Day of Infamy

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
72
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Absolute nonsense. The inspectors were doing fine. Saddam had already complied. There were no weapons of mass destruction. This should be obvious by now to anyone who reads the news. The inspectors were ordered out by the U.S. so they could get the invasion started. Read what Scott Ritter(an American, and chief weapons inspector for the UN) says about this subject.
Right, inspectors searched and found nothing. The US searched after they invaded and found nothing but a few incapacitated bits of weapons.
The reasons the US gave for invading was not strictly to look for WMDs but was mainly because of the UN directives that Soddam Insane was bucking. I think the number was 14 of 20+. There were other reasons given besides those, as well.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/whyiraq.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Rationale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments'_pre-war_positions_on_invasion_of_Iraq

Whether Junior was lying and hiding reasons other than those given is a subject up for grabs as is evidenced by the massive amount of guesswork availbale when one googles "Bush Iraq invade reasons".
 
Last edited:

wallyj

just special
May 7, 2006
1,230
21
38
not in Kansas anymore
It was Hans Blix who was the chief UN inspector.Thanks LG for not revising history to support an idealogy as is so often done. The fact that WMD's were not found does not excuse saddam's bravado which cost his country dearly. BTW,the number of Iraqi civilians killed by other Iraq's is much larger than those killed by the American troops.Another important fact lost on those who only think with the left side of thier brain.
 

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
Not at all. Do you think it was worth killing a million Iraqis to depose Saddam? I doubt if any Iraqis think it was worth it either. Yeah saddam is dead.....Who did it help? Certainly not the million or so dead Iraqis. I wonder if oil was involved.........


Well after much searching here is what I came up with for the body count: So where did the million total come from Juan? The website address is on the bottom to verify and I can post at least six pages from of a website that does a daily tally on innocents killed by Islamic Militants. Irag and else where on this planet.

The Real 2006
'Iraq Body Count'

Iraqi civilians killed this year by ISLAMIC Terrorists

16,791

Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans
(and Islamic Terrorists)

154*

Iraqis aren't
dying from war.
They are being murdered by
Islamic terrorists.

*Source: IraqBodyCount.net (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists

 
  • Like
Reactions: wallyj

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
72
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Just because the number of Iraqi killed by Iraqi may be larger than the Iraqi killed by the USA doesn't excuse the USA nor Bush for going in partially using false pretenses. Bush and Co. are no more righteous than anyone else.
The CIA have been giving the administration garbage info for an awful long time:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/342743.stm

etc.

Besides that, one must remember that the US is not above bombing and shooting its "friends" even.
 

Gonzo

Electoral Member
Dec 5, 2004
997
1
18
Was Victoria, now Ottawa
The United States invaded Iraq because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. Then they hang Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity. It's hypocritical. You can’t invade a country on a lie, and then execute their leader for a different reason. He was a bad guy, but there are lots of leaders out there who commit crimes against humanity. We don’t see the United States invading North Korea, who admits to having nuclear weapons. China is guilty of crimes against humanity. Many African countries leaders should be overthrown. But what made Iraq different? Hmmmm.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
72
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
The United States invaded Iraq because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction.
That's one of many reasons given by the US admin. Certainly not the only nor the main reason.
Then they hang Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity. It's hypocritical. You can’t invade a country on a lie, and then execute their leader for a different reason. He was a bad guy, but there are lots of leaders out there who commit crimes against humanity. We don’t see the United States invading North Korea, who admits to having nuclear weapons. China is guilty of crimes against humanity. Many African countries leaders should be overthrown. But what made Iraq different? Hmmmm.
Your guess is as good as anyone's. Besides the reasons Bush stated, as I said a while ago, there are lots of guesses as to what the "real" reasons were.
 

