up to 61,000 iraqis killed by Saddam's goverment

[djk]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8110691%5E1702,00.html

But you know, Bush is more evil, after all, his record for this type of stuff can beat this hands down.

Cheers,

-djk

 

[*d*]

Also take note that after the 1991 Gulf War, Bush Sr. called for the people of Iraq to rebel against Saddam. That rebellion cost over 60000 Shiite lives because the US failed to carry through with support.

 

[onthebottom]

Did

Also take note that after the 1991 Gulf War, Bush Sr. called for the people of Iraq to rebel against Saddam. That rebellion cost over 60000 Shiite lives because the US failed to carry through with support.

the US kill them or Sadam? We should have never left them hanging.

OTB

 

[Don]

Yes, the US should have never left them hanging. The US failure to carry through with the support was among the biggest of the mistakes with the first war. They should have finished the deal in '91. If they did, then this mess right now may have never happened.

Too bad Bush Sr. and his administration caved in to the screaming liberals who wanted to end the war ASAP.

 

[onthebottom]

They're

Yes, the US should have never left them hanging. The US failure to carry through with the support was among the biggest of the mistakes with the first war. They should have finished the deal in '91. If they did, then this mess right now may have never happened.

Too bad Bush Sr. and his administration caved in to the screaming liberals who wanted to end the war ASAP.

on this board!

OTB

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

Be Careful what you whine for...

It is much worse than 61,000. There have been 240 mass grave sites uncovered containing well over 300,000 bodies.

Bush Sr. acted honorably, deferring to the wishes of the UN to stop what could have been a march to Baghdad. The same people on this thread lambasting the US action or lack thereof were the ones screaming about the "massacre" once they saw the devastation on the "highway of death". Bush listened to the UN, a decision which I for one am glad that he made, yet he is now lambasted by these silly anti-US cretins presenting a distortion of the facts. The fact is there is no credible evidence that the US ever assisted Saddam Hussein to obtain WMD...none..zip..nada. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the sources were France, Germany and Russia yet I never hear a single one of you whiners with anything to say about that. Gas weapons were present in Iraq in the early 80's, long before the US had any contact whatsover with the Iraqis.

The very real and very practical reason we didn't follow through to assist the Kurds and Shites was the concern for the stability of the region. Had we assisted the Kurds and Shias in overthrowing Saddam, the result would have been general civil war unless we were prepared to occupy the country. Shias likely would have joined forces with their cousins in Iran and return the country to Islamic fundamentalism. The Kurds would sue for independence, causing confrontation with Turkey. Real Republicans (as opposed to the renegades now in the White House) aren't nation builders. George Bush Srs. conservative advisors told him to avoid nation building at all costs. You can bet the New Century Cabal was salavating at an opportunity to control Iraq. They presented Bush Sr. with that "preemptive strategy" paper. Thankfully, unlike his son, he wasn't gullible enough to bite. What makes any of you think the UN would have provided an cover mandate to go to Baghdad, had we ignored their initial mandate for a coalition that was limited to removing Saddam from Kuwait? In addition the Soviet empire was just collapsing and there was absolutely no way of contemplating what the Russian response would have been to hostile action on Iraqi soil, a country in which they had some 9 billion dollars invested in weapons techology and nuclear assistance. That same thing is true with the French and Germans, just as it is today. It is the financial commitment and not the "humanitarian" concern of France, Russia or Germany that prompts their objections to our occupation.

