Day of Infamy

[MikeyDB]

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.

I don't really understand why there seems to be a developing adversarial rapproachment with respect to the criminality of Saddam Husein, I have no doubts of any kind that brutality and murder were part of this individuals "solutions" as the principle head of a nations government. He was a criminal and should have rightly been held accountable for it...That's not the question of this thread as I understand it...

Was there "sufficient" justification for the hundreds of thousands of deaths that developed out of the actions of the United States in unilaterally acting against the Saddam Hussein regime...or weren't there..." is the question I'm addressing here and what I believe this thread to be have as its topical point.

If indeed the commander of a military is responsible for the actions of its troops, and you're recommending that ALL MILITARY COMMANDERS be held accountable for their actions, I support that notion 110%.

If you think there's some reason why Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell, Wolfowitz, Pearle and a whole host of other people directly responsible for the deaths of thouasands on the basis of the explanations provided to the nations of the world...should be exonerated from application of the same standard, we have a problem.

Hardly a suprise when one considers the spirit behind challenging somone threatening the use of firearms in violent protests with ..."good luck with that..." when the more useful and "morally-correct" response is to state unequivocally that the use of firearms for the purpose of rebellion insurection or violent civil disobedience is NOT ACCEPTABE under any circumstances other than personal self-defense PERIOD!

When the decision to shoot someone or terminate another persons life (in the instance of self-preservation) is thrust upon someone, a cavalier attitude regarding the seriousness of the inevitable consequences SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE!!!

Iraq didn't represent an urgent threat to the United States or to anyone else for that matter after Gulf War One.... The evidence collected since the American invasion confirms that the potential for Iraq to deploy WMD's OF ANY KIND was ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE and an INVALID rationale for invading.

TOO LATE for thousands of Americans and Iraqis sacrificed on the altar of support for the Israel and the golden opportunity for certain American business interests to reap a windfall fortune... at the cost of thousands of lives....

I actually agree with your proposal of rolling a grenade into Saddams bunker, save a lot of people a lot of time and money. There's NO QUESTION that the Hussein regime practiced horrendous brutality (by western standards) on Kurds and in fact the people of Iraq....

That said; The United States and the principles involved in prosecuting an invasion on the strength of the "reasons" provided the U.N. and the world at large, doesn't meet the criteria for "justification" in my opinion and in the opinion of several other million people around the world.

There was in FACT no URGENT THREAT, there was in fact a history of passive resistence perhaps but if you're able... compare the resistance to full disclosure exercised by several presidents of the United States who fully supported missile launches and weapons and financial support to revolutionary regimes ALL OVER THE WORLD...and includes lying to the people of America time and time again...

If you're suggesting that simply because this or that president was an AMERICAN...and that alone qualifies he and is subordinates for exemption to a standard of law you're willing to apply to NON-AMERICANS..the problem isn't that you're wrong...

It's that you embrace a double standard.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

I think, in the end, you should all really consider the following statement:

"would the victims of 9/11 wish for two wars. costing hundreds of thousands of lives to carried out in their name"?

I ask you this because, aside from the from assasination of Arche-duke Ferdinand, I'm not aware of so many people having to die because such an initial small number. I really dont care who disagree's with this, but rightly or wrongly, 9/11 is what it all boils down to, it gave free reign for the most dangerous man on the planet to go into the middle east and murder hundreds of thousands.

I think to that they'd cry "not in my name"

 

[L Gilbert]

Actually, the thing in the ME boils down to some things that happened long ago. The Iraqi invasion of Iran being the most recent besides the capture of Soddam Insane.
I agree with you, however. Unfortunately, as good and well-intentioned as the people in a country may be, their gov'ts usually end up at least nullifying that good if not setting it back decades. Something about gov'ts' inhumanity to man.

 

[#juan]

MikeyDB

You have consistantly said what I have been trying to say since I started this thread. Thank you.

Daz_Hockey

You are right Daz, the victims of 9/11 are really the root of this war, or should be, but I don't think Bush even considers that except during photo-ops.

