We Got Him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[justacruiser]

"Good old WMD's - they're the boys that began the war, with the American government stating they knew Saddam had WMD's and the British government blindly agreeing with that puppet Bush. So, they went to war, because Saddam had WMD's and they knew this. Strange then how no WMD's have been found. Bush and Blair - the LIARS !."

Now, Saddam DID gas a lot of Kurds didn't he? He WAS building nuclear power plants sold to him by the French until Israel blew them up wasn't he? Now, I just MIGHT be mistaken here, but doesn't any type of poisenous gas count as a WMD? If he was building nuclear power plants, didn't that mean he had access or could get access to Uranium? Just because they haven't found them doesn't mean a damn thing, they could still be there, they might not be there anymore, but they WERE there at one time, so it stands to logic that he could have gotten a hold of them again. 'Puppet Bush?' I believe YOUR prime minister was the one who followed Bush against your government and peoples wishes. Sounds a bit more 'puppetish' to me. Even if they're stupid ones, Bush makes his own decisions. As for them being liars, hell, they went there for a ton of reasons, I know they don't give half a shit about 'Iraqi freedom', but they do care about:

a. Iraqi oil, (which was why France didn't want us to go there, they were getting Iraqi oil until we took it), the lifeblood of America. Without it, this country starves. We need it, they have it.

b. To remove an unpredictable threat, (if not militarily then monetarily by supplying terrorist factions with loot).
and
c. To position foriegn, especially American, military forces in prime Mid East real estate for telling the other Arab countries to shut the fuck up when they get restless.

There's probably more reasons that I can't think of at the moment. 'WMD's were a tool to get what they wanted, but a viable one nonetheless. Now, the real question is, was that a profitable move on Americas part? It's costing us a huge fortune over there in lives and money. To a lesser extent, because we really shouldn't give a shit, we've also gotten the rest of the world riled up against America, which was happening bit by bit anyways, this war just accelerated it a lot. Now we wait and see if everything goes as planned by the cronies over in Iraq, or if this turns into another fiasco that makes another enemy over in the middle east that we have to deal with.

[taranaki]

How exactly do you prove that something doesn't exist?

Bush was onto a winner with that one.Even when the U.N. weapons inspectors told him that they had found no evidence,the crafty old redneck still managed to convinceAmerica that they were still there.Now before Yogs chimes in with his entirely predictable diatribe against the U.N. and their weapons inspectors in particular,can I just poit out that the U.S.Army has spent millions more man hours in Iraq than the UN inspectors did,and still haven't found these fairytale weapons.....

[DGB454]

Originally Posted by Cbass

Ah, but you imply you WILL defend Israel, even though they are guilty of the same crimes you accuse Hussein of?

Care to know what the current list of UN condemnation and actions against the state of Israel stands at?

Oh, and something that occurred to me... How many stunt doubles did Hussein have?

Isreal is guilty of the same crimes as Sadaam? You can't possibly believe that. Do you understand the reason they are putting up that wall? It's because terrorist from palastine continue to kill their innocent citizens.
I don't condone everything Israel does but I understand their reasoning behind it. They have enimies all around them and they feel the need to protect their people. I see nothing wrong with wanting to protect your people.
You seem to side with Sadaam and others like him so let me ask you this. Why does the Arab world hate Israel so much? Because they aren't Arab?
Because they aren't muslim? I really don't see why the 2 groups can't just live in peace with each other can you?

[CeeJay]

Originally Posted by justacruiser

Now, Saddam DID gas a lot of Kurds didn't he? He WAS building nuclear power plants sold to him by the French until Israel blew them up wasn't he? Now, I just MIGHT be mistaken here, but doesn't any type of poisenous gas count as a WMD? If he was building nuclear power plants, didn't that mean he had access or could get access to Uranium? Just because they haven't found them doesn't mean a damn thing,

It actually does mean a "damn thing" - it means that WMD's aren't there, and that the war was illegal.

they could still be there,

And so could Father Christmas still be living in the north pole and getting ready for Christmas day.

they might not be there anymore,

That's more like it.

but they WERE there at one time,

Hitler was in Germany at one time - sall we go and kill all Germans because he was there ?.

so it stands to logic that he could have gotten a hold of them again.

That's just lame - you don't start wars based on looking into a crystal ball and deciding you can prdict the future.

'Puppet Bush?' I believe YOUR prime minister was the one who followed Bush against your government and peoples wishes.

Correct - Blair did jump in the pocket of that madman Bush.