And finally, once the Gulf 1 armistice was signed, everybody except the US and Great Britain went home as if the problem was solved. Not that anybody else was ever there...but what few troops and equipment was there went home after the ticker tape parade. So for 10 years the problem of keeping that region stable has been the headache of the US and Great Britain. The UN was useless in enforcing the terms of surrender. In order to guarantee inspection compliance, time and time again, US military action was either threatened or invoked. The US provided no fly zone enforcement, WITHOUT UN approval, to protect the shias and Kurds. The UN was not responsible for containing anything or guaranteeing the safety of Iraqis. The US and Great Britain were doing the heavy lifting. The rest of the UN coalition not only abadoned their responsibility, they sought and implemented lucrative trade deals with Saddam, while the US and GB were blamed for the suffering and starvation conveniently blamed on their insistence on the strict enforcement of embargos under the oil for food program. You see, as long as Saddam Hussein was still in charge, there was no hope for the country. And you have to be sufferring from dementia to believe otherwise. Something I would consider, however, is that the reason the region ever had even metastable equilibrium was that Saddam represented offsetting force against Islamic fundementalism. He was the "terror" glue that kept Iraq from breakup and from erupting in all out civil war.

cont to 2..
EBS

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

About the insidious anti US whining..part 2..

Any reasonable person might debate the timing of the Iraq invasion and it's relevance to the war on terror. Now that Bush has ran out of WMD excuses and we realize there was no eminent threat, he has quickly shifted to the liberation, humanitarian, and altruistic aspects of the occupation...something totally out of character for a man who ran on a "no nation building" promise. It is clear there was no eminent threat to the security of the US, nor to the neighbors in the region, so one can only conclude that the real reasons for this invasion were hidden under the premise of being important to fighting terrorism...hehe..and that doesn't pass the smell or laugh test. It did pass the gullibility test with flying colors as the US population was righteously transformed to paranoia after 9/11. To be clear the invasion and occupation is clearly about geopolitical control of the region and the unconditional and miguided support of Israel, who are the true beneficiaries. Only a fool would say an invasion was not eventually necessary. But in the context of fighting the war on terrorism, the timing just isn't credible given the unfinished business in Afghanistan, where we still have most of the country in the hands of war lords and a reconstituted Taliban.

EBS

 

[Goober Mcfly]

Yay! Another Iraq thread!

 

[booboobear]

.

Muslims are just like you and I, they don’t hate freedom and certainly are not crazy enough to sacrifice their lives just because someone else has freedom, unless their livelihood and welfare are been severely jeopardized by others.

I agree that there are many peace loving muslims .

There is a large group of muslims however that preach hatred
toward western ways. In civilzed society we would not torture or kill women for not dressing a certain way. Children are routinely taught to hate americans at an early age by extremist leaders
who have there own agendas.

You can't say these people are just like us. The only reason the extremists can convince people to blow theselves up is because they are uneducated and brain washed from an early age.

The better educated muslims in Canada came here to lead normal lives. I agree with you that the U.S. is backing the Israelis on this
and other issues but blowing up innocent people in the towers or children on airlines is not the answer.

 

[jwmorrice]

Motivations of Suicide Bombers

You can't say these people are just like us. The only reason the extremists can convince people to blow theselves up is because they are uneducated and brain washed from an early age.

Things don't appear to be so simple. Take a look at this article from the World Tribune: http://216.26.163.62/2003/me_palestinians_11_13.html And here's another interesting take on the motivations of suicide bombers: http://www.counterpunch.org/gould11282003.html

jwm

 

[jwmorrice]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8110691%5E1702,00.html

But you know, Bush is more evil, after all, his record for this type of stuff can beat this hands down.

Cheers,

-djk

I think we want to hold Bush Jr. to a higher standard of prudence and deliberate care when it comes to issues of war and peace. To me, he flunks the test. Now his old man...that's another story. I believe he knew what he was doing. But then, he wasn't an ideologue. That helps!

jwm

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

Hehehe,

I think Canadian media is a joke. The reporting there is so one sided anti-US it to me is every bit as bad as Fox news. Just a different side of the same coin. American media has a full range of political perspective in our reporting. To me, I could care less at this point about two things, the UN and all of our traditional allies except Great Britain. We don't owe the rest of you feckless, sanctimonious do nothings an explanation as to why we invaded Iraq. It was ours, i.e. the US and GBs situation to do as we see fit. It is my tax money and American and British troops who both shed blood and guaranteed the stability of the region. I guess you didn't read that part of my post..LOL.

