Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mass Grave Of Kuwaiti POW's Unearthed In Iraq  
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3241 times:

All the while people are whining about the U.S. being the bad guy and not following the Geneva Convention, Saddam is guilty of the most heinous kind of violation possible. However, because it looks good for the U.S. and for President Bush, many people still would rather have Saddam in power than an Iraq that doesn't engage in mass murder.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87138,00.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030509/wl_nm/iraq_usa_grave_dc_1


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3194 times:

All the while people are whining about the U.S. being the bad guy and not following the Geneva Convention, Saddam is guilty of the most heinous kind of violation possible

So this excuses the US's "minor" infractions? Please. Just because you're not as bad as Saddam doesn't make you a saint.

However, because it looks good for the U.S. and for President Bush, many people still would rather have Saddam in power than an Iraq that doesn't engage in mass murder.

Did Bush say "this guy's a twat"? No, he said "this guy has WMDs."


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3186 times:

No, he said "this guy has WMDs."

Which has not yet been disproven.

It truly amazes me how some people are already beginning to write off the WMD-search as a failure after barely a months' time. They're looking for something that could be as small as a truck bed in an area the size of California; something whose hidden location (should it exist) has nearly 12 years of careful planning behind it!


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3170 times:

It truly amazes me how some people are already beginning to write off the WMD-search as a failure after barely a months' time. They're looking for something that could be as small as a truck bed in an area the size of California; something whose hidden location (should it exist) has nearly 12 years of careful planning behind it!

Oh I see, so we've gone from "we know where they are, he has lots, he's a tyranical mad man who's just waiting to nuke us all" to "well, he DOES have them, we just can't find them yet, but look....he's evil!!"


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3173 times:

B757300, where are the WMD's, the reason why Bush launched the invasion?

Oh, I forgot, that was last week's excuse. This week it was digging up graves of those already killed. I see.


User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

I still don't see why the hell I should care. Kuwait is not an American problem.


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8735 posts, RR: 42
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3140 times:

Can't you cut it, B757300? You must have heard a thousand times that almost all of the anti-war people do indeed scorn Saddam, so why do you have to start threads saying "They don't like Bush, so they must love Saddam" all the time?


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3118 times:

One thing I have learnt from history books is that History itself is usually written by the victors.

The truth need not matter. What matters is what "history" the Victor wants the people to see.

-Roy


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3112 times:

Roy are you still pissed that India can't write the history of Kashmir yet?




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3108 times:

L-188: I must ask what it is about Kashmir that interests you so much.

Perhaps you should consider petitioning the US govt about giving the people of Lousiana, New Mexico, California and Alaska the right to self-determination.

if teh US is really so democratic as it claims to be then it should dop the right thing and let these states secede from the American Union.

Also while investigating the so-called mass graves that are popping up around Iraq, it would also be worthwile to investigate the mass grave where miilions of soldiers of the Southern Confederate Army were buried after being "butchered".

We dont see the troops of righteous, born again Americans frequenting this forum speak of that! Selective memory or what?

-Roy


User currently offlineMD11 From Pakistan, joined Oct 2004, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3103 times:

What in God's name is this guy talking about? If you want to mention states that the US government should let secede from the union, at least sound reasonably intelligent and mention South Carolina.

[Edited 2003-05-18 08:34:16]

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3109 times:

Actually Roy.

I already am a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party

http://www.akip.org

Frankly I give a rats ass about India, Kashmir and Pakistan, as far as my daily life goes.

But you are the one that keeps bringing up Kashmir and Pakistan in the vain attempt to jab at the US.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3096 times:


But you are the one that keeps bringing up Kashmir and Pakistan in the vain attempt to jab at the US.

He He. Scroll up a bit dear and see for yourself who is constantly bringing up Kashmir.

You guys dont tire now do you? And lying comes pretty naturally as well!

And yes, all the best with your independence for Alaska project. Fat chance of you guys getting though. All the best anyways!
-Roy


User currently offlineIlyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3095 times:

It's totally ridiculous to suggest people wanted Saddam to stay in power. That sort of reasoning is beyond reproach, and indiciative of a rather sick mind.

We all know Saddam was a tyrant. We all know about his attrocities. Yet, these were not the excuses President F*** used for going to war. Since the discovery of WMDs is no longer a valid excuse for war, the attention of the American public should shift to the discovery of mass graves tol serve as fuel for the fire of justification for war? I don't think so.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3085 times:

Have any of you considered that there was more the one justification for this war.

And any of the many jusifications by itself is/was enough.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2116 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3082 times:

L-188

That may well be, and right from the start, I personally felt that getting rid of Saddam for what he seems to have done to his people was justification enough.

but NEVERTHELESS, the bush administration should be held accountable for the claims they made and the justification THEY cited as central for the invasion, that being the WMD. If they can't find them, (and I'm not saying I don't believe they're there, as I really have no clue), then they damn well shouldn't get off by just distracting attention towards other matters. They should admit that they were mistaken, at least to some extent. (I really can't imagine that they'd ever actually admit such a thing, of course). I think it's just dishonest to downplay the WMD issue by pointing out other things that were bad about Saddam.