wallyj

just special
May 7, 2006
1,230
21
38
not in Kansas anymore
The United States invaded Iraq because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. Then they hang Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity. It's hypocritical. You can’t invade a country on a lie, and then execute their leader for a different reason. He was a bad guy, but there are lots of leaders out there who commit crimes against humanity. We don’t see the United States invading North Korea, who admits to having nuclear weapons. China is guilty of crimes against humanity. Many African countries leaders should be overthrown. But what made Iraq different? Hmmmm.
Once again,THEY INVADED IRAQ BECAUSE SADDAM WOULD NOT ALLOW THE UN INSPECTORS TO LOOK FOR WMD'S. I wrote that slow so it could be understood. I don't understand why people so readily buy into historical revisionism if it denigrates the U.S.A. Sure there is a few more leaders who should be swinging alongside saddam.So,does that mean the states could justify hanging that murderous thug by hanging a few more. I would support it but I have a hunch the layton lickers of the world would be smugly tsk-tsking into thier lattes. Saddam was executed for murder,not for anything to do with wmd's. He has killed thousands and thousands. He used to torture children in front of thier parents to get the parents to say what he wanted,and then execute the parents. But maybe we should have given him the benefit of the doubt.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
72
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Once again, the USA invaded Iraq for many reasons, get it? There was no single reason.

Either way, the USA is not without its faults by a long shot, nor is it the most evil outfit that ever tried being an empore any more than it is totally righteous.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
When you haven't got an argument, resort to personal insults

Next time don't put words in my mouth that are fueled by your pathetic bias

I called it a puppet government because that is what it is


Yes of course, only Canadians are capable of holding honest elections, everybody else is a puppet to the US, even when endorsed by the UN, the EU and oh yeah, CANADA.


If the Iraq invasion wasn't illegal, why was it neccesary to put out all the BS about weapons of mass destruction, or whine about how Iraq was such a threat to botb the U.S. and Britain?

Show me a single document that claims the Iraq War was illegal from any reputable international organization. The UN, ICC will do. If you can't, stop repeating bull****, you sound like parrot.

The U.S. role in arming and assisting Iraq in their war against Iran are well documented.

By whom? Leftist news agencies? Where is this well documented data. You show me yours (unbiased source) and I'll show you mine.

An international court might have lent respectability to that mess but then all the dirty laundry would have been made public

The ICC has no jurisdiction over Iraq or the US, which part of that can't you grasp?

Objecting to the Iraq invasion could hardly be original....most of the world objected to that invasion.

Most of the world objected to the Serbian invasion. Thoughts?
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
About the "Legal" issue of war...

Exactly who decides these laws? who is the Sovereign world government? Its not the UN thats for sure, I never recall any nation deciding to let communist China define what they are and are not allowed to do.

Using terms like "legal" and "illegal" makes you sound mentally incapable and out of touch with the reality of the world. More accurate terms like "against conventions" would work better.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Well after much searching here is what I came up with for the body count: So where did the million total come from Juan? The website address is on the bottom to verify and I can post at least six pages from of a website that does a daily tally on innocents killed by Islamic Militants. Irag and else where on this planet.

The Real 2006
'Iraq Body Count'

Iraqi civilians killed this year by ISLAMIC Terrorists

16,791

Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans
(and Islamic Terrorists)

154*

Iraqis aren't
dying from war.
They are being murdered by
Islamic terrorists.

*Source: IraqBodyCount.net (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists


UNITED NATIONS
Commission on Human Rights

Fifty-second session
Agenda item 20

CHILDREN AND WAR
CATASTROPHE IN IRAQ



The children of Iraq are suffering unspeakable horrors as a direct result of economic sanctions against Iraq and as a result of illnesses, disabilities and deformities apparently caused by the radioactive residue from bullets and other weapons containing depleted uranium (DU) used by the United States during military operations against Iraq.

In our statement under item 9, Margarita Papandreou of Women for Mutual Security presented some aspects of the effects of sanctions on Iraqi children. She is an eyewitness to the overwhelming tragedy of these children, and like any who sees it who has any sense of humanity, is compelled to work day and night to bring instant aid. We also presented Dr. Horst Gunther, whose work proves beyond doubt the use of bullets containing depleted uranium by US forces in Iraq.

