RIP: They ALSO died in Iraq

[mreye]

USA Today

[southsider2k5]

Don't forget about the Kurds in the chemical attacks...

 

 

[israel4ever]

Watch it...you're gonna hurt Apu's feelings!!!

 

:headshake

[cwsox]

While I was actrively opposing US policy towards Saddam in the 1980s when the Reagan and Bush administrations were pouring aid to the murderous Saddam, who supported Saddam so he could kill?

 

The blood is on the hands of more than Saddam and elephant tears about "liberation" now are as bogus as can be.

 

The fact remains there were alternatives to war regarding Iraq and the fact remains the massive amounts of butchery Saddam practiced were because of the support he got from Reagan and Bush which allowed him to divert resources to other uses - which was well known then

 

[israel4ever]

While I was actrively opposing US policy towards Saddam in the 1980s when the Reagan and Bush administrations were pouring aid to the murderous Saddam, who supported Saddam so he could kill?

 

The blood is on the hands of more than Saddam and elephant tears about "liberation" now are as bogus as can be.

 

The fact remains there were alternatives to war regarding Iraq and the fact remains the massive amounts of butchery Saddam practiced were because of the support he got from Reagan and Bush which allowed him to divert resources to other uses - which was well known then

 

This is true...but remember, we were also "at odds" with Iran at the time, and were propping up Iraq to take out Khomeini's regime.

[cwsox]

This is true...but remember, we were also "at odds" with Iran at the time, and were propping up Iraq to take out Khomeini's regime.

and I have always opposed the enemy of enemy thing - that is how we funded and trained Osama Bin Laden (another Reagan Bush effort)

 

 

and while we were funding Saddam to practice butchery against his own people with the resources we freed up for his war with Iran, on the other hand there was Oliver North and Iran-Contra --

 

and the same incredibly inept crew is in office now - let us not forget Bush 1's pardon of Admiral Poindexter and Bush 2's appointment of Poindexter to major policy roles in the current outgoing administration

[IlliniBob72]

While I was actrively opposing US policy towards Saddam in the 1980s when the Reagan and Bush administrations were pouring aid to the murderous Saddam, who supported Saddam so he could kill?

 

The blood is on the hands of more than Saddam and elephant tears about "liberation" now are as bogus as can be.

 

The fact remains there were alternatives to war regarding Iraq and the fact remains the massive amounts of butchery Saddam practiced were because of the support he got from Reagan and Bush which allowed him to divert resources to other uses - which was well known then

 

None of this is relevant to today. Because the U.S. supported Hussein's regime in the 80's the U.S. should compound the problem by doing nothing today? If anything, it adds to the United States' responsibility to remove him.

 

I realize you said nothing about the policy of the last few years, but it is an argument put forth by other peaceniks.

[mreye]

Treatment of women and children:

 

Under Saddam Huseein's regime women lack even the basic right to life. A 1990 decree allows male relatives to kill a female relative in the name of honour without punishment.

 

Women have been tortured, ill-treated and in some cases summarily executed too, according to Amnesty International.

 

The dossier says that BBC correspondent John Sweeney said he had met six witnesses with direct experience of child torture, including the crushing of a two-year-old girl's feet.

 

Prison conditions:

 

Conditions for political prisoners in Iraq are inhumane and degrading.

 

At the "Mahjar" prison "prisoners are beaten twice a day and the women regularly raped by their guards.

 

Arbitrary and summary killings:

 

Executions are carried out without due process of law. relatives are often prevented from burying the victims in accordance with Islamic practice and have even been charged for the bullets used.

 

Persecution of the Kurds:

 

Under Saddam's rule Iraq's Kurdish communities have experienced terrible suffering.

 

Documents captured by the Kurds during the Gulf War and handed over to the non-governmental oprganisation Human Rights Watch provided much information about Saddam's persecution of the Kurds. They detail the arrest and execution in 1983 of 8,000 Kurdish males aged 13 and upwards.

 

Persecution of the Shia community:

 

The Shia community, who make up 60% of Iraq's population is Iraq's biggest religious group.