Sure mass graves are terrible, but the CENTRAL debate here is not over whether Saddam killed a bunch of his people, but whether there are WMD's around, to the extent that the US claimed. The administration can't ignore that.



Next flight.... who knows.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3082 times:

Jean....

The US has captured three or four of the mobile germ labs that the Secretary of State described at the UN prior to the war.

A couple weren't hit by looters yet and are in very good shape.

The question is, if he wasn't developing germ weapons why did he have these development labs.

And if they where for a legitimate use, why mount them on trailers and disguise them as freight loads.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2116 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3074 times:

Yeah, I've heard about those, and I'm not denying they are signigicant, but

1) Is it yet proven what they were used for? don't they HAVE to come up with something a little more concrete? (i.e. find actual WEAPONS, other thatn just equipoment that COULD make them?) And

2) Even if so, aren't these very small finds in relation to what Powell had us (myself included) expecting to see?

Perhaps it was the media twisting what the administration was saying, but it was certainly MY impression, at least, that they were expecting to know the specific locations of a lot more stuff than this.



Next flight.... who knows.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3074 times:

If it has been proved, it hasn't been publiclly announced.

But I wouldn't have expected to find live germs in that thing anyway.

Common sense would tell you that they would probably do a very very good job of cleaning the plant after use. That way they minimize the risk to the workers of the plant moving the thing around.




I question how much of that speculation was media hype also. I tend to think that everybody, including the USMC where expecting to get show with chemical weapons.

Those poor grunts had to fight all the way to Bagdad in their mopp gear. Having worn the stuff in the much more temperate Georgia and German climates, I wonder how they managed not to drop from heatstroke.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineHepkat From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 2341 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3059 times:

I concur with Jean. The Bush administration presented to the world what it claimed were concrete facts, figures AND photographs detailing with reasonable assertion the whereabouts of Saddam's WMDs. They even presented conversations that porpurted to prove that the Iraqis knew of their WMD and were attempting to hide or destroy them.

Now, as far as I know, it's not that easy to destroy, hide or transport WMDs without 1) your movements being detected by spy satellite and drones or 2) leaving behind some residue. Let's not also forget that the laboratories and facilities required to manufacture and produce WMD must be very large and consist of sophisticated equipment. It's simply not that easy to relocate entire laboratories and facilities without being detected. In addition, what about all those satellite photograhs we were shown and bullied into accepting as WMD sites? The Bush administration claimed to have intimate and specific knowledge of the Iraqi WMD program. They claimed to have gathered this information from defectors and former Iraqi scientists. WHERE are these weapons of mass destruction? Why have they remained so elusive in spite of all the overwhelming proof we supposedly had of their existence?

I'm sorry but one or two trailers converted into makeshift labs containing a few petri dishes simply won't cut it. Every little third world country is making similar attempts, this is hardly a significant find. As for those paltry missiles, again, every little banana republic has a few dozen rusty stockpiles - apart from striking terror in the hearts of ants, this is hardly a threat.

Again the world asks the question, where are the weapons of mass destruction for which this war was fought and for which hundreds lost their lives?



User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3047 times:

Have any of you considered that there was more the one justification for this war.

The problem, my friend, is that Bush simply hammered about WMD's from the time 1441 was passed until the week of the invasion-they were THE WHOLE justification for war. If there was really more than one reason, Bush certainly didn't articulate it until after the attack began, and no WMD's were immediately found.

That's called "pulling the wool over your eyes", L-188. When WMD's weren't found (and still haven't been), he changed his tune, first to "regime change", which was a foregone conclusion, and then, when it wasn't clear if Saddam had gone to meet Allah, it became "freedom for Iraqi people".

NEITHER of those had been prominently mentioned BEFORE invasion, and it was a disingenuous attemt to make things up as he went along. Again, in my eyes, that cost him a lot of respect and credibility. It told me that the reason didn't matter to Bush-he simply wanted a war to make himself popular.

Jean Leloup is right, L-188, there HAS to be SOME accountability after Bush spent so much political capital, and went through a public split with long-time allies, over launching the war, based on his sole claims of Iraqi WMD's. If he's not made to account for this ,then, on other issues, he will simply make things up as he goes along, changing his reasons for anything to suit a new situiation, even if it doesn't fit with the fact at hand.

If it has been proved, it hasn't been publiclly announced.

Oh, come on L-188. Now you're trying to rationalize for Bush's failure on this one! If it has been proven, we would have heard about it in a dramatic speec the day it was proven! After the heat Bush has taken for his WMD stand since 1441 was introduced, he would want his vindication-and rightly so, in this case-immediately.


User currently offlineHepkat From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 2341 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3045 times:

In addition, not only did Bush use Iraq's supposed WMD as a justification to wage war, he also terrified the American public by claiming that these weapons of mass destruction posed a significant threat to the security of the United States. I vividly remember seeing a speech of his in which he stoked the fire of fear and whipped an audience into a frenzy by claiming that U.S. forces would victoriously remove this threat to our sovereignty and rid the world of this terrorist and tyrant.