Just how long do you or any of the rest of the ranters here believe that Iraq could have continued living under sanctions with No Fly zones and Saddam Hussein in charge? Inspections were useless with Saddam in charge. What was needed is a government benign to the west and ready to become a peaceful member of the world community. There was no alternative to invasion. It should benefit the US..we paid for it in both blood and treasure.

Maybe Muslims better get busy doing some public relations because suicide bombings and crashing planes into towers are not getting the job done. Islam is back asswards in many portions of the world. Islam has a lot of catching up to do to join the modern world. Until that time, you can expect a hefty dose of skepticism and disdain, particularly from those of us in the US. I for one won't be an apologist for their savage behavior, no more than I'll condone Israeli atrocities.

EBS

 

[Ickabod]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8110691%5E1702,00.html

But you know, Bush is more evil, after all, his record for this type of stuff can beat this hands down.

Cheers,

-djk

Don't think i've heard one person say Bush is more evil than Saddam Hussein, except perhaps, Saddam Hussein. It seems conservatives have a grand time telling the world that Liberals said things they never said, and then telling us all how wrong those liberals are for having supposedly said it. Fun to watch, really.

 

[E_B_Samaritano]

You don't have to look hard in the leftist press...

Ickabod,

I'm no fan of George Bush but it is quite easy to find many over the top statements from the left equating Bush to Hitler, equating the loss of life due to the Iraqi invasion with that attributable to Saddam, etc. The most recent polls taken in Europe equating the US with the Axis of Evil should say it all. Given our ability to wreak havoc and inflict mass casualties, at some point you'd have to wonder why doesn't the US just go ahead really live up to the bad reputation. I for one am amused when I hear such comparisons, primarily because regardless to my political affliliation, I can readily dismiss them as ill informed ranting.

EBS

 

[Peeping Tom]

It is far worse than a joke, as the drivel you refer to was most likely the craft of the CBC, which is a state owned propaganda organ. The levels they will stoop to are simply amazing, for them interviewing hardcore Stalinist holdouts is routine.

I think Canadian media is a joke. The reporting there is so one sided anti-US it to me is every bit as bad as Fox news.

 

[*d*]

Re: Be Careful what you whine for...

Bush Sr. acted honorably, deferring to the wishes of the UN to stop what could have been a march to Baghdad. The same people on this thread lambasting the US action or lack thereof were the ones screaming about the "massacre" once they saw the devastation on the "highway of death". Bush listened to the UN, a decision which I for one am glad that he made, yet he is now lambasted by these silly anti-US cretins presenting a distortion of the facts.

Lets go back to the root of the problem. The US encouraged Saddam to develop into the monster that he became. He was supported by the US while he used WMD on Iran. The US were showing by example that Saddam's relentless and abusive taste for power was OK. He was even told by the US that they would stay out of his inter-Arab affairs, of course, until the Kuwait invasion incurred. So my beef is not -should Bush Sr. have gone or not gone into Baghdad in '91? My beef is with the wreckless American foreign policy that finances, arms and manipulates foreign leaders into becoming a**holes. A**holes who kill thousands.

The fact is there is no credible evidence that the US ever assisted Saddam Hussein to obtain WMD...none..zip..nada.

There is evidence that the US did assist Saddam in his WMD program. The whole Iraqgate salmagundi pertains to that. In fact Kenneth Timmerman wrote a whole book about it -'The Death Lobby'.

The very real and very practical reason we didn't follow through to assist the Kurds and Shites was the concern for the stability of the region. Had we assisted the Kurds and Shias in overthrowing Saddam, the result would have been general civil war unless we were prepared to occupy the country. Shias likely would have joined forces with their cousins in Iran and return the country to Islamic fundamentalism.

