And, by now, we know where we stand anyway.
Maybe if folks like you didn't think the world revolved around them, maybe if folks around the world were not so self-centered, then maybe we could continue to free the oppressed around the world? We just need your kind to stop thinking about "Me me me! I got mine! Screw everyone else!"
-
Uhhh, change history? Want me to start posting links to the pre-war press releases of this administration calling Saddams government a "Brutal Regime that has committed unspeakable acts against its own people" ??
The reason given to the rest of the world was : "to disarm Iraq from WMD´s"
And that is final.
It dont matter if the prioritys has changed afterwards or not.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
The reason given to the rest of the world was : "to disarm Iraq from WMD´s"
And that is final.
It dont matter if the prioritys has changed afterwards or not.
Now YOU'RE changing history.
It was failure to comply on resolution 1442 by turning over their WMD (and about 12 other resolutions) which they hid instead. That was the "on paper" reason for the US to go in, yet we *knew* these human rights violations existed. At least we had the balls to go in, instead of sitting back and letting this go on...but hey, when one is self centered, they really don't care much about what goes on elsewhere, even if brutal dicatatorship is prevailent.
-
It was failure to comply on resolution 1442 by turning over their WMD
How does this differ from what i said? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Maniac
The reason given to the rest of the world was : "to disarm Iraq from WMD´s"
And that is final.
It dont matter if the prioritys has changed afterwards or not.
Thats what the australian govt. told us...it's all about the WMD's...it's all about the WMD's...
and it still is to them.
Operation Falconer (http://www.defence.gov.au/opfalconer/)
The Prime Minister announced on 18 March 2003 that the Government had committed Australian Defence Force elements in the Middle East to the coalition of military forces prepared to enforce Iraq's compliance with its international obligations to disarm.
the freedom part is just to fill in the empty spaces....
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Maniac
How does this differ from what i said? :confused:
Its who does it. Iraq had the chance to disarm. It did not. We went in and found out what was true, a brutal dictatorship within the Ba'ath party. Now, if we told the world "We're going in because of the crimes against humanity this regime has committed", do you think we would have gotten ANY support?
We benefitted in several ways. Took out the possibility for state-sponsored terrorist camps within Iraq. Stopped the brutal crimes against the Iraqi people. Prevented any future WMD production. Have a good middle-east jump off spot in which to monitor any muslim extremist groups operating in the area, and the latter being good for ALL of the world.
-
so who we freeing next, Rip?
-
We went in and found out what was true
Now, if we told the world "We're going in because of the crimes against humanity this regime has committed", do you think we would have gotten ANY support?
You djust proved my point... If the real reason was given people wouldnt be so upset...
Shoot first ask later...
Afghanistan was payback for 9/11 and to get Bin Ladin, Irak war was about libirating the poor Iraki citizens? yea right...
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Get off your high horses.
As bad as Saddam was, there are far, far worse "governments" to live under in other places on this world and I don't see any outpouring of sympathy or demands that we fix those places.
You rightists are only gungho about having stopped this one barbarian because your leaders have endorsed it. Everytime a member of the opposition suggests doing something because it would be a "Just War" you guys all scream and cry like babies.
Don't make me laugh.
Just War.
:rolleyes:
You mean the same way you're screaming and crying now?
From what I've seen, it seems to be a trait on both sides of the bandwagon.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, thats why the war was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom"
They were going to call it "Operation Iraqi Liberation" but then they realized the acronym spells OIL.
-
Hilarious Bush vs Bush debate ->
(requires Realplayer)
rtsp://st21g1.services.att-idns.net/v1/494/1742/2597/dailyshow/stewart/jon_7131_300.rm
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Get off your high horses.
As bad as Saddam was, there are far, far worse "governments" to live under in other places on this world and I don't see any outpouring of sympathy or demands that we fix those places.
You rightists are only gungho about having stopped this one barbarian because your leaders have endorsed it. Everytime a member of the opposition suggests doing something because it would be a "Just War" you guys all scream and cry like babies.
Don't make me laugh.
Just War.
:rolleyes:
Ah, but Saddam had the bad taste to commit atrocities right over the oil we want, right in the area of the world Dubya wants to control. Bad on him. If any of the other baddies wasting their own populations had the oil under them we'd be self-righteously doing them too.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Uhhh, change history? Want me to start posting links to the pre-war press releases of this administration calling Saddams government a "Brutal Regime that has committed unspeakable acts against its own people" ??
Quit smoking dope, its giving you short term memory loss.
Like I said, yes, WMD *was* a priority. Also a priority was the freedom of the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. This is yet more proof of it. Learn to deal with the truth.
Reagan, Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld all knew that Saddam was a brutal dictator back in the early '80's but Reagan still took Saddam off the known terrorist list. Saddam was not only given a pass for his genocide of the Kurds by that then US admin, Reagan went a step further and squashed Galbraith's emergency bill to sanction Iraq for that said Kurdish genocide in '88.
The sanctions were defeated in the house because it was deemed not good for American export business interests, sound familiar?