 

[L Gilbert]

lol
I don't think Junior considers much of anything for very long, except perhaps his navel.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

I'm not too sure about how Iraq and Afghanistan can be linked to other parts of History (there's obviously Bush snr and the little fact that Britain controlled both at one time, but that's by the by).

Nope, obviously G W was looking for an excuse to get back at Iraq, and 9/11 gave him the excuse. We should know this. But think about it, all the "traditional" madmen have kept a bit of a low profile lately (ok, North Korea is a bit of a misanoma...but again, does the US do anything about them?...nope, China admittedly is, luckily pee'd with them too). But otherwise, nope.....so come on down Dubya, the price is...*ahem* right..

small mercies really, but I'm glad whoever it was in the that invented the 2 term rule, cus otherwise we could be in for some seious problems long-term,....think about how lucky we are for small mercies.

 

[L Gilbert]

small mercies really, but I'm glad whoever it was in the that invented the 2 term rule, cus otherwise we could be in for some seious problems long-term,....think about how lucky we are for small mercies.

Yeah, I've been thinking that given the duds & culls that the people of Canada seem to like voting in, we should have a 2-term limit, too.

 

[#juan]

One Iraqi point of view.....at least one

[FONT=Verdana,Arial]Posthumous Secrets & Truths. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial]Layla Anwar[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial]...Some of you may get offended that I am lumping IT all together . Americans, Zionists Jews, Sectarian Iranian Shia's and the anti war "left". Am glad, because this is exactly what I am doing. Those of you-whomsoever you are- you have not faced Death face to face or by proxy, and you, who can easily sit and plan, connive, strategize, theorize, analyze, calculate, council, orate or satirize in grave moments of history. In moments when hundreds are dying daily, where life is a thing of the past, when a sovereign country is being raped along with its people ...deserve nothing less than to be lumped together as a fascistic,sadistic,racist, ignorant,despicable,evil lot. What you fail to understand and probably will never understand, being the limited people that you are is that Saddam's Death has ultimately nothing to do with the politician or the persona. Grieving Saddam is grieving a concept, a symbol, a wish, a hope, a vision, a sense of belonging... But since you are so limited in your understanding of anything that goes beyond facts and figures, there is absolutely no point explaining it to you....[/FONT]

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Yeah, I've been thinking that given the duds & culls that the people of Canada seem to like voting in, we should have a 2-term limit, too.

Think urself lucky.....we had Maggie Thatcher's lot for 18 years!!!!!.....and Phoney Toney for 10 so far!!!

 

[I think not]

Was there "sufficient" justification for the hundreds of thousands of deaths that developed out of the actions of the United States in unilaterally acting against the Saddam Hussein regime...or weren't there..." is the question I'm addressing here and what I believe this thread to be have as its topical point.

Well let's analyze your comment. Was there "sufficient" justification to invade Iraq? I would say its a matter of perspective. Do you live in Kuwait or Iran? Both of which got a "glimpse" of Saddam Husseins intentions in the Middle East. First it was Iran with hundreds of thousands dead and not a peep from anybody. Kuwait was next on the line, with pot shots fired at Israel hoping to drag the entire Middle East into war. Are you Kurdish? Is your family still alive?

Was he contained after Gulf War I? I would say so. Who paid to contain him though? Canada? France? Germany? The UN? Nope, the US and the UK after a UN resolution. It was to be forgotten in the annals of diplomacy much like the DMZ between North and South Korea. Let the suckers (the Americans) pay for it with their tax dollars, so long as we "appear" morally correct in forking over money so the leftists can forget about it and focus their attention on something else.

So, the US and UK were paying to keep Saddam Hussein "contained". OK, for how long was this going to go on? I want an answer. How long does it take before one country's citizens pay to keep a dictator in check?

Hardly a suprise when one considers the spirit behind challenging somone threatening the use of firearms in violent protests with ..."good luck with that..." when the more useful and "morally-correct" response is to state unequivocally that the use of firearms for the purpose of rebellion insurection or violent civil disobedience is NOT ACCEPTABE under any circumstances other than personal self-defense PERIOD

Really? So North Koreans should shut up, keep their heads down and not revolt? How pathetic.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

Do you live in Kuwait or Iran? Both of which got a "glimpse" of Saddam Husseins intentions in the Middle East.

