100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Former IAEA chief: Iraq war killed “a million innocent civ | |
|---|---|
|
|
"Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq from 1979 until 2003, has gained international notoriety for torturing and murdering thousands of his own people. Hussein believes he ruled with an iron fist to keep his country, divided by ethnicity and religion, intact. However, his actions bespeak a tyrannical despot who stopped at nothing to punish those who opposed him." http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm And how much of that is our business? If we want respect to live here as we see fit shouldn't we give the same? The people of Iraq did not ask us to help them from Saddam so we were wrong to assume they wanted it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if anyone can find a single instance of an American wiring himself up to a bomb and blowing himself up in a marketplace or a mosque or a school and killing innocent people? That's not the American style, Quiet. It's too dirty and risky. Americans like to blow innocent people up from many miles away. We do have a few homegrown terrorist like that guy who flew the plane into the building recently. But for the most part we like it distant for the first couple rounds at least. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this poll is a little stale and/or rancid
"90% of Iraqis say they were better off under Saddam Hussein" by Dave Ward | December 30, 2006 at 12:57 am more recent and quite probably a more objective picture: 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6451841.stm now, it is crappy in iraq. no doubt about it. it is pretty much up to the iraqis themselves to learn to live together and rebuild a country in which they can all live peacefully if not harmoniously. 
They wouldn't have to rebuild their country if it weren't for us. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Mon 04/05/10 11:32 AM
|
|
They trashed their own country plenty without our help. If they want to stop killing each other they can stop anytime.
Our military has never been preventing it. Saddam was a threat to his own people, to the U.S. and to many many others around the world. He had plenty of resources and had demonstrated that he was perfectly willing to kill innocent people to advance his political agenda. No - the problems there are not of our making. Nor are they our responsibility to clean up. They would have had to clean up their own social and religious messes regardless of anything that the U.S. did.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Mon 04/05/10 11:36 AM
|
|
"Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq from 1979 until 2003, has gained international notoriety for torturing and murdering thousands of his own people. Hussein believes he ruled with an iron fist to keep his country, divided by ethnicity and religion, intact. However, his actions bespeak a tyrannical despot who stopped at nothing to punish those who opposed him." http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm And how much of that is our business? If we want respect to live here as we see fit shouldn't we give the same? The people of Iraq did not ask us to help them from Saddam so we were wrong to assume they wanted it. Well it is your assumption that is incorrect. We did not go to Iraq to help the Iraqis. We went to Iraq to liquidate a threat. It was our responsibility to deal with the threat and the threat was real with or without nuclear weapons. OK. So that is why it was our business. There was no issue of respect with regard to Saddam Hussein.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They trashed their own country plenty without our help. If they want to stop killing each other they can stop anytime. Our military has never been preventing it. Saddam was a threat to his own people, to the U.S. and to many many others around the world. He had plenty of resources and had demonstrated that he was perfectly willing to kill innocent people to advance his political agenda. No - the problems there are not of our making. Nor are they our responsibility to clean up. They would have had to clean up their own social and religious messes regardless of anything that the U.S. did.... I see you bought the whitewash. Saddam was also our ally. We had no right to go into Iraq and kill all those innocent people. You can't get around it, not legitimately anyway. Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction to present to the inspectors so we basically killed innocent people for no reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq from 1979 until 2003, has gained international notoriety for torturing and murdering thousands of his own people. Hussein believes he ruled with an iron fist to keep his country, divided by ethnicity and religion, intact. However, his actions bespeak a tyrannical despot who stopped at nothing to punish those who opposed him." http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm And how much of that is our business? If we want respect to live here as we see fit shouldn't we give the same? The people of Iraq did not ask us to help them from Saddam so we were wrong to assume they wanted it. Well it is your assumption that is incorrect. We did not go to Iraq to help the Iraqis. We went to Iraq to liquidate a threat. It was our responsibility to deal with the threat and the threat was real with or without nuclear weapons. OK. So that is why it was our business. There was no issue of respect with regard to Saddam Hussein.... We did not help them. We killed them in the name of helping them, that is no different than a terrorist who believes he is saving people by killing them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
s1ow, stop watching FoxNews and follow the money trail. We were dead wrong when it came to following the money trail of state-funded terrorism. We seem to have some allies with one hand behind their back wielding a very sharp and jagged blade. The most dangerous enemies are the ones who claim to be your friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They trashed their own country plenty without our help. If they want to stop killing each other they can stop anytime. Our military has never been preventing it. Saddam was a threat to his own people, to the U.S. and to many many others around the world. He had plenty of resources and had demonstrated that he was perfectly willing to kill innocent people to advance his political agenda. No - the problems there are not of our making. Nor are they our responsibility to clean up. They would have had to clean up their own social and religious messes regardless of anything that the U.S. did.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We hardly "created" Saddam! Nope.  Have to talk to the "creator" about that one...