What did Reagan, Powell and Cheney give to this brutal dictator of course he was given billions in credit guarantees, military intelligence and more capable biological and chemical WMD and a hundred helicopters, all around more commerical and military trade. That would tend to looks more like an endorsement for such behaviour and it's no wonder that the Gulf War Veterans Association is asking for Rumsfeld to resign over the whole affair.
So it would seem that brutal regime are tolerated and supported as long as it's good for the bottom line.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
They were going to call it "Operation Iraqi Liberation" but then they realized the acronym spells OIL.
LMAO!!!
-
Torque, I ignore you since you're Canadian, and the liberal brainwashing has been going on in Canada long before you were born, therefore, you're a lost cause for any debate since any fact would be construed as a hoax by the CIA. ;)
-
Originally posted by Torque
Reagan, Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld all knew that Saddam was a brutal dictator back in the early '80's but Reagan still took Saddam off the known terrorist list. Saddam was not only given a pass for his genocide of the Kurds by that then US admin, Reagan went a step further and squashed Galbraith's emergency bill to sanction Iraq for that said Kurdish genocide in '88.
The sanctions were defeated in the house because it was deemed not good for American export business interests, sound familiar?
What did Reagan, Powell and Cheney give to this brutal dictator of course he was given billions in credit guarantees, military intelligence and more capable biological and chemical WMD and a hundred helicopters, all around more commerical and military trade. That would tend to looks more like an endorsement for such behaviour and it's no wonder that the Gulf War Veterans Association is asking for Rumsfeld to resign over the whole affair.
So it would seem that brutal regime are tolerated and supported as long as it's good for the bottom line.
When Canada decides to pony up and do something without the help of the US, then come cry. At least we went in there and removed him. You morons haven't done squat since the Reagan Admin. If they were supporting an evil dictator, why wasn't Canada stepping in?
-
How much more proof do we need that Iraq was a "Just War"?
Thats a trick question, any "proof" will be a lie planted by the CIA, PNAC or Dick Cheney himself...
-
Let me just summarize. The only arguments you could provide to counter what Torque posted basically revolved around:
"But you're Canadian, so... err... shut up."
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Let me just summarize. The only arguments you could provide to counter what Torque posted basically revolved around:
"But you're Canadian, so... err... shut up."
You got it wrong.
It's more like
"Well, you're a Chretian Canuckian so STFU!
See, we here in Amurica remembers all to painfully what it's like having a pantywaist as our leader and sympathize with Canadians.
Dowd you're at least form a country that has guts enough to step up. That's why we tolerate your senseless diatribes because we know that you are not representative of your country too. We also like to hear from Canadians because we know that Chretian's sorry excuse for a backbone is not indicative of that great nation and its people. But Chretian Canuckians that post here get what they deserve! Generalized disgust and putrification.
:D :D
-
My senseless diatribes? From a man who can't resist using the "!" at every opportunity? So it sounds like you're saying something outrageous everytime! Like you're angry! Like you're excited by what you are writing!
Very good. :D
-
Originally posted by Dowding
My senseless diatribes? From a man who can't resist using the "!" at every opportunity? So it sounds like you're saying something outrageous everytime! Like you're angry! Like you're excited by what you are writing!
Very good. :D
LOL.
Far be it from a mere Amurican to explain to an honorable English gentlemen the finer points of written punctuation in the English language. But, I count two ! in the last post and submit that they are appropriate.
As for being excited by what I write, No, it ain't exciting to shoot fish in a barrel. It's just a damn dirty job but somebody has to do it! (oops, I used one of those offensive !) hehehe
Do you want to stick your tongue out at me now and say,
Am not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:eek: :) :D ;)
-
You're an exclamation mark maniac.
Do you want to stick your tongue out at me now and say,
Am not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, I leave that sort of thing to greying old geezers twice my age.
BTW, I count at least 20 in your last post. :D
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You're an exclamation mark maniac.
No, I leave that sort of thing to greying old geezers twice my age.
BTW, I count at least 20 in your last post. :D
You are highly entertaining Dowd. That's a good thing. And you must have much better eyesight than I do, being half my age and all. Elsewise you couldn't count that many exclamation points.
BTW, why aren't you in the mIlitary, being so young and obivously virile? Then, your posts might have some credibility.
*See, I didn't use any !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
:cool: :eek:
-
Because the RAF don't accept epileptics. Sad but true. Grrrrr. Maybe I wouldn't have got in, but I would have liked a shot at it - it's what I had always wanted to do and was why I worked hard to get to university. They referred me to the officer selection centre at RAF Cranwell after passing the initial interviews, but the MO down there said I would have to wait 5 years and be seizure-free without medication before they could accept my application. 6 months later I had my third fit in three years and I'm now taking drugs to control it. I'll never get in now.
Apparently, after talking to a couple of officers a few months later, they said I should have kept it quiet. Once in the service they have different arrangements, considering that I was not going for aircrew.
Life goes on and things could be much worse. I haven't had a fit in two years since starting the medication and I got my driving license back. :) I don't let it get in the way of my life.
