HUSSEIN is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands

[elzmaddy]

It's all a matter of perspective. Some things are so subjective to the point where you just cannot know about something. Often two people with completely opposite views won't even be able to communicate. The lenses used to perceive the world are too incompatible with each other. And they both leave thinking the other is stupid, insane, etc.

When people are killed, that is obvious. All I'm saying is that I think it is a sound idea to go the route of stopping bloodshed in the present. More killing for the bloodshed of the past is not very productive. But supposedly now that Saddam is out of power, the killing in the region will be reduced. We have to wait and see about that.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: elzmaddy
It's all a matter of perspective. Some things are so subjective to the point where you just cannot know about something. Often two people with completely opposite views won't even be able to communicate. The lenses used to perceive the world are too incompatible with each other. And they both leave thinking the other is stupid, insane, etc.

When people are killed, that is obvious. All I'm saying is that I think it is a sound idea to go the route of stopping bloodshed in the present. More killing for the bloodshed of the past is not very productive. But supposedly now that Saddam is out of power, the killing in the region will be reduced. We have to wait and see about that.

So, you do not agree with the assertion that the removal of Saddam's regime will stop the wanton torture and murder of Iraqis at the hands of the government?

You do know that we've shut down the torture chambers and the secret police, right?

 

[Moonbeam]

AndrewR, just out of curiosity why do ask of elzmaddy the questions you did. I can't see how they arise out of what he said. As I read his comment, I hear the opinion that punishment after the fact is relatively unimportant as compared to stopping killing that's happening right in front of your eyes in the here and now. What we do with Saddam now, if he's alive and caught, is small potatoes compared to stopping him. I hear him saying that now that Saddam is gone things theoretically will improve, but that is still a matter of conjecture. It's not that the killing will still be done by the government, but in the chaos, lawlessness, vengeance, and sectarian violence that may still continue, or even under some new government the Iraqis themselves may create.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: elzmaddy
It's all a matter of perspective. Some things are so subjective to the point where you just cannot know about something. Often two people with completely opposite views won't even be able to communicate. The lenses used to perceive the world are too incompatible with each other. And they both leave thinking the other is stupid, insane, etc.

When people are killed, that is obvious. All I'm saying is that I think it is a sound idea to go the route of stopping bloodshed in the present. More killing for the bloodshed of the past is not very productive. But supposedly now that Saddam is out of power, the killing in the region will be reduced. We have to wait and see about that.

Makes sense to me.

To the dead Iraqi it matters little who did the killing (assumes an after life) or how. I suspect a bit of power struggle but with US blessing Iraq may enter an enviornment that it may not know how to cope with. But that is the top folks the peasants will just worship a new leader... roll with the punches as it were.

 

[Jani]

That post was alreary long enough and I gave you link or where did you found those references? It seems you can't give any other argument than biased news sources to those accusations, right. Don't you even have any unbiased news sources which are saying something other. Those seems to be valid news unless they are proven something else. And can you name few unbiased sources if Washington Post, New York Times, Financial Times, Times online and congressional records are trash. Or is it so that whatever evidence I give it's irrerelevant because you haven't opened your eyes

 

[Jani]

I don't know if Iraq used US made weapons in Kuwait war but that doesn't count. Saddam maybe sold those weapons to terrorists or used himself. Can you say how many US made weapons coalition have used so far in this war? No need to answer to my rhetoric question, because how many question is irrelevant.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: elzmaddy

It's all a matter of perspective. Some things are so subjective to the point where you just cannot know about something. Often two people with completely opposite views won't even be able to communicate. The lenses used to perceive the world are too incompatible with each other. And they both leave thinking the other is stupid, insane, etc.

When people are killed, that is obvious. All I'm saying is that I think it is a sound idea to go the route of stopping bloodshed in the present. More killing for the bloodshed of the past is not very productive. But supposedly now that Saddam is out of power, the killing in the region will be reduced. We have to wait and see about that.

They already have Bashra under control. Bagdad has 5 million people and they haven't been there for the past 3 weeks like in Bashra. It will take some time (probably a couple to a few weeks), but they will get it under control.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
AndrewR, just out of curiosity why do ask of elzmaddy the questions you did. I can't see how they arise out of what he said.

I was responding to this: "But supposedly now that Saddam is out of power, the killing in the region will be reduced. We have to wait and see about that."

I wrote the statements I did to remind him that the killing has already stopped within Iraq. That seems to be a point that is lost on some people but which is hardly something to lose sight of.

That post was alreary long enough and I gave you link or where did you found those references? It seems you can't give any other argument than biased news sources to those accusations, right. Don't you even have any unbiased news sources which are saying something other. Those seems to be valid news unless they are proven something else.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I pulled that list of sources from the bottom of the link you posted.

Since when have news outlets had to prove their stories? There are so many unsupported assertions in the news these days that it really isn't valid to quote a news article (and those articles aren't actually linked from that site) as a factual source. I didn't say that all of those sources were invalid, only that there are enough that are suspect to make the report questionable. Further, without the full reports on which that timeline is based, it is impossible to see if any of those statements/"facts" were taken out of context or misquoted. Lastly, given that the report was produced by an organization which has a significant interest in slanting the report to portray armed conflict in a negative light, there is further reason to doubt its validity.