We are pleased that the Sub-Commission, in its decision 1995/107, also expressed its concern regarding the need of the Iraqi children, women and disabled persons for urgent humanitarian relief, and that the WHO, UNICEF, FAO and UNHCR have reported on the catastrophic consequences of the sanctions.

At this session, International Educational Development/Humanitarian Law Project joins with World Muslim Congress, Women's International Christian Federation, American Association of Jurists, General Arab Women Federation, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, International Movement for Fraternal Union Among Racism and Peoples, Disabled Peoples' International, Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Among Peoples, World Movement of Mothers, North-South XXI, Pax Christi International, Union of Arab Jurists, World Peace Council and Centre-Europe-Tiers Monde in a written statement submitted under item 10 to condemn the sanctions against Iraq because of the extreme suffering of the Iraqi children. We note data from the FAO showing that more than 560,000 children have already died since the war ended and that the current monthly figure of deaths of small children surpasses 5,000 with another 5,000 for persons over the age of 14.

Women for Mutual Security, Canadian Women for Peace, International Action Center, International Commission of Inquiry on Economic Sanctions, the Japanese/Arab Cultural Association, Friendship Society Between Japanese Children and Arab Children, World Development Movement (UK), Yellow Cross International (Germany) and more than twenty other groups also join in the call for immediate medical and humanitarian aid for Iraqi civilians and full disclosure and compensation for victims of weapons or waste containing depleted uranium.

The Iraqi children have an absolute right to relief from the hardship of war and to life-sustaining food and medical relief. Sanctions cannot be used to deprive children from these rights even if the intended purpose of sanctions seeks to address other issues. The International Court of Justice, in its decision of 27 June 1986 (Nicaragua v. US), ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 provides a minimum standard for all countries and in all armed conflict situations. The sanctions are a part of the war against Iraq, and therefore fall under review of this binding legal principle. In addition to the International Court of Justice ruling, we remind the Commission that basic principles of humanitarian law are jus cogens and may not be abrogated in any way. This principle is also part of the UN Charter, which in its Article 1, sec. 3, mandates international action for pressing humanitarian concerns.

Madame Papandreou joins us in welcoming the work of another former first lady, Madame Graca Machel, and her important work on the impact of war on children. We ask Madame Machel to carry out an investigation of the tragic situation of the Iraqi children and incorporate it into her report to the General Assembly this year. We urge careful review of the medical effects of the use of depleted uranium and the continued presence in Iraq of tons of bullets containing depleted uranium left by the US forces. That review should also investigate that many American children born after the war also have disabilities and deformities linked to the exposure of their fathers or mothers to depleted uranium during their military duty. In investigating the use of depleted uranium, Madame Machel could carry out a joint mission with the Commission's rapporteur on toxics Madame Fatma Ksentini. We will submit a complete dossier to Madame Ksentini and ask her to report on this to the 53 session of the Commission.
We attach to this statement a report by Dr. Beatrice Boctor for the International Commission of Inquiry on Economic Sanctions which provides a summary of the findings of the WHO and documents other violations of the rights of children.



There is no shortage of information on child casualties, but that is not the subject here and I doubt if we'll ever know the total number.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Juan...

You don't really expect people willing to acknowledge that their electoral system was hijacked and G.W. stole the presidency twice...are prepared to accept responsibility for anything....now do you?

There's a long black wall with a whole bunch of names on it that America seems to forget when it's busy out there policing the world....because they were..."aksed for help"...because evil-doers ranging from Communists to any dictatorship behaving in exactly the same way as America's puppet dictatorships all over the planet behaved...but without the blessing of the American people of course....to barbaric/primitive societies that can be manipulated into war in the name of securing resources and markets for America's appetities....

