New Grave Sites in IRaq

[EagleKeeper]

Link

113 Kurds found in Iraqi mass grave
Women, children pulled from trenches that may hold 1,500

Another reason that he should have been removed.

Some feel that the US is committing attrocies within Iraq against the population and should not have gone there.

This seems to give a clue on the needed moral reasons on removing/eliminating leaders that promote these types of actions.

Is anyone that complains about the US actions able to justify this?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Still not the reason why we went into Iraq. Sorry.

Edit: If Clinton said that we should remove Saddam to help the Kurds, you and the rest of the Reps would've told him to F-off.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

don cheadle wants to know where we were when the rwandan genocide was going on.

where was our moral obligation on that one?

 

[Passions]

Don't worry EagleKeeper, the libs only care about protecting their own women and children. To them, this war is over oil and not people.

They have no hearts. :brokenheart:

 

[sandorski]

Still trying to Justify?

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: Passions
Don't worry EagleKeeper, the libs only care about protecting their own women and children. To them, this war is over oil and not people.

They have no hearts. :brokenheart:

what about the starving, dying, jobless AMERICAN people who could be fed, clothed, and treated with a fraction of the iraqi spendathon.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Passions
Don't worry EagleKeeper, the libs only care about protecting their own women and children. To them, this war is over oil and not people.

They have no hearts. :brokenheart:

If your "mission" was so tender and bleeding-heart, why the lies?

 

[Red Dawn]

You think if the Dub had told the truth and said we needed to overthrow Hussien for things like this instead of the BS about WMDs, American would have supported spending billions of dollars and sacrificing hundreds of Americans for his excellent adventure in Iraq?
The vast Majority of Americans don't really give a sh!t about Iraqi's, Kurds or Turkmen.

 

[biostud]

I'm pretty sure that the money spent on liberating Iraq could have been spent better in Africa, if you wanted to save human life.

 

[kage69]

The YABAs are only concerned about human life when it suits their agenda. If you don't buy into their altruistic revisionism, you're a 'heartless liberal.'


Sad, but not unexpected from these hypocrites.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Passions
Don't worry EagleKeeper, the libs only care about protecting their own women and children. To them, this war is over oil and not people.

They have no hearts. :brokenheart:

what about the starving, dying, jobless AMERICAN people who could be fed, clothed, and treated with a fraction of the iraqi spendathon.

What about them? They were still starving, dying, and jobless before we invaded Iraq and they will continue to be. It's not like they were well off until we decided to invade Iraq. They had nothing before and they still got nothing. Not like anything was taken from them to fund Iraq.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: Passions
Don't worry EagleKeeper, the libs only care about protecting their own women and children. To them, this war is over oil and not people.

They have no hearts. :brokenheart:

What about the 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq since we got there? You have any fvcking heart for them?

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Passions
Don't worry EagleKeeper, the libs only care about protecting their own women and children. To them, this war is over oil and not people.

They have no hearts. :brokenheart:

what about the starving, dying, jobless AMERICAN people who could be fed, clothed, and treated with a fraction of the iraqi spendathon.

What about them? They were still starving, dying, and jobless before we invaded Iraq and they will continue to be. It's not like they were well off until we decided to invade Iraq. They had nothing before and they still got nothing. Not like anything was taken from them to fund Iraq.

yeah.... cuz we were all "lazy fair" (i'm an atrocious speller) before this.

 

[kage69]

Laissez faire?

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: kage69
Laissez faire?

lol....yeah

 

[raildogg]

Its less than 20,000, you liar. And many of those who died were the result of the crossfire between US and the terrorists, funded by al-qaeda, Iran and Syria. It is the terrorists who wish death and destruction upon Iraq, it is the terrorists who are deliberately killing innocent Iraqis.

I guess according to the radical leftists here (not the liberals, which I am), we should have let Saddam continue to rape, murder and brutalize Iraqis all he wanted. For those who say we went in Iraq for the oil, then why aren't we benefitting from it? Why were oil prices at RECORD HIGHS at the time of Bush and Kerry's election?

Those who say that we could have used the billions spent in Iraq on the jobless Americans and feed and clothe them, well guess what? We have always had poor in this country and we always will. Every country has this problem to deal with. I think it is becoming more of a local issue rather than a national issue as there are temporary shelters being set up and soup kitchens. You really think the billions we have spent in Iraq would have gone to these people? I think not.

 

[conjur]

BAGHDAD - U.S. investigators have exhumed the remains of 113 people ? all but five of them women, children or teenagers ? from a mass grave in southern Iraq that may hold at least 1,500 victims of Saddam Hussein's campaign against the Kurdish minority in the 1980s, U.S. and Iraqi officials said this week.

Nice of EagleKeeper to cut off the part that shoots holes in his attempts to justify the invasion after-the-fact.

That killing of the Kurds occurred when Saddam was a "good guy" and the Reagan administration was funnelling all sorts of aid and intelligence his way.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Passions
Don't worry EagleKeeper, the libs only care about protecting their own women and children. To them, this war is over oil and not people.