 

Saddam has ensured that none of the Shia religious or tribal leaders is able to threaten his position. He kills any that become too prominent.

 

Harassment of the Opposition outside Iraq:

 

The UN Special Rapporteur has received numerous reports of harassment, intimidation and threats against the families of opposition members living abroad.

 

Occupation of Kuwait:

 

Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990. Iraqi forces committed robbery, raped Kuwaities and expatriates and carried out summary executions. Amnesty International documented many other abuses during the occupation of Kuwait.

 

Methods of torture:

 

 

Eye gouging

 

Piercing of hands with electric drill

 

Suspended from ceiling by their wrists

 

Electric shock

 

Sexual abuse

 

Mock executions

 

Acid baths

[LowerCaseRepublican]

None of this is relevant to today. Because the U.S. supported Hussein's regime in the 80's the U.S. should compound the problem by doing nothing today? If anything, it adds to the United States' responsibility to remove him.

 

I realize you said nothing about the policy of the last few years, but it is an argument put forth by other peaceniks.

None of it is relevent? The fact remains that you can do a simple LexisNexis search and find out that the Hallabjah attacks of 1988 are mentioned by Bush over 40 times in his speeches as a reason to invade Iraq. Only problem is that this attack was made possible by our weapons that we gave Saddam. Yeah, see it was our weaponry that made that happen.

 

And hey, MrEye, I don't hear you complaining about the torture that the US is doing to people we have in custody. I guess torture is bad when one person does it but not another? /Orwellian doublethink, much?

[Texsox]

What makes this relevant is the lessons we should learn. Our "friends" do not always stay our friends. I agree with CW, the "you are an enemy of our enemy so we must be friends" guide fails at several levels.

[cwsox]

The same people making the same short shorted policies, those who lied about imminent threats and WOMD and nuclear weapons, those who promised us dancing in the streets after PR named "liberation" and we destroyed the infrastructure and Iraq has not exactly gone peaceful has it - a simple fact that seems to escape our policy makers is that people do not like their country invaded no matter what pretext and what has been the upshgot is that we have increased the risk of terrorism - as counter productive a stgrategy as had happened before

 

there were better ways, there were other ways, more effective ways, much discussed at the time and Iraq's internal situation was not an atrocity filled one the past few years because of the depletion of the regime

 

plus the utter lack of remorse or hubris on the part of the adminsitration and its supporters - where is the one among them who admits to having the blood on their hands or being wrong? Reagan Bush Rumsfield Cheney etc gave military aid to Saddam when it suited their temporary purposes - Bush, Cheney sat back and did nothing when Kurds were massacured, encouraged people to rise up and did nothing with troops stationed there when Saddam reacted - and these people want pionts for "doing something" about the "horrible crimes" that took place in their watch? They themselves were accomplices.

 

- gees lets get a lecture on Clinton and blow jobs rather than discuss the accomplices of atrocities, those in office 1981-1993 (who also aided Osama bin laden) who are the same people in now other than Reagan

 

no, we will get more about Monica and how "moral" Bush is (which ios to laugh) - and that's a major part of the reason that I am sickened by the arguments of the defenders of this administration

[mreye]

Yeah, when you f*** up and make a mistake, just look the other way. That'll solve everything. Sounds like a good policy.

[southsider2k5]

The same people making the same short shorted policies, those who lied about imminent threats and WOMD and nuclear weapons, those who promised us dancing in the streets after PR named "liberation" and we destroyed the infrastructure and Iraq has not exactly gone peaceful has it - a simple fact that seems to escape our policy makers is that people do not like their country invaded no matter what pretext and what has been the upshgot is that we have increased the risk of terrorism - as counter productive a stgrategy as had happened before

 

there were better ways, there were other ways, more effective ways, much discussed at the time and Iraq's internal situation was not an atrocity filled one the past few years because of the depletion of the regime

 

plus the utter lack of remorse or hubris on the part of the adminsitration and its supporters - where is the one among them who admits to having the blood on their hands or being wrong? Reagan Bush Rumsfield Cheney etc gave military aid to Saddam when it suited their temporary purposes - Bush, Cheney sat back and did nothing when Kurds were massacured, encouraged people to rise up and did nothing with troops stationed there when Saddam reacted - and these people want pionts for "doing something" about the "horrible crimes" that took place in their watch?  They themselves were accomplices.   