America is no worse nor much better than any society that's stopped evolving mid-way through adolescence...

Rather like watching babies play with razor blades....
 

wallyj

just special
May 7, 2006
1,230
21
38
not in Kansas anymore
Well after much searching here is what I came up with for the body count: So where did the million total come from Juan? The website address is on the bottom to verify and I can post at least six pages from of a website that does a daily tally on innocents killed by Islamic Militants. Irag and else where on this planet.

The Real 2006
'Iraq Body Count'

Iraqi civilians killed this year by ISLAMIC Terrorists
16,791
Iraqi civilians killed collaterally in incidents involving Americans
(and Islamic Terrorists)
154*
Iraqis aren't
dying from war.
They are being murdered by
Islamic terrorists.
*Source: IraqBodyCount.net (includes civilians caught in crossfire who may have been killed by the terrorists
Great facts,sassy. No doubts though that these numbers will be shrugged off and the blame for the deaths will be laid at the feet of America. The best reason for executing saddam is that now the sunni's,if they
ever gain power again,cannot put him back into power. For every death attributed to the states there are approx.105 deaths by the nutbars.Once the states pull out these people will be killing each other at an accelerated pace.That may be a good thing.
 

wallyj

just special
May 7, 2006
1,230
21
38
not in Kansas anymore
Juan,I am not doubting your post about the horrors of war,esp. on children. It is sad that saddam did not foresee this when he snubbed his nose at the world. Also ,I never knew that bullets contained uranium. Live and learn.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Since when do the people or the government of the United States decide who's snubbing the world? This hogwash about the necessity of invading Iraq for whatever reason just doesn't stand up....

Is there any doubt that China or the Soviet Union, or Pakistan or any of several other nations have massive nuclear, biological and chemical weapons development industries and programs active for significantly longer than did Iraq (with the help of many other nations including the United States)...and yet enjoy some special characteristic that renders these regimes untouchable by the World Cop?

Sure there is and I'll tell you exactly what that is....

If the keepers of the moral high ground as the Yanks desperately holding onto this myth of urgency and criticality (WE HAD TO INVADE IRAQ BECAUSE ...WELL GOSH...SO VERY MANY REASONS...) would pass themselve's off as....

The U.S. and Britain were able to impose crippling embargoes and sanctions against Iraq and in typical American fashion...flipped on their one-time-ally-when-Iraq-was-waring-with-Iran....managed to position themselves at the disposal of the Kuwaiti regime under the aegis of "protecting"...Kuwait (American oil interests)...move men and materiel into the region and demonstrate America's expertise at slaughter through missile and aircraft barrage... sufficeintly weaken Iraqi defenses and then practice strangling the civilian population to death through "legal" imposition of embargoes and sanctions....

Something that neither Britain nor the United States would entertain as reasonable responses to a whole raft of other nasty evil-doer regimes....but perfectly acceptable when the people you're focused on tenderizing under that big stick philosophy don't have the capacity to hand you your arse....as would the Chinese, the Russians and a few other folk that America is less enthusiastic to clout into "appropriate" behavior.

America could decimate Iraq because it was unable to defend itself. If America really wanted something other than quashing the enemies of Israel and securing a petroleum "foothold" on the world's largest petroleum deposits...they'd have invaded North Korea or maybe Russia....well no...that wouldn't have been too popular at home as the craters cooled...now would it?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
We note data from the FAO showing that more than 560,000 children have already died since the war ended and that the current monthly figure of deaths of small children surpasses 5,000 with another 5,000 for persons over the age of 14.



And where did the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization get this figure? And even if the figure is completely accurate, there were food and medical exemptions in the sanctions......the infamous oil-for-food program, which helped not a bit.

Why?

Because UN officials and Saddam were ripping the program off. Saddam built numerous palaces worth tens of millions of dollars each during this time.

