Iraqs new flag

[WMD]

quote:Originally posted by flap:


I see Rush Limbaugh cites torture as one of the crimes committed under Saddam's regime. It's interesting that when Americans are doing the torture he passes it off as "emotional release".

Saddam's torture included cutting off body parts...nowhere near the "torture" of taking pictures of naked dudes piled on each other in a prison.  Humiliating, yes, of course.  But not to Saddam's level.

[TheQuirk]

quote:Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
I also should point out that during the first uprising of saddam the U.S. instigated the citizens to go against him.  When they did the U.S. didn't do anything but sat and watched all the people that believed in what the U.S. was saying get slaughtered!

Right on. Do you know why the first coalition didn't go into Bagdhad? Because all its Middle Eastern allies (not including Israel, of course) demanded that Iraq remains stable, so instability wouldn't occur in the region. This is also why the US was not able to help out the uprising.

[TheQuirk]

One more, sorry:

 

quote:He gave the chemical weapons to Mr Hussain during that war. Also Iran had killed many Iraqi civilians during that time. Also during this war. Mr Bush has used such things as cluster bombs and the like that also do great damage!

Bush was not a president between 1980 and 1989. Bush Sr. was elected in 1989, the year the conflict ended.

What are you talking about?

 

quote:A free market cannot be run under a dictatorship.

Erm? A dictatorship _here_? That's not true.

[solarismka]

quote:Originally posted by TheQuirk: I Just Want Attention:


Right on. Do you know why the first coalition didn't go into Bagdhad? Because all its Middle Eastern allies (not including Israel, of course) demanded that Iraq remains stable, so instability wouldn't occur in the region. This is also why the US was not able to help out the uprising.

If that was the case then why on earth did the U.S. egged on the Iraqie people in the first place?

A few things the U.S. could do even now is, help build a goverment that the iraqies themselves can vote in and letting local people run in that election.  Instead of putting up a puppet council made up of exsiles, ciminals or anyone that has a hand in the bush regime.

and to let local companies of iraq as well as all countries globaly, help build Iraq.  This means also that the U.S. cannot state who can get what contract for what.

[solarismka]

quote:Originally posted by WMD:


Saddam's torture included cutting off body parts...nowhere near the "torture" of taking pictures of naked dudes piled on each other in a prison.  Humiliating, yes, of course.  But not to Saddam's level.

It is when you are doing that humiliation in a sociaty where that is a lot more harmful than any toruture.

[solarismka]

quote:
Bush was not a president between 1980 and 1989. Bush Sr. was elected in 1989, the year the conflict ended.

What are you talking about?

http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp
http://baltimorechronicle.com/060404WarCrimes.shtml
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&q=%22gulf+war%22+%2B%22bush+sr%22&btnG=Search&meta=

 

quote:
Erm? A dictatorship _here_? That's not true.[/QB]

Your laws, values and attitude of your govement states otherwize

[WMD]

quote:Originally posted by -=Solaris.M.K.A=-:
It is when you are doing that humiliation in a sociaty where that is a lot more harmful than any toruture.

I don't understand.  Can you re-word that?   :confused:  

Before I get criticized for that, I know the prison scandal was wrong.  I want their (participating soldiers) heads in Futurama-like containers on a shelf in my room.  But it wasn't as bad as some things that Saddam's people did.

[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]

[WMD]

quote:A few things the U.S. could do even now is, help build a goverment that the iraqies themselves can vote in and letting local people run in that election. Instead of putting up a puppet council made up of exsiles, ciminals or anyone that has a hand in the bush regime.

As reported on the news, there will be elections in 2005.  What evidence is there that the current council is a "puppet?"  Exiles of Saddam, I bet, but what evidence is there that those guys want to help Bush out with oil?  They're mostly Iraqi people on there.

[solarismka]

quote:Originally posted by WMD:

As reported on the news, there will be elections in 2005.

They said that  Iraq goes to the people on June 30th.  Guess what.  A couple of american heads leaving doesn't cut it.  Expecialy when the occupation is still ongoing.


  What evidence is there that the current council is a "puppet?"  Exiles of Saddam, I bet, but what evidence is there that those guys want to help Bush out with oil?  They're mostly Iraqi people on there.[/b]

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

A blog of an iraqi would explain that.  Also most are NOT iraqi people on there.  Breimer(sp?) which was hand picked by bush had put in power exiles that had been tossed out of Iraq when saddam was in power.  Alot them that sit on the council were related to terroist groups such as alquida and the like and like I said before alquida and saddam never got along!

Allot of the new council that is on there don't even stay in Iraq!  They always comment from outside and repeat whatever the U.S. says.  Expecialy when the cameras are rolling and people see everything that contradicts what they say.  

enhlish.aljazeera.com

Its obvious that there helping Bush.  They were hand picked by his hench men! In a rich oil country.

Like I said before.  If they wanted to help the people then why not let the people choose?

EDIT: found that post....