 

- gees lets get a lecture on Clinton and blow jobs rather than discuss the accomplices of atrocities, those in office 1981-1993 (who also aided Osama bin laden) who are the same people in now other than Reagan

 

no, we will get more about Monica and how "moral" Bush is (which ios to laugh) - and that's a major part of the reason that I am sickened by the arguments of the defenders of this administration

There was a lot more to the decay of the Clinton Admin than just a blow job. Although lying under oath sure doesn't hurt. That is when it became bigger than "just a blow job". Lying under oath is a federal offense.

 

As for some of the other things... How about repeatedly taking funding from illegal forgein donors? Does that matter? How about the infiltration of our nuclear facilities by forgein nationals, who stole our secrets for China? How about what were the two previous acts of domestic and forgein terrorism to occur on our soil? How about laying the economic seeds of the biggest job losses since the depression? I can keep going if you like... It makes the job of an adminstation much harder when they spend it cleaning up from problems of the previous group.

[cwsox]

ss2k4,

 

no wonder my scores are better than yours at the NTN game

 

 

mr eye, no one advocated doing nothing

1. when has anyone in the adminsitration admitted they f***ed up?

2. what part of "there were other ways" is not understandable?

[IlliniBob72]

None of it is relevent?  The fact remains that you can do a simple LexisNexis search and find out that the Hallabjah attacks of 1988 are mentioned by Bush over 40 times in his speeches as a reason to invade Iraq.  Only problem is that this attack was made possible by our weapons that we gave Saddam.  Yeah, see it was our weaponry that made that happen.

 

And hey, MrEye, I don't hear you complaining about the torture that the US is doing to people we have in custody.  I guess torture is bad when one person does it but not another? /Orwellian doublethink, much?

Exactly right. It is irrelevant. The fact that 20 years ago the United States supported the regime of Saddam Hussein has no bearing on what our actions of today should be. In WWII, the Soviet Union and Stalin were allies of the U.S. and Roosevelt gave the Red Army a s***load of war materiel. The Soviet Union emerged from WWII as a superpower and the Cold War began. But what was the alternative? Was Hitler taking over Europe seen as a better option? Decisions need to be made when they need to be made. And having made the decision to support Stalin versus Hitler, should the United States have not opposed the Soviet Union in the Cold War because hey, if we hadn't helped them out in 1940 they'd be no threat to us in 1960? And Apu, our weaponry did not make the Hallabjah attacks happen, Hussein made that happen. You don't blame the car when the drunk driver behind the wheel runs someone down.

 

And just for my own knowledge. Apu, when you say the United States sells torture equipment all over the world, how do you mean? Does the United States government actually manufacture the equipment and sell it, or do companies in the U.S. manufacture and sell it? If the actual government, what department is in charge of the torture devices? Just curious.

[mreye]

ss2k4,

 

no wonder my scores are better than yours at the NTN game       

 

 

mr eye, no one advocated doing nothing

1. when has anyone in the adminsitration admitted they f***ed up?

2. what part of "there were other ways" is not understandable?

Those "other ways" didn't work for more than 10 years. Even Clinton bombed Iraq (without UN or Congressional "approval") to try to get the point across to Hussein. Nothing worked. It was time to act.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Those "other ways" didn't work for more than 10 years. Even Clinton bombed Iraq (without UN or Congressional "approval") to try to get the point across to Hussein. Nothing worked. It was time to act.

