Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: Dos Equis on October 09, 2006, 08:37:02 AM
-
What an animal.
Hussein men 'buried inmates alive'
POSTED: 10:34 a.m. EDT, October 9, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Prison guards under Saddam Hussein used to bury detainees alive and watch women as they bathed, occasionally shooting over their heads, a former female prisoner testified Monday in the genocide trial of the ex-president.
Speaking in Kurdish through an Arabic interpreter, the 31-year-old witness recalled what she saw as a 13-year-old girl who was detained during Saddam's offensive against the Kurds in the late 1980s.
Saddam and his co-defendants are charged with genocide against Iraq's Kurdish population in a campaign branded Operation Anfal, in which an estimated 180,000 people were killed. If convicted, the accused could be condemned to death by hanging.
The woman, who testified behind a curtain and whose name was withheld apparently for fear of reprisal, said Iraqi government forces destroyed her Kurdish village in northern Iraq in 1988 and she and some family members were imprisoned in the south.
A prison warden she identified as Hajaj -- whose name has been given by earlier witnesses in the trial -- "used to drag women, their hands and feet shackled, and leave them in a scorching sun for several hours."
"Soldiers used to watch us bathe," said the woman. The guards also fired over the women's heads as they washed.
The woman said several relatives disappeared during the offensive against the Kurds. "I know the fate of my family (members). They were buried alive," she testified.
The prosecution presented the court with documents showing that remains of the women's relatives turned up in a mass grave.
"I'd like to ask Saddam: 'What crime did women and children commit'?" the woman said in court.
Saddam and his six co-defendants sat quietly in court Monday when their trial resumed after a 12-day break. They were not represented by lawyers.
Chief Judge Mohammed Oreibi al-Khalifa had declared a recess after a stormy session September 26 in which Saddam and his co-defendants were thrown out of court. The judge said then he wanted to give the defendants time to persuade their lawyers to end their boycott of the trial, or to confer with new ones.
On Sunday, Saddam's chief lawyer said he and his team would continue to boycott the trial to protest the removal of the first chief judge and the court's refusal to give the attorneys time to examine thousands of documents.
Lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi said the decision to continue the boycott was made after he met with Saddam on October 2 and because of "repeated violations by the court."
A second witness, 41-year-old farmer Abdul-Hadi Abdullah Mohammed, told the court Monday his mother had died in detention and several other family members went missing in 1988 and were presumed dead. "The fate of my family is still unknown up to now," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/09/hussein.trial.ap/index.html
-
That man is just pure EVIL!!! I don't care what anyone has to say about how he went down. He needed to go...PERIOD!
-
That man is just pure EVIL!!! I don't care what anyone has to say about how he went down. He needed to go...PERIOD!
I agree.
-
That man is just pure EVIL!!! I don't care what anyone has to say about how he went down. He needed to go...PERIOD!
There are all sorts of people that need to go. Many criminals/muderers right in our own country. And "How" he went doesn't really matter. The issue here is what it's cost us to bring this guy down and what we have had to sacrifice to bring him down combined with what it's going to cost us to get out of this mess.
2700 Americans Dead
800 billion in debt
Thousands and thousands wounded
Terrorsim WORSE as a result!
How could we have changed this country if we put 800 billion into our education system? But no, instead we sink it into invading a country unprovoked with a "STUPID" "INCOMPITENT" plan from Rumsfield.
Ideals are wonderful from afar aren't they?
We can beat our "save a ho" drum all over the living room. You should take a trip iRaq walk around and see how safe it is. Then visit the 2700 moms who lost a son. And then see if it was worth it to take down a dictator in a country on the other side of the world. Perhaps you'll need to lose a friend to the war or a family member to see how stupid and wasteful this is.
-
There are all sorts of people that need to go. Many criminals/muderers right in our own country. And "How" he went doesn't really matter. The issue here is what it's cost us to bring this guy down and what we have had to sacrifice to bring him down combined with what it's going to cost us to get out of this mess.
2700 Americans Dead
800 billion in debt
Thousands and thousands wounded
Terrorsim WORSE as a result!
How could we have changed this country if we put 800 billion into our education system? But no, instead we sink it into invading a country unprovoked with a "STUPID" "INCOMPITENT" plan from Rumsfield.
Ideals are wonderful from afar aren't they?
We can beat our "save a ho" drum all over the living room. You should take a trip iRaq walk around and see how safe it is. Then visit the 2700 moms who lost a son. And then see if it was worth it to take down a dictator in a country on the other side of the world. Perhaps you'll need to lose a friend to the war or a family member to see how stupid and wasteful this is.
Two of my closet friends are on the ground right now and I've had several who have served in Iraq. If any of them die my opinion will not change. We just have different views on the war.
-
There are all sorts of people that need to go. Many criminals/muderers right in our own country. And "How" he went doesn't really matter. The issue here is what it's cost us to bring this guy down and what we have had to sacrifice to bring him down combined with what it's going to cost us to get out of this mess.
2700 Americans Dead
800 billion in debt
Thousands and thousands wounded
Terrorsim WORSE as a result!
How could we have changed this country if we put 800 billion into our education system? But no, instead we sink it into invading a country unprovoked with a "STUPID" "INCOMPITENT" plan from Rumsfield.
Ideals are wonderful from afar aren't they?