I want nothing less than to see Bush and his lieutenants dragged before a congressional inquiry to answer for those weapons of mass destruction IF they're not found in a reasonable time.



User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3042 times:

NEITHER of those had been prominently mentioned BEFORE invasion, and it was a disingenuous attemt to make things up as he went along

What news where you watching. Admitidly that US media tends to be biased to the left and tends to be pretty much single focused when it comes to describing the US motivations in Iraq. but there where plenty of mention about living conditions in Iraq, the massacres in 92-93. Uday beating the Shit out of Olympic athletes.

Look around. I am sure that if you go to the back issues of any number of magazines, newspapers and the such you will find plenty of 2-3-4-5-6 year old articles describing these things.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

Admitidly that US media tends to be biased to the left and tends to be pretty much single focused when it comes to describing the US motivations in Iraq.

Now you're blaming the media? Come on, L-188. You're a damned smart man, and this is below you! If you watched war coverage, EVERONE jumped on the war bandwagon, so it's disingenuous of you to try to play that card. Bush, virtually every day, as Hepkat correctly (for once) said, pushed about the danger of these WMD's to the security of the U.S. That was THE motivation he gave for pressing for war. How can you deny that, my friend?

You're doing just what Bush has been doing-changing the game after it started. 1441 was about WMD's, and Bush's lynchpin for pressing for invasion was 1441; his difference with our allies was over interpretation of 1441. Powell put much of his own credibility on the line in trying to make a case against Iraq based on 1441. 1441 wasn't about regime change; it wasn't about bringing democracy to Iraq, or digging up mass graves. It was about WMD's that the administration said were there, and that posed a clear and present danger to the national security of the U.S.

Had truckloads of them been found alread, not even our allies who were honestly against this conflict could argue with us-I couldn't argue against Bush on this score either, as the war would be justified on that account. But more and more, it looks like it was a lie-or if not a lie, a ruse as a pretext for going to war, and implimenting the neo-con vision of the U.S. as street-corner bouncer.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3035 times:

1441 was about Iraq's failure to comply with terms of their disarmament and their failure to cooperate with weapons inspection teams.

It was their failure to cooperate with the weapons inspectors during the years leading up to the war that caused a lot of their problems.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
25 Hepkat : 1441 was about Iraq's failure to comply with terms of their disarmament and their failure to cooperate with weapons inspection teams. It was their fai
26 Alpha 1 : 1441 was about Iraq's failure to comply with terms of their disarmament and their failure to cooperate with weapons inspection teams. That's right. Th
27 L-188 : And did 1441 mention "regime change"? Did it mention "bringing democracy to Iraq"? No it didn't Are you saying those are bad things Alpha1?
28 Aloges : "Are you saying those are bad things Alpha1?" No, he is not. He's looking at the issue from a more legal point of view, as he's still one of those "li
29 L-188 : should be obeyed and not "interpreted" Gee where was the UN when the inspectors got kicked out of Iraq, Where was it when the US members of the inspec
30 MD-11 forever : "The UN clearly doesn't practice what it preaches." .....like the US of A who doesn't..............
31 Hepkat : Gee where was the UN when the inspectors got kicked out of Iraq, Where was it when the US members of the inspection team got kicked out. Let's clarify
32 Post contains links L-188 : Hepkat. 1st of all. There where no weapons inspectors prior to the first gulf war. That was part of the ceasefire agreement 2nd You are skipping the 1
33 Hepkat : Regardless, weapons inspectors were never kicked out of Iraq. This is a major lie being spread by the Bush administration. On each occasion they were
34 L-188 : Hepkat. Check on the events for 30 Aug 98. The 1993 refusal to let UNSCOM fly aircraft in Iraq.
35 Alpha 1 : Are you saying those are bad things Alpha1? Wake up, L-188. THE REASON given to go into Iraq was WMD's, and the green light, as far as the U.S. was co
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Beginning Of Permanent Troops Cuts In Iraq? posted Sat Dec 24 2005 04:58:27 by ANCFlyer
Photos Of The MIG25 Found In Iraq posted Sat Jan 17 2004 20:15:33 by MidnightMike
Think Of The Business Opportunities In Iraq... posted Fri Apr 11 2003 10:53:17 by JETPILOT
Another Mass Grave Found In Iraq posted Fri Jul 18 2003 05:43:14 by B757300
Army Chief Of Staff: U.S. Troops In Iraq Till '10 posted Wed Oct 11 2006 22:16:42 by Falcon84
Numbers Of NCOs In US Army In Iraq posted Tue Sep 26 2006 17:17:17 by Baroque
More US Trops Accussed Of Killings In Iraq posted Fri Jun 30 2006 21:05:02 by Mt99
Report: Hundreds Of WMDs Found In Iraq posted Thu Jun 22 2006 04:26:08 by Jetjack74
Accusation Of War Crimes In Iraq Sticks To US. posted Tue Mar 21 2006 17:50:05 by Sabenapilot
Majority Of Troops In Iraq Support Withdrawal posted Wed Mar 1 2006 17:41:55 by AeroWesty