I would say that I think the israelis and the rest of the middle east is getting a "glimpse" of Iran's nuclear intentions at the moment old fella. While I agree, both the US and the UK were paying for Saddam to be "contained" (I hate this new keyboard default setting where my speechmarks are @ signs!!!! arghh!!)...how many troops were we losing for this to happen?...I'd pay the money before losing young men and women.

Saddam knew his days were numbered, he obviously saw what Iran was on the verge of trying to do, what with syria, he could have actually, like the early 80's been a good tool actually....and besides, when did murdering millions ever stop the west from siding with someone, or turning away if it suited them?.

This isn't about who or how many he murdered..............if only it was.

 

[#juan]

Well let's analyze your comment. Was there "sufficient" justification to invade Iraq? I would say its a matter of perspective. Do you live in Kuwait or Iran? Both of which got a "glimpse" of Saddam Husseins intentions in the Middle East. First it was Iran with hundreds of thousands dead and not a peep from anybody. Kuwait was next on the line, with pot shots fired at Israel hoping to drag the entire Middle East into war. Are you Kurdish? Is your family still alive?

Was he contained after Gulf War I? I would say so. Who paid to contain him though? Canada? France? Germany? The UN? Nope, the US and the UK after a UN resolution. It was to be forgotten in the annals of diplomacy much like the DMZ between North and South Korea. Let the suckers (the Americans) pay for it with their tax dollars, so long as we "appear" morally correct in forking over money so the leftists can forget about it and focus their attention on something else.

So, the US and UK were paying to keep Saddam Hussein "contained". OK, for how long was this going to go on? I want an answer. How long does it take before one country's citizens pay to keep a dictator in check?

No American likes to tell the whole story about Kuwait. Their collective memory cuts off just before the Iraq invasion of that country.....Never any word about the slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields.....Never a word about the tacit approval given by the American embassador to Hussein regarding his proposed invasion of Kuwait.

Saddam Hussein did attack Iran.....but with full approval and assistance of the U,S. at the time. However many Iranians were killed in that war, the U.S. must bear some of the responsibility.

Containing Saddam? The U.S. and the UK spent the twelve years between the two wars bombing the $hit out of the infrastructure of every major city in Iraq. That "extra" bombing, plus the brutal sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, ....mainly children.

There was no high minded honour in the invasion of Iraq. The very first bldg. the Americans put guards around was the Oil Ministry. Hospitals were left to be looted.

I am not defending saddam Hussein. Hussein deserved to die for all the killing he ordered, just as much as the American president who ordered the bombing of VietNam, Laos, and Cambodia that killed several million civilians...........or is there a double standard I don't know about?

 

[I think not]

No American likes to tell the whole story about Kuwait. Their collective memory cuts off just before the Iraq invasion of that country.....Never any word about the slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields.....Never a word about the tacit approval given by the American embassador to Hussein regarding his proposed invasion of Kuwait.

If there has been anyone on these forums that swallow the bull**** online hook line and sinker, it has to be you. Slant drilling? A statement made by Saddam Hussein. Could it be instead the billions of dollars owed to Kuwait to fund the Iran Iraq war by Iraq and Hussein refused to pay? Nah, it's slant drilling, because Saddam Hussein said so!

Another buzz word American haters like to use is none other than "tacit", which virtually means $hit proof and 100% bull$****.

Saddam Hussein did attack Iran.....but with full approval and assistance of the U,S. at the time. However many Iranians were killed in that war, the U.S. must bear some of the responsibility.

Iraq was funded 100% by Kuwait during the Iran Iraq War. When Kuwait didn't bend on the repayment, guess what happened next? Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Containing Saddam? The U.S. and the UK spent the twelve years between the two wars bombing the $hit out of the infrastructure of every major city in Iraq. That "extra" bombing, plus the brutal sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, ....mainly children.

The US and UK spent billions containing Hussein while your bloated medicare system moved on without a screach because you didn't have to pay for anything. You wanna talk? Put your money here your mouth is.