Sounds a bit more 'puppetish' to me. Even if they're stupid ones, Bush makes his own decisions.

Don't make me laugh !. Bush is on a power-trip.

As for them being liars, hell, they went there for a ton of reasons,

They "went there" because they said they had proof that Saddam had WMD's, and on that basis was a threat to the staibility of the region and the world in general.

I know they don't give half a shit about 'Iraqi freedom',

Of course they don't "give a shit about Iraqi freedom" 0 if they gave a shit there are many other countries in the world where human rights abuses are going on, and poverty/sub-standard living wthin societies could be alleviated or remedied by outside, western world participation/intervention.

but they do care about:

a. Iraqi oil, (which was why France didn't want us to go there, they were getting Iraqi oil until we took it), the lifeblood of America. Without it, this country starves. We need it, they have it.

An extremely selfish reason to wage war. Remind me who was the evil dictator ?. Saddam or Bush ?.

b. To remove an unpredictable threat, (if not militarily then monetarily by supplying terrorist factions with loot).

Unpredictable threats exist all around the world. If America wasn't so scared it wouldn't have to shoot off its mouth and its weapons.

and
c. To position foriegn, especially American, military forces in prime Mid East real estate for telling the other Arab countries to shut the fuck up when they get restless.

Well, you've really fallen for what Bush has told you haven't you. Remember WMD's ?.

There's probably more reasons that I can't think of at the moment. 'WMD's were a tool to get what they wanted, but a viable one nonetheless.

That is a STUPID statement to make.

Now, the real question is, was that a profitable move on Americas part?

People have been and are still getting killed, and you concern yourself with profit. That's real funny.

It's costing us a huge fortune over there in lives and money.

You selfish bastard !. What about the thousands of innocent Iraqi lives that have been lost ?. Not every Iraqi was in the military and founght for Saddam, and many were civilians were caugt up in this illegal war.

To a lesser extent, because we really shouldn't give a shit,

You quite obviously don't give a shit.

we've also gotten the rest of the world riled up against America, which was happening bit by bit anyways, this war just accelerated it a lot.

True.

Now we wait and see if everything goes as planned by the cronies over in Iraq, or if this turns into another fiasco that makes another enemy over in the middle east that we have to deal with.

If you do make more enemies over there, Bush will just send in the heavy bombs and wipe out anything that gets in his way, so don't worry about it. Of course, this may not happen if someone with a brain becomes president of the USA, and thinks instead of just getting on the phone to the military. You people need to stop playing cowboys and indians, and do away with your rights to bear arms and to arm bears.

[texan]

Originally Posted by Ludelover

If you show me the difference between the turkish government searching out terrorist groups (Kurds) doing terrorist acts in the country of Turkey and persecuting them, and the US flying halfway across the world and invading another country that 'supposedly' harbours terrorists and WMD, PLEASE DO!(I am not talking about kurds and saddam in iraq, i am talking about kurds in Turkey. I made my original statement because you were drawing a similarity between the two, when they are 2 different situations).
And as a matter of fact, palestinian's are 'accidentily' killed in Isreal all the time. What is your point?
And please, if you are going to post pics to show kurdish death, post some of some innocent turks who die by kurdish hand...oh sorry, you can't because the kurdish bombs usually dismember them beyond identification.

Do you all think terrorism began on Sept 11? It has been happening or many, many years, but for some reason when a foreign country tries to defend themselves as the USA has done in post 9/11, they are labelled mass murders. Sorry friend, Turkey deserves to defend themselves against terrorism just as much as the US.
I guess Turkey could just capture alleged terrosists, jail them indefinetly without legal council, no questions asked. Hmmm...that sounds fair, huh?

Hold on a sec and read my two posts on the matter again. I brought up how Saddam had killed many thousands of Kurds (since Cbass had evidently forgotten about that), and you replied with "So yeah, they deserve to be persecuted". To which I replied that if you were trying to make excuses for Saddam, you can just quit now.

I said nothing of Turkey or it's right to defend itself against Kurdish terrorists. I said nothing about anything you are commenting on in your retort to me, I wasn't trying to draw similarities or differences between Iraq and the US or anything like that. I simply provided evidence of hundreds of thousands of murders commited by and for Saddam Hussein, to which you launched into a tirade about Turkey's problems with Kurdish terrorism. That's fine, go Turkey, but leave that argument outside of this one.

