Time For A Reality Check

tieguy

Banned
I'm getting sicker by the minute as I continue to find so many links that support what we fought against in Iraq.

Fact Sheet
Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime


For over 20 years, the greatest threat to Iraqis has been Saddam Hussein's regime -- he has killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and his neighbors for over two decades.
When Iraq is free, past crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against Iraqis, will be accounted for, in a post-conflict Iraqi-led process. The United States, members of the coalition and international community will work with the Iraqi people to build a strong and credible judicial process to address these abuses.
Under Saddam's regime many hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of his actions - the vast majority of them Muslims.
According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."
Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered
.
Allegations of prostitution used to intimidate opponents of the regime, have been used by the regime to justify the barbaric beheading of women.
Documented chemical attacks by the regime, from 1983 to 1988, resulted in some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.
Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. o The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.
Iraq's 13 million Shi'a Muslims, the majority of Iraq's population of approximately 22 million, face severe restrictions on their religious practice, including a ban on communal Friday prayer, and restriction on funeral processions.
According to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south." Refugees International reports that the "Oppressive government policies have led to the internal displacement of 900,000 Iraqis, primarily Kurds who have fled to the north to escape Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaigns (which involve forcing Kurds to renounce their Kurdish identity or lose their property) and Marsh Arabs, who fled the government's campaign to dry up the southern marshes for agricultural use. More than 200,000 Iraqis continue to live as refugees in Iran."
The U.S. Committee for Refugees, in 2002, estimated that nearly 100,000 Kurds, Assyrians and Turkomans had previously been expelled, by the regime, from the "central-government-controlled Kirkuk and surrounding districts in the oil-rich region bordering the Kurdish controlled north."
"Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003) o Under the oil-for-food program, the international community sought to make available to the Iraqi people adequate supplies of food and medicine, but the regime blocked sufficient access for international workers to ensure proper distribution of these supplies. o Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition forces have discovered military warehouses filled with food supplies meant for the Iraqi people that had been diverted by Iraqi military forces.
The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors. From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.
The UN Special Rapporteur's September 2001, report criticized the regime for "the sheer number of executions," the number of "extrajudicial executions on political grounds," and "the absence of a due process of the law." Executions: Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including: o 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984 o 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998 o 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign" o 122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000 o 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001 o At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001
 

wily_old_vet

Well-Known Member
Tie, posting right-wing syndicated columnists doesn't prove anything, except your taste in reading.[/quote]

And your posting of left-wingers does? All depends which side you view things from.
 

susiedriver

Well-Known Member
tieguy said:
How you can deny this is beyond me?
HALABJA
On March 16th 1988, Iraqi jets bombed the town of Halabja with chemical weapons. At least 5,000 people were killed and 7,000 severely injured. Fourteen years on, thousands are still suffering the affects of the chemical weapons.
The gases used included mustard gas, nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX. This was the largest chemical attack on a civilian population ever.
Of all the atrocities committed against the Kurds during the Anfal Campaign, Halabja has come to symbolize the worst of the repression of Iraqi Kurds.
For three days, the town and surrounding districts were unmercifully attacked with bombs, artillery fire, and chemicals. The chemical weapons were the most destructive of life. At least 5,000 people died immediately as a result of the chemical attack and it is estimated that up to 12,000 people in all died during the course of those three days.
Humanitarian and charity clinics in the close by areas are encountered with unthinkable forms of disease and deformity among survivors. Miscarriages and birth defects are also commonplace.
[/right]
Tie, this was three years befor Gulf War I. No one is denying he had weapons in the past. The point is they were destroyed in GWI and in the decade following. They weren't there and no longer existed in 2002. The only way he held onto power in the region was by pretending to be more powerful than he was, obviously his bluff didn't work, and soon he will rightly be put to death for his crimes.
 

tieguy

Banned
Now the question I have is how can any true bleeding heart liberal possibly not think we should not have stepped in and stopped this guy. This guy was not just another brutal dictator in fact many rate him as high as the 7th worst in history. Considering that Hitler, stalin and Mao would make anyones top three thats pretty high up. How can anyone possibly believe that this guy killed up to 100,000 kurds with chemical weapons but did not have chemical weapons. How many more hundreds of thousands of innocent people did this guy have to kill before you folks who claim to believe in justice and freedom might actually get sick to your stomachs enough to believe you should do something? If we actually know about this type of atrocity and yet stand back and do nothing then we actually deserve a seat next to the bastard when he roasts in hell.
 