They have no hearts. :brokenheart:

what about the starving, dying, jobless AMERICAN people who could be fed, clothed, and treated with a fraction of the iraqi spendathon.

Helping the poor in America wouldn't further enrich Big Business and protect Israel.

 

[SuperTool]

So we invaded Iraq to help the Kurds? Is that the latest reason? I can't keep track, they change so often.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Its less than 20,000, you liar. And many of those who died were the result of the crossfire between US and the terrorists, funded by al-qaeda, Iran and Syria. It is the terrorists who wish death and destruction upon Iraq, it is the terrorists who are deliberately killing innocent Iraqis.

I guess according to the radical leftists here (not the liberals, which I am), we should have let Saddam continue to rape, murder and brutalize Iraqis all he wanted. For those who say we went in Iraq for the oil, then why aren't we benefitting from it? Why were oil prices at RECORD HIGHS at the time of Bush and Kerry's election?

Those who say that we could have used the billions spent in Iraq on the jobless Americans and feed and clothe them, well guess what? We have always had poor in this country and we always will. Every country has this problem to deal with. I think it is becoming more of a local issue rather than a national issue as there are temporary shelters being set up and soup kitchens. You really think the billions we have spent in Iraq would have gone to these people? I think not.

iraq = stoopid war

so whether it be korea, vietnam, iraq, iraq II, south america, or whatever skirmish we were involved in.... i actually agree with you. some other stoopid war would've gotten the money. i think oil prices are high for the same reason that canadian beef is still under embargo (or whatever it's called).... cuz as long as you turn up the heat slowly, the frog will stay in the pan.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: raildogg

I guess according to the radical leftists here (not the liberals, which I am), we should have let Saddam continue to rape, murder and brutalize Iraqis all he wanted. .

Yeah right. I guarantee you that many Conservatives would have balked at supporting the Dub's excellent adventure if he had said we were invading Iraq to save the Iraqi's instead of eliminating WMDs.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: conjur

BAGHDAD - U.S. investigators have exhumed the remains of 113 people ? all but five of them women, children or teenagers ? from a mass grave in southern Iraq that may hold at least 1,500 victims of Saddam Hussein's campaign against the Kurdish minority in the 1980s, U.S. and Iraqi officials said this week.

Nice of EagleKeeper to cut off the part that shoots holes in his attempts to justify the invasion after-the-fact.

That killing of the Kurds occurred when Saddam was a "good guy" and the Reagan administration was funnelling all sorts of aid and intelligence his way.

HOLD THE PHONES!!!!

you mean someone who used to be an amero-buddy is now a threat to national security and democracy as a whole? OMFG! do they have a support group for these guys.

"hello my name is osama bin laden, and i'm a recovering american ally"

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Another reason that he should have been removed.

Some feel that the US is committing attrocies within Iraq against the population and should not have gone there.

This seems to give a clue on the needed moral reasons on removing/eliminating leaders that promote these types of actions.

Is anyone that complains about the US actions able to justify this?

Irrelevant. It wasn't among the reasons that lying POS president gave us, Congress or the world for going.

Everyone knows Saddam was an asshole. Bush is as much an asshole for fabricating excuses to further his personal political agenda, instead of doing his homework to justify acting against him with the rest of the planet.

There were no WMD's in Iraq.

I'll say it again. There were no WMD's in Iraq.

There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.

Bush is a lying piece of sh8. His lies have cost thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of other lives and trillions of dollars (terra-bucks) that could and should have been used for the needs of American citizens and to fund our real defense needs. And he has the balls to cry and lie about funding Social Security. :roll:

However, another of his lies has more sinister overtones. When ambassador Joseph Wilson exposed his findings that there was no yellow cake uranium in Niger, the Bush administration was so pissed that they outed his wife, Valerie Plame as a top undercover CIA agent.

Anyone who did that should be shot for treason. :|

 

[Pandaren]

2 points. First, humanitarian reasons were the reason the Bush administration gave for invasion after the fact. I watched Colin Powell at the UN, and it was ALL about WMD. Second, Saddam was a bad guy who did bad things to his people, but there were more exigent circumstances elswhere in the world.

What about North Korea, which is littered with Death camps? Have you heard about North Korean refugees swarming into China? Most of the adults are barely 5 feet tall because North Korea chooses to spend money on weapons instead of food.

Why didn't we go into Sudan to protect refugees then? Why did we stand by yet again when ethnic cleansing was going on there?

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
This seems to give a clue on the needed moral reasons on removing/eliminating leaders that promote these types of actions.

Is anyone that complains about the US actions able to justify this?

 

[CaptnKirk]

"hello my name is osama bin laden, and i'm a recovering american ally"


. . . odd isn't it ? The US bankrolled and supported the Mujahadeen against Russia, and
one of Russia's reasons
to justify their invading of Afganistan was to curb the Islamic Fundamentalist Terorists that were threatening
the USSR in that frontier - really helped us didn't it.

CIA calls it BLOW-BACK.