Sorry. I have trouble believing the statistic, and responsibility for any such deaths can be laid neatly at the feet of the late President of Iraq.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
You don't really expect people willing to acknowledge that their electoral system was hijacked and G.W. stole the presidency twice...are prepared to accept responsibility for anything....now do you?

Now, perhaps you would like to explain how GW "stole" the Presidency in 2004?
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
It was Hans Blix who was the chief UN inspector.Thanks LG for not revising history to support an idealogy as is so often done. The fact that WMD's were not found does not excuse saddam's bravado which cost his country dearly. BTW,the number of Iraqi civilians killed by other Iraq's is much larger than those killed by the American troops.Another important fact lost on those who only think with the left side of thier brain.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Published on Saturday, July 20, 2002 in the Boston Globe [/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Is Iraq a True Threat to the US? [/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Scott Ritter[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]RECENT PRESS reports indicate that planning for war against Iraq has advanced significantly. When combined with revelations about the granting of presidential authority to the CIA for covert operations aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein, it appears that the United States is firmly committed to a path that will lead toward war with Iraq. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Prior to this occurring, we would do well to reflect on the words of President Abraham Lincoln who, in his Gettysburg Address, defined the essence of why democracies like ours go to war: so ``... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'' [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Does Iraq truly threaten the existence of our nation? If one takes at face value the rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration, it would seem so. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities that had been eliminated by UN weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998, while at the same time barring the resumption of such inspections. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.) [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld notes that ``the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'' This only reinforces the fact that the case for war against Iraq fails to meet the litmus test for the defense of our national existence so eloquently phrased by President Lincoln. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]War should never be undertaken lightly. Our nation's founders recognized this when they penned our Constitution, giving the authority to declare war to Congress and not to the president. Yet on the issue of war with Iraq, Congress remains disturbingly mute. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Critical hearings should be convened by Congress that will ask the Bush administration tough questions about the true nature of the threat posed to the United States by Iraq. Congress should reject speculation and demand substantive answers. The logical forum for such a hearing would be the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Unfortunately, the senators entrusted with such critical oversight responsibilities shy away from this task. This includes Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran who should understand the realities and consequences of war and the absolute requirement for certainty before committing to a course of conflict. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The apparent unwillingness of Congress to exercise its constitutional mandate of oversight, especially with regard to matters of war, represents a serious blow to American democracy. By allowing the Bush administration, in its rush toward conflict with Iraq, to circumvent the concepts of democratic accountability, Congress is failing those to whom they are ultimately responsible - the American people. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Scott Ritter is author of ``Endgame: Solving the Iraqi Problem Once and For All.'' [/FONT]
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
One thing I'll say about this entire trial/execution thingy......it proves the point that the guys who found his hidey-hole should have just rolled a grenade into it......as they were about to do.

Or, failing that, the US Army should have expressed their great regret at unjustly arresting the President of Iraq and announced publically their intention to immediately release him........at a specific spot and time somewhere in the Kurdish north or the Shia south.

No more President of Iraq.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
One thing I'll say about this entire trial/execution thingy......it proves the point that the guys who found his hidey-hole should have just rolled a grenade into it......as they were about to do.

Or, failing that, the US Army should have expressed their great regret at unjustly arresting the President of Iraq and announced publically their intention to immediately release him........at a specific spot and time somewhere in the Kurdish north or the Shia south.

No more President of Iraq.

My point was Colpy, that the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were B.S. by any standards. Weapons of mass destruction, that could be used within forty minutes, Iraq was a threat to the U.S. and Britain, Saddam was in cahoots with Bin Laden. All these things were proven to be garbage but Bush wanted war and he bombed, and invaded, and bombed somemore. The bombing, along with the sanctions, resulted in the deaths of at least a million Iraqis, including a lot of children. I fail to see where this gives Bush any moral high ground, or any right to execute(read lynch) saddam Hussein. Forcing this stupid war, set modern diplomacy back about fifty years, and the damage to the U.S. abroad, is incalculable.