Last edited:

tieguy

Banned
susiedriver said:
Tie, this was three years befor Gulf War I. No one is denying he had weapons in the past. The point is they were destroyed in GWI and in the decade following. They weren't there and no longer existed in 2002. The only way he held onto power in the region was by pretending to be more powerful than he was, obviously his bluff didn't work, and soon he will rightly be put to death for his crimes.

You have raised the issue of our being drawn into this war by false pretenses. We hope those chemical weapons were destroyed but we really don't know. We hope Hussien never developed nuc's but we really don't know. We do know he had them, we do know he used them, we do know he wanted to develop more. Perhaps that knowledge made it easier for us to believe he had more than he did. But to make the case that we were duped into believing is to discredit this argument. To make the case we have not done any good in Iraq strongly discredits what our troops and civilan workers have accomplished in Iraq. Hate Bush all you want but give credit and blame fairly where it belongs.
 

dannyboy

From the promised LAND
Susie

I read that interesting article, and it too mentioned gassing of Iraqi's. So tell me, did we invade Iraq during the first "war"? I didnt think so. So if we did not invade, how would we know that he no longer had any?

As I recall I saw photos of the early days of War II showing missiles that could be used to carry biological/gas to the delivery areas. It mentioned in the article that jets were used to deliver them.

So why call him a liar.

If I have an intruder in my home, I will always assume he is armed, and there for a threat to me. It would be up the the criminal to prove otherwise.

As I recall during the time that Hans was looking at the places that they were allowed to enter, they did not find anything of value. But they were only allowed to enter those areas that were permitted, not all the ones that were requested. So If he had nothing to hide, why did he play games?

Look, like tie, hate bush all you want. But come clean, there is no proof that Bush lied.

d
 

susiedriver

Well-Known Member
You have raised the issue of our being drawn into this war by false pretenses. We hope those chemical weapons were destroyed but we really don't know. We hope Hussien never developed nuc's but we really don't know. We do know he had them, we do know he used them, we do know he wanted to develop more. Perhaps that knowledge made it easier for us to believe he had more than he did. But to make the case that we were duped into believing is to discredit this argument. To make the case we have not done any good in Iraq strongly discredits what our troops and civilan(sic) workers have accomplished in Iraq. Hate Bush all you want but give credit and blame fairly where it belongs.
Tie, I have never made the case that we have not done good in Iraq. We know he didn't have nuclear weapons because we destroyed his facilities, remember? Would he have liked to have them; certainly, every dictator in the world would. UNSCOM destroyed a great deal of Iraqs weapons infrastructure between 1991-95.

A person with your extensive knowledge of weaponry should realize that chemical and biological weapons become inert after 3-5 years, and Saddam had not been able to restart his weapons program after weapons inspectors left in 1998. When inspectors returned in 2002, until they left in early 2003, no evidence of WMD's was found at all.

Bush gave Saddam the ultimatum of turning over his WMD's (he had none) or face regime change. Saddam claimed that all forbidden weapons were destroyed, and he was in compliance with UN resolutions. We stated that even if he abdicated, we would send in troops to verify and establish a new government, even though we had no proof of and WMDs still existing.

We can disagree on the war and Bush all you want, but I have never demeaned our servicemen & women or support personnel, for you to continue suggesting that is slanderous, though not unexpected from you.
 

dannyboy

From the promised LAND
But it sounds like Kerry is. And this from a "hero that wants to be president".

Sounds like he is recording a clip you would have expected to hear from a POW during the Vietnam era. The bumbling around for words, telling of US young servicemen going in at night to terrorize men and women for no reason but to violate their customs?

You were looking to brand Bush a traitor to his country, I think you see who the real traitor is.

d
 

dannyboy

From the promised LAND
UNSCOM destroyed a great deal of Iraqs weapons infrastructure between 1991-95.

Geee lemme see. Destroy a great deal. Is that the same thing as destroying it all. Dont think so.

Yeah so what it goes bad after a few years. He made it before, he can make it again. Or buy it. There are many countries that would be glad to make money doing this type of sale.

The Israelies destroyed his Nuke program, but yet he rebuilt it. As far as we know, we destroyed a great deal of it. But did we get it all.

Kinda like cancer, is getting rid of a great deal of it going to let you sleep better at night?

d
 

susiedriver

Well-Known Member
danny,

I was beginning to think you could carry on a reasonable, rational discussion. I see I was wrong.