There was no high minded honour in the invasion of Iraq. The very first bldg. the Americans put guards around was the Oil Ministry. Hospitals were left to be looted.

Were you there? Or is it something you read online? Just curious. Is this going to be another OIL war? Because I'm still waiting for the information who is profiting from all this oil export.

I am not defending saddam Hussein. Hussein deserved to die for all the killing he ordered, just as much as the American president who ordered the bombing of VietNam, Laos, and Cambodia that killed several million civilians...........or is there a double standard I don't know about?

Yeah there is, American haters are pros at double standards. It's the evil empire that killed millions, not the communist regimes. No no, it's ALWAYS America.

 

[MikeyDB]

ITN

Who do you suppose makes sure that the people of Canada, United States, England, Germany and every other developed nation recieve coverage of "news" both national and international....

You know ITN

And you know that it only takes about two hours to complete a decent research effort in the attempt to differentiate between... as the New York times declares itself..."All the News that's fit to Print", (produced under the cultured guidance of various administrations since the end of WW II) and sources free to publish a great deal more than the average American or the Average Canadian-- television or print-media consumer will ever gulp down from "domestic" sources...

I believe that you've made your 'position' vis a vis George Bush ..as President of the United States of America abundantly clear and I salute you for the courage to acknowledge that this poor sap couldn't run a gas station never mind the most powerful nation on earth...

Is it so completely unimaginable to you though as a precept of law;that Presidents ought to be held accountable?
Did or do you feel that the handling of Nixon or Reagan or Johnson and a few other guys in Emerald City behind the curtain, guilty as any common criminal of petty misjudgments...but simultaneously guilty of crimes which resulted in the deaths of millions of people...?

I understand your patriotism and your love of country can't simply be "set-aside" when involved in a question of this nature, but try to be as objective as possible and assess whether the involvement of American governments (administrations) which can be examined in reasonably fine detail, where millions have been killed and where urban centers and agricultural resources have been utterly and completely destroyed invites horror anger and resentment against America?

I think not isn't refutation of a Cartesian principle...it's a choice.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

that's a shockingly elequent tirade there Mikey, one that I simply havent had the language to be able to muster, er, ever. I whole-heartedly agree with you completly.








oh except for the center spelling

 

[Curiosity]

Gee Juan - I guess you forgot Kofe's little trade off ..... or was that not important in your yet another anti-American flamer?

Must admit you are doing better being able to hold off your vitriolic tirades spaced farther apart these days.

No doubt it irritates you terribly that nothing you write will change the outcome of things in any way.

I guess Shakespeare covered it: Much Ado About Nothing

 

[#juan]

Well curio,

If all you saw was anti-Americanism, you really have to get out more. When arguably, the most powerful nation on Earth tells the world that Iraq has WMD that can be deployed in forty minutes, and that Iraq is a deadly threat to the U.S., and further claims that Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, is in cahoots with Bin Laden, and after the invasion, all of these stories are proven to be nonsense, Did the U.S. have the right to lynch Hussein? Most people in the world don't think so. That was the topic and most were able to see that.

 

[I think not]

Well curio,

If all you saw was anti-Americanism, you really have to get out more. When arguably, the most powerful nation on Earth tells the world that Iraq has WMD that can be deployed in forty minutes, and that Iraq is a deadly threat to the U.S., and further claims that Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, is in cahoots with Bin Laden, and after the invasion, all of these stories are proven to be nonsense, Did the U.S. have the right to lynch Hussein? Most people in the world don't think so. That was the topic and most were able to see that.

That's interesting, I thought it was the Iraqi courts that did that.

 

[CDNBear]

That's interesting, I thought it was the Iraqi courts that did that.

I've been trying to stay impartial here and just read along, taking in the various facts. I asked for a link to another of juan's 'claims', with no response, I was just debating asking for a link to some proof of that very statement.

 

[Zzarchov]

I think the US had the DUTY to lynch Saddam. I think you did too Juan, I think we all did.

How much do we shout "never again" in regards to genocide, but here Saddam is..an architect of Genocide..and you say "Well maybe this time".

No, what happened needed to.