And before you say it, I don't have the time to look up all of those sources myself. I do have a life outside of this forum!

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Jani
That post was alreary long enough and I gave you link or where did you found those references? It seems you can't give any other argument than biased news sources to those accusations, right. Don't you even have any unbiased news sources which are saying something other. Those seems to be valid news unless they are proven something else. And can you name few unbiased sources if Washington Post, New York Times, Financial Times, Times online and congressional records are trash. Or is it so that whatever evidence I give it's irrerelevant because you haven't opened your eyes

How about we consult the UN..

Saddam submitted a statement to the UN detailing his WMD and conventional weapons. According to Saddam there were 21 companies that assisted in the WMD programs, 2 in the US, 19 in EU (14 in Germany). He listed the Soviets, French, Chineese, and Germans as main conventional suppliers, even during the Iran war. I am not denying the US's role, just pointing out they were hardly the main suppliers or even a majority. Did we continue under UN sanctions, no, did the countries who also agreed to stop and banned those weapons? YES. They also continued making deals with Saddam in exchange for support. We may have made a mistake, but we are at least trying to correct the situation, they are just trying to profit as much as they can.

The same EU countries are also the ones who supplied Syria with the MAJORITY of their stockpiles and supplies of WMD.

 

[Jani]

I'm not denying the fact also other countries supplied Iraq. My reply was addressed to Andrew who claimed US didn't support Iraq in Iraq vs. Iran war.

 

[Loralon]

Originally posted by: Jani
I'm not denying the fact also other countries supplied Iraq. My reply was addressed to Andrew who claimed US didn't support Iraq in Iraq vs. Iran war.

The tenor of your post suggests that the U.S. was the prime backer of Iraq in the 1980s. This is of course silly. Just one look at Iraq's military inventory shows otherwise. Also, to my knowledge German companies were the prime suppliers of chemical precursors to Iraq, and not U.S. companies.

 

[Moonbeam]

I wrote the statements I did to remind him that the killing has already stopped within Iraq. That seems to be a point that is lost on some people but which is hardly something to lose sight of.
--------------------
At least the killing done by the former formally established regeim... We can hope we have seen the end oif such misery, but the future is still undetermined and for many a source of some concern.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Loralon

Originally posted by: Jani
I'm not denying the fact also other countries supplied Iraq. My reply was addressed to Andrew who claimed US didn't support Iraq in Iraq vs. Iran war.

The tenor of your post suggests that the U.S. was the prime backer of Iraq in the 1980s. This is of course silly. Just one look at Iraq's military inventory shows otherwise. Also, to my knowledge German companies were the prime suppliers of chemical precursors to Iraq, and not U.S. companies.

God d*mn you, KEEP THE FACTS OUT OF THIS...

How do you expect the anti-war, anti-US, anti-Bush crowd to have a chance if you are going to use actual facts?????? That's just not fair.

Now admit this has all been a zionist conspiracy to colonize the middle east and genetically euthanize the Arab population.

 

[Jani]

Originally posted by: Loralon

Originally posted by: Jani
I'm not denying the fact also other countries supplied Iraq. My reply was addressed to Andrew who claimed US didn't support Iraq in Iraq vs. Iran war.

The tenor of your post suggests that the U.S. was the prime backer of Iraq in the 1980s. This is of course silly. Just one look at Iraq's military inventory shows otherwise. Also, to my knowledge German companies were the prime suppliers of chemical precursors to Iraq, and not U.S. companies.

Again, I'm not saying <insert your favourite European country here> didn't supply Iraq as well. My post first was meant to AndrewR when he wrote explicit no to "US supported Iraq in Iraq-Iran war" accusations. It seems to be politics here that most fanatical pro- and anti-war people are denying everything, even well known facts, which doesn't suit their opinions.

 

[Alistar7]

Why wouldnt we support Iraq AT THAT TIME? We just had a great relationship with Iran ruined by a revolt which led to Islamic fundamentalism. Know where the Khomeni came from anyway? Iraq..
Iraq was a secular country, fairly stable at the time without the sinister future we saw eventually.
It is ironic that we are now removing Saddam and Iran has extended an olive branch. Did we fvck up with Saddam, yes, are we doing our best to correct this? Is anyone else taking responsibility for their complicity? Or did they do all they could to keep Saddam in power and profit off the misery of the IRaqi people?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Jani

Originally posted by: Loralon

Originally posted by: Jani
I'm not denying the fact also other countries supplied Iraq. My reply was addressed to Andrew who claimed US didn't support Iraq in Iraq vs. Iran war.

The tenor of your post suggests that the U.S. was the prime backer of Iraq in the 1980s. This is of course silly. Just one look at Iraq's military inventory shows otherwise. Also, to my knowledge German companies were the prime suppliers of chemical precursors to Iraq, and not U.S. companies.

Again, I'm not saying <insert your favourite European country here> didn't supply Iraq as well. My post first was meant to AndrewR when he wrote explicit no to "US supported Iraq in Iraq-Iran war" accusations. It seems to be politics here that most fanatical pro- and anti-war people are denying everything, even well known facts, which doesn't suit their opinions.