 

quote: have to post this fast. The electrical situation has been hellish today. There's no schedule

[solarismka]

quote:Originally posted by WMD:


I don't understand.  Can you re-word that?     :confused:    

Before I get criticized for that, I know the prison scandal was wrong.  I want their (participating soldiers) heads in Futurama-like containers on a shelf in my room.  But it wasn't as bad as some things that Saddam's people did.

[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]

again I quote the Iraqie blog....

 

quote:
 Just Go...
People are seething with anger- the pictures of Abu Ghraib and the Brits in Basrah are everywhere. Every newspaper you pick up in Baghdad has pictures of some American or British atrocity or another. It's like a nightmare that has come to life.

Everyone knew this was happening in Abu Ghraib and other places

[hm_murdock]

dude, that was blatant trolling

[WMD]

quote:To them that tourture was the ultimate of the low. It was not saddam that reached it, it was the U.S.

That sounds like blind anti-Americanism to me.  How we were worse than Saddam is beyond me.

And to the blog...then what about the American bodies dragged through the streets, burned, and hung from cables with Iraqis cheering all around?  How is that justified?

[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]

[solarismka]

quote:Originally posted by WMD:


That sounds like blind anti-Americanism to me.  How we were worse than Saddam is beyond me.

And to the blog...then what about the American bodies dragged through the streets, burned, and hung from cables with Iraqis cheering all around?  How is that justified?

[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]

The fact that the U.S. invaded iraq.  killied innocent of people.  I don't blame them (the iraqies)  that killed those americans since they are the occupiers.  The Iraqies were defending their cuontry from a force with the latest in weaponry

[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: -=Solaris.M.K.A=- ]

[flap]

quote:Saddam's torture included cutting off body parts...nowhere near the "torture" of taking pictures of naked dudes piled on each other in a prison. Humiliating, yes, of course. But not to Saddam's level.

So it's ok to condone torture as long as it doesn't involve dismemberment?

 

quote:I know the prison scandal was wrong. I want their (participating soldiers) heads in Futurama-like containers on a shelf in my room.

Just the soldiers? What about the people who ordered the torture in the first place? The torture in Abu Ghraib wasn't an "isolated aberration" perpetrated by a few bored, redneck soldiers. Torture has been part of American foreign policy for decades. Just look at the record of the CIA training the Shah's Iran and the governments of Latin America in torture methods.

 

quote:And to the blog...then what about the American bodies dragged through the streets, burned, and hung from cables with Iraqis cheering all around? How is that justified?

They were lucky - they were already dead when they were mutliated.

[TheQuirk]

quote:If that was the case then why on earth did the U.S. egged on the Iraqie people in the first place?

A few things the U.S. could do even now is, help build a goverment that the iraqies themselves can vote in and letting local people run in that election. Instead of putting up a puppet council made up of exsiles, ciminals or anyone that has a hand in the bush regime.

and to let local companies of iraq as well as all countries globaly, help build Iraq. This means also that the U.S. cannot state who can get what contract for what.

- Because the US really isn't perfect, and there was a conflict of decisions at the time. Also, you're now talking about both Bush Sr. and Jr., so it's pretty irrelevant to the argument.

- So now the US needs to help build a government? The last page (or two?) have been filled with argument between us two--you saying the US has to immediatly leave, me saying the US has to say to fix what it has broken. I'm glad we agree on this issue.

- It's not a "puppet council." Yes, it is true that it is made up of exiles, refugees, criminals, and other different people, and there's no question that it's not an ideal set of leaders, but it's a step in the right direct. As I understand it, you're looking for people with leadership skills from INSIDE Iraq--not political refugees. Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but since almost all the citizens of Iraq with proper leadership skills are former (and possibly royal) Baathists, there is a slim chance of them slipping in.

- Glad we agree on this issue as well. The US should not pull out, and help rebuild Iraq. Fantastic. Just one thing: the US already DOES payroll international companies, as well as Iraqis. Unfortunately for Iraq, it doesn't have a very blossoming high-tech industry, so it can't help out in any other way besides construction and the like.

 

quote:http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp
http://baltimorechronicle.com/060404WarCrimes.shtml
]http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&q=%22gulf+war%22+%2B%22bush+sr%22&btnG=Search&meta=

Those links say that the US provided Saddam with dual-use technology[/quote]

The first two links say that the US provided him with dual-use technology (read: war machines), which is really quite bad, but it made sense back when the Soviet Union was the big scary monster, and Iran (and its oil) was becoming its buddy. Chemical weapons were not sold.

As for the third link, we're discussing the 1980-89 Iran-Iraq war--not the Gulf War.

 

quote:Your laws, values and attitude of your govement states otherwize

We discussed this already. A dictator is one that dictates with nothing to regulate him. Dictionary.com, look up "dictator." Values of a govt. have nothing to do with a dictator, and our laws are set to prevent having a dictator (no more than two terms, etc. etc.). STOP USING WORDS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!

Edit: fixed UBB code.

[ July 10, 2004: Message edited by: TheQuirk: I Just Want Attention ]