Do some reading, educate yourself a little bit. Try Wikipedia at first, most of the articles are unbiased and accurate, and you can search for many things there, like Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction. You may learn something.
 

dannyboy

From the promised LAND
I responded to what you posted. You said a great deal was destroyed. Far cry from not having any, or do you not agree. I dont have to look up what a "great deal" means in numbers. I know it does not mean all.

d
 

tieguy

Banned
susiedriver said:
Tie, I have never made the case that we have not done good in Iraq.

Suzie in fact you have. You deny it. You ignore any opportunities to give our soldiors credit for the good they do. You're so obsessed with winning an argument that you sell their contributions down the river to make your point.

We know he didn't have nuclear weapons because we destroyed his facilities, remember? Would he have liked to have them; certainly, every dictator in the world would. UNSCOM destroyed a great deal of Iraqs weapons infrastructure between 1991-95.

In fact we don't know. We do know he had all the chemical weapons and yet could not find out where he hid them. Even if your argument is correct then we should have been able to find old chemical weapons that were no longer effective. yet we did not.Who's to say he did not have nucs?Saddaam knew we were coming in. He had weapons inspectors running through his country for years that could not find them. Either he completely disposed of all WMD's or he found a place to hide them. Only time will tell.

A person with your extensive knowledge of weaponry should realize that chemical and biological weapons become inert after 3-5 years, and Saddam had not been able to restart his weapons program after weapons inspectors left in 1998. When inspectors returned in 2002, until they left in early 2003, no evidence of WMD's was found at all.

What we have found is plenty of evidence that he wanted and was trying to develop these weapons. Only the weapons theirselves have not been found.

Bush gave Saddam the ultimatum of turning over his WMD's (he had none) or face regime change. Saddam claimed that all forbidden weapons were destroyed, and he was in compliance with UN resolutions.

If so then why wouldn't he invite the un inspectors in to watch him destroy these weapons. His explanation does not jive. Someone who is in compliance with these un directives would invite the inspectors in not hide the destruction of these weapons from us.

We stated that even if he abdicated, we would send in troops to verify and establish a new government, even though we had no proof of and WMDs still existing.

Not true. don't discredit your argument by making this up as you go. If Saddaam had fully complied with un sanctions and mandates and had un inspectors in to observe the distruction of his wmd's then we would not have gone in.

We can disagree on the war and Bush all you want, but I have never demeaned our servicemen & women or support personnel, for you to continue suggesting that is slanderous, though not unexpected from you.

No but you have been very reluctant to give our servicemen their credit due because it is counter to your argument against the war. Make your argument but don't shortchange our troops.
 

susiedriver

Well-Known Member
Agreed, good editorial. Love the conclusion.

Besides, Slick Willie doesnt look so bad after five years of Gauche George; you start to appreciate a guy who can save his own skin when you realize youre a passenger on a kamikaze mission, which is what the Bush administration feels like.
 

tieguy

Banned
I believe any article that states WMD's were not found to be accurate in regards to nukes. Inaccurate in regards to chemical and biological weapons. this does not mean that he did not make them just that they were not found. Evidence inconclusive at this time. I believe any world ruler that can hide in a hole in the sand for two years can also hide weapons out in the desert. Perhaps one of the many mass graves found contains the workers who performed this task. Who knows.

I believe any claims that Hussien complied with the various UN directives to be innacurate. Hussien could have stopped this war from happening and retained power if he had simply invited the world in to to watch him dispose of all chemical weapons. Hussien chose not to for a reason.

I very firmly believe that a Hussien unchecked was the next Hitler of this world. I firmly believe he would have developed all types of WMD's including Nukes and used them. His ethnic cleansing activity with the Kurds demonstrates the man had no qualms about spreading death. Hussien unchecked rules the middle east for sure with millions more dying in the process.

I am haunted by the words that discribed Hussien and his henchmen slamming someones baby against a wall. Does the brutality of this regime ever reach a level where you believe removal of hussien is a worthwhile cause? Or is your soul as cold to saving humanity as his was?
 

tieguy

Banned
In fact it may be one of the most interesting ironies of politics.

The conservative is accused of being cold and heartless when it comes to helping the poor and the oppressed of the world.

But when the conservative makes a sincere effort to help the oppressed of one of the worlds worst mass murderers ever the liberal fights against the effort.
 

susiedriver

Well-Known Member
OK Tie,

I now see that you choose to ignore facts that don't fit your agenda, fine. No further discussion is necessary.

Bottom line, I don't think the policy of pre-emptive war is one that we should be following. This was a war of choice, not necessity. Afghanistan was a war of necessity, and we didn't finish that one.

The next Hitler of this world is liable to be Mahmud Ahmedinejad, the similarities are astounding.
 
Top