They could have made a better case than lying out their ass with plagiarized reports, outright lies citing UN reports that don't exist etc. then. Even the most conservative person can agree with that.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Exactly right. It is irrelevant. The fact that 20 years ago the United States supported the regime of Saddam Hussein has no bearing on what our actions of today should be. In WWII, the Soviet Union and Stalin were allies of the U.S. and Roosevelt gave the Red Army a s***load of war materiel. The Soviet Union emerged from WWII as a superpower and the Cold War began. But what was the alternative? Was Hitler taking over Europe seen as a better option? Decisions need to be made when they need to be made. And having made the decision to support Stalin versus Hitler, should the United States have not opposed the Soviet Union in the Cold War because hey, if we hadn't helped them out in 1940 they'd be no threat to us in 1960?  And Apu, our weaponry did not make the Hallabjah attacks happen, Hussein made that happen. You don't blame the car when the drunk driver behind the wheel runs someone down.

 

And just for my own knowledge. Apu, when you say the United States sells torture equipment all over the world, how do you mean? Does the United States government actually manufacture the equipment and sell it, or do companies in the U.S. manufacture and sell it? If the actual government, what department is in charge of the torture devices? Just curious.

IlliniBob, there's a difference between a car and DEADLY CHEMICAL WEAPONS. I didn't know that lying blood soaked murderers had apologists.

 

As for the torture, the torture devices being exported are by US corporations but the ban on sales can be enforced by Bush. He has chosen not to enforce it and allow the sale of leg irons.

 

As for torture that the US is committing, we have been bringing suspects to Pakistan and other countries where torture is allowed.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/World/G...eQuestions.html

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,909164,00.html

[cwsox]

no one suggested that ALL other ways has been tried in the prior years - but as for what was done, it did work in that all the massacres that took place during the Reagan-Bush years 1981-93 were not repeated and all the WOMD were gone without invasion and that sounds like working to me

[soxfan420]

and I have always opposed the enemy of enemy thing - that is how we funded and trained Osama Bin Laden (another Reagan Bush effort)

 

 

and while we were funding Saddam to practice butchery against his own people with the resources we freed up for his war with Iran, on the other hand there was Oliver North and Iran-Contra -- 

 

and the same incredibly inept crew is in office now - let us not forget Bush 1's pardon of Admiral Poindexter and Bush 2's appointment of Poindexter to major policy roles in the current outgoing administration

osama doesnt need U.S. funding he is a billionair. from the oil fields his family owned long before he turned into the man he is today, now only god knows where he gets his funding my guess would be hardcore drugs, and theft.

[cwsox]

osama doesnt need U.S. funding he is a billionair. from the oil fields his family owned long before he turned into the man he is today, now only god knows where he gets his funding my guess would be hardcore drugs, and theft.

I kindly suggest you do do some more historical research on the US funding and training Osama and his friends 1981-1989

[soxfan420]

None of it is relevent?  The fact remains that you can do a simple LexisNexis search and find out that the Hallabjah attacks of 1988 are mentioned by Bush over 40 times in his speeches as a reason to invade Iraq.  Only problem is that this attack was made possible by our weapons that we gave Saddam.  Yeah, see it was our weaponry that made that happen.

 

And hey, MrEye, I don't hear you complaining about the torture that the US is doing to people we have in custody.  I guess torture is bad when one person does it but not another? /Orwellian doublethink, much?

Last i cecked we do not tourture our own civilions, if we do it to an enemy to prevent more casualtys so be it.

[soxfan420]

I kindly suggest you do do some more historical research on the US funding and training Osama and his friends 1981-1989

i dont have time right now catching a plane in 4 hours, but im sure you are right i just heard he got it from his family.

[cwsox]

i dont have time right now catching a plane in 4 hours, but im sure you are right i just heard he got it from his family.

have a good trip!

[southsider2k5]

I kindly suggest you do do some more historical research on the US funding and training Osama and his friends 1981-1989

I hope you aren't suggesting what he said isn't true. The Bin Laden family was worth billions of dollars, with Osama inheriteding about $250 million. They were the primary construction company responsible for the great majority of the oil industry infrastructure in Saudi Arabia.

 

Since the US cut off funding for the Afgan insurgency and Bin Laden declared war on the US and Saudi Arabia, Osama has created multi-front companies that make him a huge amount of money. Conservative estimates put his worth in the billion dollar range.