quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec Its estimated that about 1million people were eliminated by Saddam's gasing. Mass graves can point to that estimation.

No they can't:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/poli...1263830,00.html

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Until you people realize the huge amount of state supported terrorism carried out by the US under the pretext of the Monroe doctrine, that argument holds absolutely no water. Ok so they killed 3000 people in an office building and 350 including children at a school. How does that come anywhere near all of the women and children butchered in Central America under the Reagan admisistration, how does that stack up to the thousands and thousands of Iraqi citizens we've murdered or the thousands of Iraqi children that have been dying in hospitals since the first gulf war because of our sanctions and embargos. Get your head out of your asses and realize why they hate the US in the first place they aren't animals that enjoy killing for fun. They're people that have been completely abused and mistreated by our government. Take the plank out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your brother's.

first off, how the hell can you hold the bush administration accountable for acts that ronald reagan was responsible for?

second, it seems here that mr. "suck on the teat of the U.N." has forgot one major thing about the starving women and children. those embargos were imposed BY THE U.N. yes, even france agreed on it.

third, my uncle just got back from iraq and the people love them over there. they are seen as an icon of solidarity. the liberal douchebag media (in search of a good story) has been portraying our soldiers as tyrants and as an entity worse than saddam. the military is doing a bang-up job. if anybody needs to be taken out of iraq it's the people themselves. we've liberated their country, helped rebuild it, and these people haven't been helping our armed forces too much as well. i say we be a little more strict over there.

if i were in charge, i would round up every middle-eastern terrorist we have, torture them on film and then send the tapes to the leaders of each of the oil countries over there with a little note saying, "This is how we feel about 2 bucks a gallon"

___________________

I ran. I ran until my muscles burned and my veins pumped battery acid-and then I ran some more....

go here: http://www.aslradio.com/asl.pls

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec If the U.S. is guilty....give me one example where they go into a specific region to wipe out a certain population purposely(e.g.saddam/kurds)

Well, they don't do it themselves, but they certainly fund and support the people who do. eg. When Saddam was planning to go into Iran, the U.S. supported him with the weapons that caused so many deaths in that country. The C.I.A provided spy sattelite images of where Saddam should bomb. So they support terrorists then.

quote:

Originally posted by Sonorous_72 Well, they don't do it themselves, but they certainly fund and support the people who do. eg. When Saddam was planning to go into Iran, the U.S. supported him with the weapons that caused so many deaths in that country. The C.I.A provided spy sattelite images of where Saddam should bomb. So they support terrorists then.

Calling Saddam a terrorist because he gased the Iranians is like calling the Allies terrorist because they gased the trenches in WWI.


Terrorism in the way it is used today does not mean 'instillig fear' or even 'being evil' - it means 'instilling fear into a civilian population by violence to achieve political goals'.

Saddam a war criminal? Surely!

A terrorist? Nope.

A terrorist-supporter? Quesitonable, I of course believe so.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade No they can't: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/poli...1263830,00.html

My mistake.
However heres another article. More bodies being found.
So that number is not set in stone.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast.../sprj.irq.main/

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag damn, i'm almost speechless to your final cling to your programming. to assume that these people would continue to take cheap shots at undefendable targets when presented with the ability to target strategic command points is like ignoring the pentagon attack in the wake on the world trade center atrocity. do you remember the third plane crash? just curious.

Yea do you remember if that plane was empty?

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec My mistake. However heres another article. More bodies being found. So that number is not set in stone. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast.../sprj.irq.main/

No, check the dates.

Your article:

quote:

14/05/2003: The head of an Iraqi forensic team said Wednesday he expects to find as many as 15,000 bodies buried at mass graves about 55 miles (90 kilometers) south of Baghdad.

My article:

quote:

18/07/2004: Of 270 suspected grave sites identified in the last year, 55 have now been examined, revealing, according to the best estimates that The Observer has been able to obtain, around 5,000 bodies.

Saddam Hussein was a bad man, but I don't think that there's any doubt that the extent of his malevolence has been grossly overstated by the Bush, Blair and Howard administrations (and their apologists) to strengthen their case for war. To quote the article again:

quote:

The Baathist regime was responsible for massive human rights abuses and murder on a large scale - not least in well-documented campaigns including the gassing of Halabja, the al-Anfal campaign against Kurdish villages and the brutal repression of the Shia uprising - but serious questions are now emerging about the scale of Saddam Hussein's murders. [...] And while few have any doubts that Saddam's regime was responsible for serious crimes against humanity, the exact scale of those crimes has become increasingly politicised in both Washington and London as it has become clearer that the case against Iraq for retention of weapons of mass destruction has faded.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade No, check the dates. Your article: My article: Saddam Hussein was a bad man, but I don't think that there's any doubt that the extent of his malevolence has been grossly overstated by the Bush, Blair and Howard administrations (and their apologists) to strengthen their case for war. To quote the article again:

5000 dead bodies

That sure doesnt merit war.




problem I saw with Bush admin. though is they didnt make a strong enough case for this. They harped on the WMD....

Last edited by speedracer_mec on Sep-08-2004 at 16:01

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec 5000 dead bodies That sure doesnt merit war.

What kind of logic is that? This "meritorious" war resulted in 15,000 dead bodies, so what does that tell us? Or does it not matter so long as we can dismiss it as "collateral damage"?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

I can't remember where I saw it but Bush, Blair, etc estimated the deaths by Saddam Hussein at 300,000+ but Amnesty International increased that amount to 500,000+

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade What kind of logic is that? This "meritorious" war resulted in 15,000 dead bodies, so what does that tell us? Or does it not matter so long as we can dismiss it as "collateral damage"?

your asking a stupid question, it's speedracer_mec...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Octanesyco Greetings. My name is Casey. You can call me Moose. -Moose

quote:

Originally posted by Massive84 your asking a stupid question, it's speedracer_mec...

Yay!

I know you love my avatar