What disgusts me is how our govt bent over backwards to exaggerate the threat rather than representing it as it really was...although they blame the intel...it was ridiculous...and then, they totally failed to provide basic security. There was the looting of the museums for instance....and all sorts of crazy retribution killings. But if the people are going to be like that then I guess there really was nothing anybody could do about it. Just too much pent up anger and frustration over the years. But I'm glad and the Iraqis are also glad that Saddam is gone. Unfortunately, I also share their sadness that they have no legitimate government and just a bunch of warring fanatics. Holy keerap. But us egging him on? Don't make me laugh! 
What do you think that was? Elementary school soccer?
You don't think Saddam supported terror all on his own? Aww c'mon now. Look it up!
I think you better stay away from Foxnews too. I think it makes you develop a complex! I recommend Jon Stewart and Colbert. But you can only watch them so long and even they get tedious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MiddleEarthling
on
Mon 04/05/10 04:38 PM
|
|
They trashed their own country plenty without our help. If they want to stop killing each other they can stop anytime. Our military has never been preventing it. Saddam was a threat to his own people, to the U.S. and to many many others around the world. He had plenty of resources and had demonstrated that he was perfectly willing to kill innocent people to advance his political agenda. No - the problems there are not of our making. Nor are they our responsibility to clean up. They would have had to clean up their own social and religious messes regardless of anything that the U.S. did.... Yeah, and they also ignore the ties between the US and Saddam...we assisted them in attacking Iran...and they lost. We also let the Kurds fight along side us in the first Gulf War...then abandoned them so then Saddam gassed their villages. There's no doubt about the lies that led us into this war...but let's go down memory lane for a better view to see that we mingled where we should have never gone. 
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. "Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East." http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ We never seem to learn under a GOP led administration...1 million innocent lives...5K coalition lives, 30+ thousand of our troops returned home missing limbs and more mentally scared for life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They trashed their own country plenty without our help. If they want to stop killing each other they can stop anytime. Our military has never been preventing it. Saddam was a threat to his own people, to the U.S. and to many many others around the world. He had plenty of resources and had demonstrated that he was perfectly willing to kill innocent people to advance his political agenda. No - the problems there are not of our making. Nor are they our responsibility to clean up. They would have had to clean up their own social and religious messes regardless of anything that the U.S. did.... Yeah, and they also ignore the ties between the US and Saddam...we assisted them in attacking Iran...and they lost. We also let the Kurds fight along side us in the first Gulf War...then abandoned them so then Saddam gassed their villages. There's no doubt about the lies that led us into this war...but let's go down memory lane for a better view to see that we mingled where we should have never gone.
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. "Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East." http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ We never seem to learn under a GOP led administration...1 million innocent lives...5K coalition lives, 30+ thousand of our troops returned home missing limbs and more mentally scared for life. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The good old Democrats supported Saddam. And, the Democ-ratz voted for the war in Iraq. Give me a friggin break.
There is no real point here is there? We held our nose and supported Saddam when he was fighting Iran - long before Saddam had engaged in many of his worst human rights abuses. I don't think anyone was all that gung-ho in supporting him but neither were we all that enamored 
with the Ayatollah. 
It is hardly crazy to back a regional government who is entangled in a fight with the backward theocracy holding hundreds of your citizens hostage for no reason.... So what? It is also not hypocrisy to switch horses when yours starts galloping the wrong way...
Think a little about it and you may be able to reconstruct the history. Or read a book or even the Wiki. I'll give you a hint...shhhh...*winks*...looks furtively to the right and left....whispering - "it's a conspiracy"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bestinshow
on
Mon 04/05/10 06:22 PM
|
|
The good old Democrats supported Saddam. And, the Democ-ratz voted for the war in Iraq. Give me a friggin break.
There is no real point here is there? We held our nose and supported Saddam when he was fighting Iran - long before Saddam had engaged in many of his worst human rights abuses. I don't think anyone was all that gung-ho in supporting him but neither were we all that enamored
with the Ayatollah.
It is hardly crazy to back a regional government who is entangled in a fight with the backward theocracy holding hundreds of your citizens hostage for no reason.... So what? It is also not hypocrisy to switch horses when yours starts galloping the wrong way...