[texan]

Originally Posted by Cbass

Emphasis on evidence and hundreds of thousands

As for the sanctions, were they imposed by Saddam Hussein? No, they were strongarmed through the UN by the US, who then made them impossible to lift... The burden of proof was on Saddam to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapons did not exist. If you read the reports from Butler's inspectors, Iraq disposed of vast quantities of weapons under their watchful eyes. Of course, it's very easy to make baseless claims about weapons of mass destruction and use them to further your agenda, Bush has proved that very well. Butler pulled the inspectors out voluntarily, despite claims of the US propaganda machine that they were ejected, then went before congress beating war drums. That man wanted a war, fortunately for everyone involved, Clinton didn't, and neither did Congress... Somehow, they thought it would be a massive waste of money and human life... Meanwhile, the US kept bombing the shite out of Iraq...

Ok, say it with me now Cbass.... hundres of thousands! How many people died as a direct result of Hussein's invasion and resulting 8 year war with Iran? How many people died as a direct result of Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and subsequent refusal to withdraw from the area? How many people died because Hussein turned Iraq into a police state that tortured and executed it's civilian population as he saw fit? How many Kurds and Shiites died as a result of him putting down rebelions that only occured because of his murderous tactics?

If that doesn't reach up into the millions, I don't know what does. This is what the dictator Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for, and he will have to answer to those charges (which have lots of evidence to support them, such as pictures, video, eye witnesses, historical fact... etc.). All I'm asking here is that you choose to join the rest of us in the reality of today and admit there is ample and persuasive evidence that Hussein is in fact a mass murderer.

Hell taranaki and I don't agree on much of anything concerning Iraq (though my feelings have wandered a lot more towards his viewpoint in the last few months), and I'll be willing to bet he isn't deluded enough to state that there's no evidence Saddam isn't a mass murderer.


And as for the sanctions and ensuing twelve years, I challenge you to give me a factual timeline for how Saddam Hussein's Iraq followed them to reasonable expectation of the UNSCOM (which is not the US) or simply the terms to which he agreed. The sanctions were originally levied against Iraq before the Gulf War ever started in effort to get Hussein to peacefully withdraw from Kuwait... and they were supported by every nation in the security council. So too was the broadening of the sanctions to try and take the deadliest teeth out of the Iraqi military, since they had shown the willingness to attack four different nations in the region with it's weaponry in a ten year period. In point of fact Hussein violated the UN sanctions on at least 5 seperate occasions that I can think of off the top of my head, and the UN responded by creating the oil for food program that finally (after a few years of Hussein's refusal) went into place to allieve some of the hardships created by the sanctions... which were levied by the UN (which is not the US) under the agreement of many countries only AFTER Hussein attacked Kuwait. Starting to follow the logic here?

Now I wasn't and will never be a fan of sanctions, as I haven't seen one instance i history where they really worked as designed. The truth is that if you start a war it has to be finished, and one side has to completely lose. Otherwise you end up with Gulf War 2, World War 2, and situations like that on the Korean peninsula. But if you're going to place blame for the sanctions continued presence in the region, first blame the guy who wouldn't follow them... then move on to the FIFTEEN nations on the security council. Ignoring all that and instead pointing the finger directly and only at the US is to ignore reality and revise historical fact. And I HATE revisionist history, you can't learn from past mistakes if you aren't willing to look at them honestly.

[justacruiser]

"It actually does mean a "damn thing" - it means that WMD's aren't there, and that the war was illegal."

Prove that they AREN'T there. Now, the burden of proof is on us and we haven't found them, but there is still a possibility, don't forget just how much empty land Iraq has that could have something hidden in it. As for 'this war was illegal', what, asking your country or the UN's permission would have made it legal? Since when the hell is any war legal? Is there some sort of permit for it? That got me laughing pretty good.

"Hitler was in Germany at one time - sall we go and kill all Germans because he was there ?."

Lets plant Hitlers clone in one city, and a nuke in another, then see which one causes more damage.

"That's just lame - you don't start wars based on looking into a crystal ball and deciding you can prdict the future."

No you don't do you. You can't predict the future, which is why you have to act in the present if you see a problem. 'Prevention is the key'.

"Don't make me laugh !. Bush is on a power-trip."

If he's on a power trip then he's obviously giving orders. Now, I know many people seem to think he MUST be taking orders from Satan himself because he's obviously not listening to the UN, but I think he's making his own decisions. Be they dumb or not.

"They "went there" because they said they had proof that Saddam had WMD's, and on that basis was a threat to the staibility of the region and the world in general."