BTW, I guessed at 20. My eyesight is rubbish. :)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Because the RAF don't accept epileptics.
Well, sorry to bring up a sore subject. I hope you'll be able to keep it under control. And, at least you tried. That alone sets you apart from many others. So, you can keep on giving us your ridiculous thoughts.
:D
-
Q:Why did the USA sell Iraq chemical weapons in the first place?
A very simple question.
-
Yep simple, to kill many Iranians who were America's staunch enemies at the time. Back then it was completely legal for Iraq to poses such weapons. After the 1991 gulf war, it was not and it was up to iraq to convince us that they no longer had such weapons - they failed and we took care of business.
This is just another form of the idiotic anti-war USA-hater "you cant fight _______ today because in the past you were on the same side and helped him" argument you morons cried about Osama when you opposed the USA going into afhghanistan after 911 and again tried to use with saddam.
-
But tell me who did the French want to kill when Jacqes Chirac sold Saddam a nucler reactor capable of producing nuclear weapons grade material?
Who did Canada want want to kill when Bull upgraded saddam's scuds to increase their range and started building a fixed super cannon pointed northwest?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yep simple, to kill many Iranians who were America's staunch enemies at the time. Back then it was completely legal for Iraq to poses such weapons.
So it's OK to use poison gas on people as long as they are deemed "Enemy's of the State?"..Interesting logic Groinhertz...
Where in history have we seen this kind of logic before?
A very simple question.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
So it's OK to use poison gas on people as long as they are deemed "Enemy's of the State?"..Interesting logic Groinhertz...
Where in history have we seen this kind of logic before?
A very simple question.
At the time, it was ok to use gas in battle. Now, it isn't.
-
Yes sir loin go ahead twist those words around, yep it makes your argument so wonderful... I guess whenver Canada sold weapons abroad, a laughable concept I suppose but I'll humor your pathetic little nation ( I donno maybe you guys do sell weapons), they were intended to kill allies and not enemies of rustic little Canada "the state" or however you put it?
Maybe you liked it better when US dropped it's evil bombs on friendly Candian troops and not the "enemy of the state" taliban soldiers in the afghan war? Yea I bet you loved that, maybe we can arange it for you again.. :rolleyes:
But yes, you found us out, Amerika is just like nazi Germany - hell all these years I thought I was living in the fatherland and not california.... :rolleyes:
Why are you such an idiot and so desaperate tom keep making these idiotc comparsions like alluding that america is similar to the nazis? Dont you realize how ridiculous it makes you look?
A very simple question.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why are you such an idiot and so desaperate tom keep making these idiotc comparsions like alluding that america is similar to the nazis? Dont you realize how ridiculous it makes you look?
A very simple question.
I was not comparing America to the Nazi's...I was alluding to YOUR LOGIC to that of the Nazi's.
A very simple comparison really...
-
Originally posted by Martlet
At the time, it was ok to use gas in battle. Now, it isn't.
If it was OK at the time,then by that logic gassing the Kurds was the same as gassing Iranians.Both were enemies of Iraq at the time the USA sold them the chemical kaka.
BTW,your quote is sick.
Revisionism can be cured..Please give generously.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
If it was OK at the time,then by that logic gassing the Kurds was the same as gassing Iranians.Both were enemies of Iraq at the time the USA sold them the chemical kaka.
Revisionism can be cured..Please give generously.
The kurds are Iraqi, they weren't enemies of it. They were anti-saddam. Does that mean it's ok to kill the democrats since they are anti-bush?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Does that mean it's ok to kill the democrats since they are anti-bush?
You'll love it, uh? ;) :D
-
Originally posted by Naso
You'll love it, uh? ;) :D
Not at all. I'm pro war in most cases. However, I realize that my tendency to jump to war is in many cases not justified. That is why the people having a voice works so well. Both sides have to agree on a course of action. The anti war people are not allowed to try to talk out every situation for as long as it takes. The pro war people are not allowed to blow everyone up. They have to reach an agreement.
Both sides are needed for a democracy to be truly effective.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Not at all. I'm pro war in most cases. However, I realize that my tendency to jump to war is in many cases not justified. That is why the people having a voice works so well. Both sides have to agree on a course of action. The anti war people are not allowed to try to talk out every situation for as long as it takes. The pro war people are not allowed to blow everyone up. They have to reach an agreement.
Both sides are needed for a democracy to be truly effective.
Was joking, btw, nice answer.
-
lol
-
Well in an way yes :)
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
I was not comparing America to the Nazi's...I was alluding to YOUR LOGIC to that of the Nazi's.
A very simple comparison really...
So the logic of selling weapons to your friends so maybe they will be used to kill your common enemies is a form of nazi thinking?
You know the nazis used plain rifles and machine guns to slaughter hunderds of thousands of innocent people - does that make any sale of rifles to an ally, so they can kill many of your common enemies, also an act of nazi thinking?
Your comparsion is simple yes, as in simple minded and flawed - really..