Think a little about it and you may be able to reconstruct the history. Or read a book or even the Wiki. I'll give you a hint...shhhh...*winks*...looks furtively to the right and left....whispering - "it's a conspiracy"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The good old Democrats supported Saddam. And, the Democ-ratz voted for the war in Iraq. Give me a friggin break.
There is no real point here is there? We held our nose and supported Saddam when he was fighting Iran - long before Saddam had engaged in many of his worst human rights abuses. I don't think anyone was all that gung-ho in supporting him but neither were we all that enamored
with the Ayatollah.
It is hardly crazy to back a regional government who is entangled in a fight with the backward theocracy holding hundreds of your citizens hostage for no reason.... So what? It is also not hypocrisy to switch horses when yours starts galloping the wrong way...
Think a little about it and you may be able to reconstruct the history. Or read a book or even the Wiki. I'll give you a hint...shhhh...*winks*...looks furtively to the right and left....whispering - "it's a conspiracy"
" backward theocrac" Funny, that rings true of too many people in the US. CRAZY religious zealots...don't deny we have them. Some cannot accept the simple truth...amazing. TIRED of the "us V them" bullchit. "I used to think the world was flat Rarely threw my hat into the crowd I felt I had used up my quota of yearning Used to look in on the children at night In the glow of their Donald Duck light And frighten myself with the thought of my little ones burning But, oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning The tide is turning Satellite buzzing through the endless night Exclusive to moonshots and world title fights Jesus Christ, imagine what it must be earning Who is the strongest Who is the best Who holds the aces The East Or the West This is the crap our children are learning But oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning The tide is turning Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning" Heh....this all just reminded me of this song. People making claims with no reference to make "their side" seem strong...it's better to throw BS on a wall and hoping some of it sticks than to debate smartly ...I see they've begun to use the "revise history" thing...as in accusing the sane ones of what the lame ones are doing. Only fools are fooled. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Mon 04/05/10 07:34 PM
|
|
The Shaw who was disposed by the Ayatola was backed by America and ran a brutal police state worse than Saddams Iraq. Our support for this brutal right wing dictator is what caused the Iran Hostage Crisis. If memory serves we rigged the election that put the shaw in power in the first place.....
The Shah was worse than Saddam!
oh...oh...give me a sec...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
heh heh ok...a little better now...oh my goodness that was a howler... i mean the man had some political prisoners but he was hardly a genocidal maniac who funded terrorist activities....
oh wow...
it is a good idea to read a little more widely and expose oneself to a variety of opinions and viewpoints.....
=-=-=-= Meet the Shah From 1941 until 1979, Iran was ruled by a constitutional monarchy under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran's Shah (king). Although Iran, also called Persia, was the world's oldest empire, dating back 2,500 years, by 1900 it was floundering. Bandits dominated the land; literacy was one percent; and women, under archaic Islamic dictates, had no rights. The Shah changed all this. Primarily by using oil-generated wealth, he modernized the nation. He built rural roads, postal services, libraries, and electrical installations. He constructed dams to irrigate Iran's arid land, making the country 90-percent self-sufficient in food production. He established colleges and universities, and at his own expense, set up an educational foundation to train students for Iran's future. To encourage independent cultivation, the Shah donated 500,000 Crown acres to 25,000 farmers. In 1978, his last full year in power, the average Iranian earned $2,540, compared to $160 25 years earlier. Iran had full employment, requiring foreign workers. The national currency was stable for 15 years, inspiring French economist Andre Piettre to call Iran a country of "growth without inflation." Although Iran was the world's second largest oil exporter, the Shah planned construction of 18 nuclear power plants. He built an Olympic sports complex and applied to host the 1988 Olympics (an honor eventually assigned Seoul), an achievement unthinkable for other Middle East nations. Long regarded as a U.S. ally, the Shah was pro-Western and anti-communist, and he was aware that he posed the main barrier to Soviet ambitions in the Middle East. As distinguished foreign-affairs analyst Hilaire du Berrier noted: "He determined to make Iran ... capable of blocking a Russian advance until the West should realize to what extent her own interests were threatened and come to his aid.... It necessitated an army of 250,000 men." The Shah's air force ranked among the world's five best. A voice for stability within the Middle East itself, he favored peace with Israel and supplied the beleaguered state with oil. On the home front, the Shah protected minorities and permitted non-Muslims to practice their faiths. "All faith," he wrote, "imposes respect upon the beholder." The Shah also brought Iran into the 20th century by granting women equal rights. This was not to accommodate feminism, but to end archaic brutalization..... http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-200783908.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Shaw who was disposed by the Ayatola was backed by America and ran a brutal police state worse than Saddams Iraq. Our support for this brutal right wing dictator is what caused the Iran Hostage Crisis. If memory serves we rigged the election that put the shaw in power in the first place.....