So you 'believe' what they say? That the only thing they went there for is the WMDs?

"Of course they don't "give a shit about Iraqi freedom"

Duh

"if they gave a shit there are many other countries in the world where human rights abuses are going on, and poverty/sub-standard living wthin societies could be alleviated or remedied by outside, western world participation/intervention."

translation- "where western countries(the US) could gladly give up their money to the poor people of the world and we could all live happily ever after!"

"An extremely selfish reason to wage war. Remind me who was the evil dictator ?. Saddam or Bush ?."

I hate oil companies. They've held the world back with their monopolies for a long time now and keep doing it at every turn. I don't see Bush killing American people for disagreeing with him and putting hits out on people like you for bad mouthing him.

"Unpredictable threats exist all around the world. If America wasn't so scared it wouldn't have to shoot off its mouth and its weapons."

This was the threat they could deal with the easiest and quiet the other threats down. When YOUR country was on the top, it had to do some pretty bad things to stay on top, now didn't it?

"Well, you've really fallen for what Bush has told you haven't you. Remember WMD's ?."

Since when has Bush given military emplacement as a reason for us being there? WMDs were his crutch, this was a background reason. You're the one that believes WMDs were the only reason for going there. I'm just stating the probable reasons they haven't said for going there.

"That is a STUPID statement to make."

Opinions are like assholes, you have one too, it smells just as bad, especially since you aren't thinking. Let me explain it for you, hopefully you’ll understand. WMDs were a TOOL, (as in something to get leverage by), used by the government to get what it wanted, but it was a TOOL that happened to be a real possibility, or why would your country have agreed to help? Profit maybe?

"People have been and are still getting killed, and you concern yourself with profit. That's real funny."

To guess what someone’s doing, you must try to think of his motives. Why else would America spend lives and Billions of dollars to go to Iraq? We wouldn't do it unless we got something out of it. It obviously hasn't won us any friends, so that’s out. It removes threats, that’s a plus, gives us cheap oil, that’s a plus, gives us access to land to put military units on for pacification of the region, a major plus. I assume the administration also knew of the downsides, but figured the good outweighed the bad. We'll see.

"You selfish bastard !. What about the thousands of innocent Iraqi lives that have been lost ?. Not every Iraqi was in the military and founght for Saddam, and many were civilians were caugt up in this illegal war."

Did you read this from a magazine? Sounds like what every other liberal spews... I'm not being selfish, have I said that I agree with any of this? Or are you assuming that I'm just a typical 'ugly American'? Try to use the brain more than the mouth, the mouth is usually less accurate. I'm stating what I think are the motives are for America doing all of this.

"You quite obviously don't give a shit."

Sure don't. You know, when I wrote that, the response I pictured in my head is almost word for word what you put. No country should give a shit about what other countries think of them, America is no exception.

"If you do make more enemies over there, Bush will just send in the heavy bombs and wipe out anything that gets in his way, so don't worry about it."

The political ramifications of using Nukes would be a bit steep for any president. Even on 9/11, instead of launching Minutemen, they started trying to figure out who did it so they could use conventional ordinance on them.

"Of course, this may not happen if someone with a brain becomes president of the USA"

Don’t count on it. World leaders seem to be akin to a mentally challenged classroom.

"You people need to stop playing cowboys and indians, and do away with your rights to bear arms and to arm bears."

Typical European. Why should we give up our arms? So we could end up with an even higher crime rate? Like you? I'll keep my guns thank you.

[2strokebloke]

The whole war was a sham. It was stupid right from the start. There are other dictators, who have killed as many, if not more people - and we didn't do anything to them. Why did we start now? Did we do it just because it was a nice thing to do? (short answer: NO!) Are we going to take care of the other countries now?
What did we do about the mass murders in Guatemala? or Cambodia?(Pol Pot could almost manage to make Saddam look like "just" ruler! - if anything you could say that the U.S. helped him get his power.)
Something tells me that more was at work, other than Bush thinking Saddam was a big meany, who has magical, invisible WMDs.

[texan]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

The whole war was a sham. It was stupid right from the start. There are other dictators, who have killed as many, if not more people - and we didn't do anything to them. Why did we start now? Did we do it just because it was a nice thing to do? (short answer: NO!) Are we going to take care of the other countries now?
What did we do about the mass murders in Guatemala? or Cambodia?(Pol Pot could almost manage to make Saddam look like "just" ruler! - if anything you could say that the U.S. helped him get his power.)
Something tells me that more was at work, other than Bush thinking Saddam was a big meany, who has magical, invisible WMDs.