Loralon's post addresses why I wrote "LIE" after the original assertion made by her209 (who has never returned, oh well). The statement made it appear as if Iraq's invasion of Iran was fully supported and funded by the United States, which is wholly and completely unfounded, and therefore a lie. I lost the forest for the trees when you started posting.

 

[Nitemare]

bump

 

[Amirtallica]

Alistar you're wrong, Khomeini was exiled to Iraq. He was born in Khomein, hence the name.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/khomeini.htm

I assume now that you're lying nature has been unveiled you will crawl into a hole and cry for many hours before you come back and apologize.

The Islamic fundementalist movement in Iran you are talking about was actually a revolution by the people and in response to a growing oppression by the dictatorous regime of the Shah. The same rumors we hear about Saddam's cruelty were told of him. Liberation came in Iran by the hand of it's people and the way it should be done. If the Iraqis were truly very hateful of Saddam they would have done something about it like the Iranians.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: AndrewR
This is in response to another thread with a similar title.

Between the Iran-Iraq War,

US supported LIE

the invasion of Kuwait,

US supported LIE

the repression of his people particularly the Kurds and Shia

US supported LIE

, and the current war

US supported, LIE - caused by Saddam's failure to disarm

Saddam bears more responsibility than any other single person in the Gulf region for the deaths of many, including his own soldiers.
But, we shouldn't hold him responsible. He's only human.

You forgot the Bush's involvement with the Nazis.

Whoa, slow down for a second. Some of these are "lies", but points 1 and 4 are not.

 

[sandorski]

Doh, fooled by the bump!

 

[Zebo]

Hey as long as we are consistant you've convinced me. So when do we strike Camodia, China, NK, Pakistan, Veitman again, Myanmar, every other African country, and Isreal? Me too san

 

[Gaard]

How the hell can Andrew say that the current war in Iraq isn't US supported?

 

[Warin]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: elzmaddy
It's all a matter of perspective. Some things are so subjective to the point where you just cannot know about something. Often two people with completely opposite views won't even be able to communicate. The lenses used to perceive the world are too incompatible with each other. And they both leave thinking the other is stupid, insane, etc.

When people are killed, that is obvious. All I'm saying is that I think it is a sound idea to go the route of stopping bloodshed in the present. More killing for the bloodshed of the past is not very productive. But supposedly now that Saddam is out of power, the killing in the region will be reduced. We have to wait and see about that.

So, you do not agree with the assertion that the removal of Saddam's regime will stop the wanton torture and murder of Iraqis at the hands of the government?

You do know that we've shut down the torture chambers and the secret police, right?

Do a search for 'Romeo Dallaire'

Look into why the US opposed his requests in the UN Security Council.

Look into 800,000 Tutsi people killed in Rwanda.

But I guess punishing evil doers is only worth the effort when there is a sea of oil under the country. right?

Or for that matter, do a search on 'The School of the Americas', where some of the most heinous criminals in Latin America responsible for tens of thousands of deaths were taught their art.

edit:

There are reports (And I dont know the validity of the info, so I am not saying I agree that it is truth) that Dubya's grandpappy collaborated with the Nazi's in the 30's. Perhaps someone esle can shed light onto this! )

 

[Red Dawn]

You know, I never really cared for Iraqi's nor anybody else in that region. Let me clarify that. I care about them as much as they care for Americans. When we went to war there I supported it because I was told by Bush and company that it was for our own safety. Now if they are saying that it was to liberate those who would rather us die then I wouldn't support giving one American life for their freedom. After All didn't we fight overwhelming odds for our own freedom? If they weren't willng to sacrifice like our fore father where then fsck them!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Warin

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: elzmaddy
It's all a matter of perspective. Some things are so subjective to the point where you just cannot know about something. Often two people with completely opposite views won't even be able to communicate. The lenses used to perceive the world are too incompatible with each other. And they both leave thinking the other is stupid, insane, etc.

When people are killed, that is obvious. All I'm saying is that I think it is a sound idea to go the route of stopping bloodshed in the present. More killing for the bloodshed of the past is not very productive. But supposedly now that Saddam is out of power, the killing in the region will be reduced. We have to wait and see about that.

So, you do not agree with the assertion that the removal of Saddam's regime will stop the wanton torture and murder of Iraqis at the hands of the government?

You do know that we've shut down the torture chambers and the secret police, right?

Do a search for 'Romeo Dallaire'

Look into why the US opposed his requests in the UN Security Council.

Look into 800,000 Tutsi people killed in Rwanda.

But I guess punishing evil doers is only worth the effort when there is a sea of oil under the country. right?

Or for that matter, do a search on 'The School of the Americas', where some of the most heinous criminals in Latin America responsible for tens of thousands of deaths were taught their art.

edit:

There are reports (And I dont know the validity of the info, so I am not saying I agree that it is truth) that Dubya's grandpappy collaborated with the Nazi's in the 30's. Perhaps someone esle can shed light onto this! )

It's all well documented his property was even siezes for collaboration with the enemy. Read yourself and decide.
Link