Agreed. The US even prefers the Baath party over Shiites. But if the US had no intention of supporting a Shiite rebellion, why did Bush Sr. call for such a rebellion? In doing so he condemned thousands of Shias to death by Baath party troops. A very irresponsible move on Bush's part.

Real Republicans (as opposed to the renegades now in the White House) aren't nation builders. George Bush Srs. conservative advisors told him to avoid nation building at all costs. You can bet the New Century Cabal was salavating at an opportunity to control Iraq. They presented Bush Sr. with that "preemptive strategy" paper.

Ahh, I seem to remember Bush Sr. saying something about a 'new world order' after the first gulf war. Smells like the New American Century document to me.

The US and Great Britain were doing the heavy lifting. The rest of the UN coalition not only abadoned their responsibility, they sought and implemented lucrative trade deals with Saddam, while the US and GB were blamed for the suffering and starvation conveniently blamed on their insistence on the strict enforcement of embargos under the oil for food program.

EBS

No. The US were causing unnecessary suffering of the Iraqi people with their unreasonable interpetation of what is or is not 'dual-use goods'. For eg.-the US influenced the UN to stop the import of things like watertrucks, because of the stupid threat that they could be used to lug chemicals. The US made sanctions ridiculously unfair.

 

[*d*]

Re: About the insidious anti US whining..part 2..

Any reasonable person might debate the timing of the Iraq invasion and it's relevance to the war on terror. Now that Bush has ran out of WMD excuses and we realize there was no eminent threat, he has quickly shifted to the liberation, humanitarian, and altruistic aspects of the occupation...something totally out of character for a man who ran on a "no nation building" promise. It is clear there was no eminent threat to the security of the US, nor to the neighbors in the region, so one can only conclude that the real reasons for this invasion were hidden under the premise of being important to fighting terrorism...hehe..and that doesn't pass the smell or laugh test. It did pass the gullibility test with flying colors as the US population was righteously transformed to paranoia after 9/11. To be clear the invasion and occupation is clearly about geopolitical control of the region and the unconditional and miguided support of Israel, who are the true beneficiaries.

Wow! I agree.

Only a fool would say an invasion was not eventually necessary.

I guess then, I'm a fool. As well as 80 to 90% of the rest of the world who also think the invasion was unnecessary(and unwarranted).

But in the context of fighting the war on terrorism, the timing just isn't credible given the unfinished business in Afghanistan, where we still have most of the country in the hands of war lords and a reconstituted Taliban.

EBS

I'll agree again.

 

[*d*]

Just how long do you or any of the rest of the ranters here believe that Iraq could have continued living under sanctions with No Fly zones and Saddam Hussein in charge? Inspections were useless with Saddam in charge. What was needed is a government benign to the west and ready to become a peaceful member of the world community. There was no alternative to invasion. It should benefit the US..we paid for it in both blood and treasure.

EBS

Inspections were useless? Funny, UN inspectors believed they were within weeks of clearing Iraq of WMD. And it turns out they were. As for Iraq now becoming a peaceful member of the world community -well, dream on. Because of this war, terrorism has now become a regular occurrence, not only in Iraq but around the globe. If you think the US should benefit from the atrocity of this war, then I think you've got the idea on how your wreckless foreign policies work.

 

[djk]

Re: Re: up to 61,000 iraqis killed by Saddam's goverment

Don't think i've heard one person say Bush is more evil than Saddam Hussein, except perhaps, Saddam Hussein. It seems conservatives have a grand time telling the world that Liberals said things they never said, and then telling us all how wrong those liberals are for having supposedly said it. Fun to watch, really.

I remember Liberals/Democrats comparing Bush and his administration to Nazi Germany and the Third Reich.

Cheers,

-djk

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: About the insidious anti US whining..part 2..

Wow! I agree.
I guess then, I'm a fool. As well as 80 to 90% of the rest of the world who also think the invasion was unnecessary(and unwarranted). I'll agree again.

I knew that if I read enough of these "blame the US for everything" Iraq threads I'd eventually agree with *d* on something.

OTB