And of course that is all true. Though oversimplifying the political reasons why any country does or doesn't go to war, nothing you've said isn't true. The only point of contention I have is that any war is ever prosecuted without these same intentions in mind, whether it be the US or any other country doing the fighting.

[Cbass]

Originally Posted by texan

Ok, say it with me now Cbass.... hundres of thousands! How many people died as a direct result of Hussein's invasion and resulting 8 year war with Iran? How many people died as a direct result of Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and subsequent refusal to withdraw from the area? How many people died because Hussein turned Iraq into a police state that tortured and executed it's civilian population as he saw fit? How many Kurds and Shiites died as a result of him putting down rebelions that only occured because of his murderous tactics?

I assume the questions here are rhetorical, and you're dodging the evidence part... What you have here are facts, yes, these things did happen. What you don't have here is anything to validate the claim that he "murdered hundreds of thousands". Putting down violent rebellions does not constitute murder, it's what dictators do when a rebellion fails. Invading another country does not constitute murder either, if it did, Bush could be tried for murder, and probably get the death sentence, given how many have died by the stroke of his pen.

Originally Posted by texan

If that doesn't reach up into the millions, I don't know what does. This is what the dictator Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for, and he will have to answer to those charges (which have lots of evidence to support them, such as pictures, video, eye witnesses, historical fact... etc.). All I'm asking here is that you choose to join the rest of us in the reality of today and admit there is ample and persuasive evidence that Hussein is in fact a mass murderer.

Now you extend your claim to millions, and still offer nothing that can give any credence to these claims. I never said Hussein is not a mass murder, I simply stated that I had never seen any evidence, or even estimates based on evidence, to support the claims made by the Bush administration, through proxy of Fox news.

Originally Posted by texan

Hell taranaki and I don't agree on much of anything concerning Iraq (though my feelings have wandered a lot more towards his viewpoint in the last few months), and I'll be willing to bet he isn't deluded enough to state that there's no evidence Saddam isn't a mass murderer.

Did I ever once state that Hussein was not a mass murderer?

Originally Posted by texan

And as for the sanctions and ensuing twelve years, I challenge you to give me a factual timeline for how Saddam Hussein's Iraq followed them to reasonable expectation of the UNSCOM (which is not the US) or simply the terms to which he agreed. The sanctions were originally levied against Iraq before the Gulf War ever started in effort to get Hussein to peacefully withdraw from Kuwait... and they were supported by every nation in the security council. So too was the broadening of the sanctions to try and take the deadliest teeth out of the Iraqi military, since they had shown the willingness to attack four different nations in the region with it's weaponry in a ten year period. In point of fact Hussein violated the UN sanctions on at least 5 seperate occasions that I can think of off the top of my head, and the UN responded by creating the oil for food program that finally (after a few years of Hussein's refusal) went into place to allieve some of the hardships created by the sanctions... which were levied by the UN (which is not the US) under the agreement of many countries only AFTER Hussein attacked Kuwait. Starting to follow the logic here?

Those sanctions were imposed in a way that made them nearly impossible to lift. The UNSCOM was used by the CIA and Mossad to spy on Iraq, Hussein knew this, Clinton knew this. I can find the documents on the UN website if you'd like, describing the cooperation of the Iraqis and the destruction of their weapons... The only real issue was the anthrax, which was not verified destroyed by the UNSCOM team, but Hussein later claimed to have destroyed. It hasn't been found, despite US assurances that they knew exactly where it was.

Those sanctions were proposed by the US, and every effort to end them or even to alter them for humanitarian reasons was shot down by the US, with the support of, to my shock and amazement, Britain! In 1990, the most powerful countries in the UN were the US and Britain.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...n/theindex.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...1/0806merp.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...n/indexone.htm

Originally Posted by texan

Ignoring all that and instead pointing the finger directly and only at the US is to ignore reality and revise historical fact. And I HATE revisionist history, you can't learn from past mistakes if you aren't willing to look at them honestly.

It's not just the US, don't forget Britain had an active hand in all of this since the beginning.

History is relative to your culture, don't forget. I'm sure there is very different history regarding WW2 from the German perspective than there is from the US perspective.

It's quite evident that there is going to be very different history on Iraq in the US and in France. Many claims Bush made will become history in the US, while to foreigner, they would be considered outright lies. The official line becomes history. History tells us that the US never mined Nicaraguan harbours, but it happened anyways...