The Shah was worse than Saddam!
oh...oh...give me a sec...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
heh heh ok...a little better now...oh my goodness that was a howler... i mean the man had some political prisoners but he was hardly a genocidal maniac who funded terrorist activities....
oh wow...
it is a good idea to read a little more widely and expose oneself to a variety of opinions and viewpoints.....
=-=-=-= Meet the Shah From 1941 until 1979, Iran was ruled by a constitutional monarchy under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran's Shah (king). Although Iran, also called Persia, was the world's oldest empire, dating back 2,500 years, by 1900 it was floundering. Bandits dominated the land; literacy was one percent; and women, under archaic Islamic dictates, had no rights. The Shah changed all this. Primarily by using oil-generated wealth, he modernized the nation. He built rural roads, postal services, libraries, and electrical installations. He constructed dams to irrigate Iran's arid land, making the country 90-percent self-sufficient in food production. He established colleges and universities, and at his own expense, set up an educational foundation to train students for Iran's future. To encourage independent cultivation, the Shah donated 500,000 Crown acres to 25,000 farmers. In 1978, his last full year in power, the average Iranian earned $2,540, compared to $160 25 years earlier. Iran had full employment, requiring foreign workers. The national currency was stable for 15 years, inspiring French economist Andre Piettre to call Iran a country of "growth without inflation." Although Iran was the world's second largest oil exporter, the Shah planned construction of 18 nuclear power plants. He built an Olympic sports complex and applied to host the 1988 Olympics (an honor eventually assigned Seoul), an achievement unthinkable for other Middle East nations. Long regarded as a U.S. ally, the Shah was pro-Western and anti-communist, and he was aware that he posed the main barrier to Soviet ambitions in the Middle East. As distinguished foreign-affairs analyst Hilaire du Berrier noted: "He determined to make Iran ... capable of blocking a Russian advance until the West should realize to what extent her own interests were threatened and come to his aid.... It necessitated an army of 250,000 men." The Shah's air force ranked among the world's five best. A voice for stability within the Middle East itself, he favored peace with Israel and supplied the beleaguered state with oil. On the home front, the Shah protected minorities and permitted non-Muslims to practice their faiths. "All faith," he wrote, "imposes respect upon the beholder." The Shah also brought Iran into the 20th century by granting women equal rights. This was not to accommodate feminism, but to end archaic brutalization..... http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-200783908.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With all due respect, this is the real history. These were real reforms.
Advances which brought desperately needed modernization to a backward vacant and impoverished dustbowl. The Shah had his detractors and his self-declared monarchy was never accepted particularly by religious islamic extremists. So, he was caught in an anti-intellectual backlash against the elite much like a religious version of the cultural revolution isolating and marginalizing the society, turning back the clock on social and economic reform much to the detriment of everyone except the theocracy. The enemy of progress in iraq and iran are the shackles of radical islam. The strident voices of the ignorant fascists who advocate sharia law and intolerance of all other religions and dissenting opinions. Ridding the region of the despot Saddam is a positive step. One by one those who rule by murder and intimidation are confronted. As religious extremists rush to fill the void, it will be up to the iraqis to overcome those who seek to impose their warped religious dogma on everyone. Ultimately the ayatollahs fate will be the same as the taliban and the cultural revolution. Their ignorance will wither like oak leaves in winter giving rise to a spring of enlightenment and tolerance. The sooner the better for everyone. Live and learn. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Israel did not come about because of invasion and there never was a "palestinian state" in transjordan or the ottoman empire... there is no excuse for bus bombings, indiscriminate rocket launches at civilian targets, cafe and marketplace and subway bombings, teaching hate to elementary school students, recruiting suicide bombers from grieving families, paying people to blow innocent people up, and killing and torturing your political enemies.... just saying...
If we illegailly invaded Iraq then start putting people on trial...... Oh that's right we cant and will never happen because it wasn't an illegal invasion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
those damn civilians keep getting in the way
"You just shot an unarmed man" "Well, he should have armed himself" -Unforgiven |
|
|
|
|