We can beat our "save a ho" drum all over the living room. You should take a trip iRaq walk around and see how safe it is. Then visit the 2700 moms who lost a son. And then see if it was worth it to take down a dictator in a country on the other side of the world. Perhaps you'll need to lose a friend to the war or a family member to see how stupid and wasteful this is.
So what should we have done spent the money on ourselves and told the people under Sadams rule too bad so sad. and many of the parents who lost their son in the war are sad yeas but they are also very proud.
2700 thousand dead. compared to the thousands upon thousands that died and were tortured under that regime?
so we should have left him? the U.N wasnt doing anything to stop him.
The U.S is damned if we do and damned if we dont.
its easy for you to say that we should have left him when its not your mother or daughter getting rapped repeatedly by his guards.
-
Two of my closet friends are on the ground right now and I've had several who have served in Iraq. If any of them die my opinion will not change. We just have different views on the war.
I understand that.
I just don't believe in senseless death to stop senseless death.
Afghanistan wasn't senseless. It was well executed and minimized American deaths. We invaded for the right reasons.
Iraq, IMO, however wasn't for the right reasons. And we squandered any credibility both domestically and abroad as a result of poor planning.
At least if it was done right. We could just be arguing whether or not it was morally justified to invade iRaq. BUt now, 3 years later, Iraq is far worse off then it was during Sadaam.
-
I'm with BB on this issue.
-
So what should we have done spent the money on ourselves and told the people under Sadams rule too bad so sad. and many of the parents who lost their son in the war are sad yeas but they are also very proud.
2700 thousand dead. compared to the thousands upon thousands that died and were tortured under that regime?
so we should have left him? the U.N wasnt doing anything to stop him.
The U.S is damned if we do and damned if we dont.
its easy for you to say that we should have left him when its not your mother or daughter getting rapped repeatedly by his guards.
Thousands and thousand are dying right now!
Yeah, we should have said, "too fucking bad" ....just like we've told Africa and the 300,000+ who have died there in the last 10 years from ethnic cleansing and civil war.
And that's right it's not my mother and daughter getting raped......BUT IT IS MY CHILDREN WHO ARE INA SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT SUCKS ASS......forcing me to put them in private schools. It is MY CHILDREN... who are at danger from the common street thug, or serial killer, or child molester... AND YES IT'S MY CHILDREN who are now facing a greater danger from terrorism becuase of the bumbling idiots who decided we needed to invaded Iraq with too few troops.
Got more news for you: WE WEREN'T DAMMED IF WE HAD JUST LEFT IRAQ ALONE AND KEPT OUR THUMB ON IT LIKE HAD BEEN DOING.
It so stupid to see these people like yourself running around waving the "sadaam was a mnster and we had to stop him flag" OPEN you dam eyes. WE ONLY APPLY THAT BULLSHIT WHEN OUR COUNTRY HAS SOMETHING TO GAIN FROM IT. Don't be so naive.
-
Thousands and thousand are dying right now!
Yeah, we should have said, "too fucking bad" ....just like we've told Africa and the 300,000+ who have died there in the last 10 years from ethnic cleansing and civil war.
And that's right it's not my mother and daughter getting raped......BUT IT IS MY CHILDREN WHO ARE INA SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT SUCKS ASS......forcing me to put them in private schools. It is MY CHILDREN... who are at danger from the common street thug, or serial killer, or child molester... AND YES IT'S MY CHILDREN who are now facing a greater danger from terrorism becuase of the bumbling idiots who decided we needed to invaded Iraq with too few troops.
Got more news for you: WE WEREN'T DAMMED IF WE HAD JUST LEFT IRAQ ALONE AND KEPT OUR THUMB ON IT LIKE HAD BEEN DOING.
It so stupid to see these people like yourself running around waving the "sadaam was a mnster and we had to stop him flag" OPEN you dam eyes. WE ONLY APPLY THAT BULLSHIT WHEN OUR COUNTRY HAS SOMETHING TO GAIN FROM IT. Don't be so naive.
You raise a valid point about our involvement in Africa, but we have taken steps to help stop some of the suffering, including Somalia and our food drops. Arguably, we could have done more to stop ethnic cleansing.
Re education and criminals in this country, you're essentially saying we have to address one problem and not the other. I don't think our obligation to protect American citizens is tied to our obligation to help make the world a safer place. The war isn't the cause of our sorry public school system. Nor is the war the cause of crime in the U.S. The war is not preventing the U.S. from addressing education and crime.
Precisely what did we gain from the war in Iraq? Other than the private "contracts" 240 has referenced, but hasn't read.
-
Re education and criminals in this country, you're essentially saying we have to address one problem and not the other. I don't think our obligation to protect American citizens is tied to our obligation to help make the world a safer place. The war isn't the cause of our sorry public school system. Nor is the war the cause of crime in the U.S. The war is not preventing the U.S. from addressing education and crime.
These are the points that I wanted to make, but didn't quite know how to articulate. It's true, they are separate issues.
-
You raise a valid point about our involvement in Africa, but we have taken steps to help stop some of the suffering, including Somalia and our food drops. Arguably, we could have done more to stop ethnic cleansing.
This is why the arguement of "Sadaam's transgressions" as a reason for us to go to war doesn't hold. The fact is, is we don't follow that line of responses all over the world. We only do it when it benefets us.
Re education and criminals in this country, you're essentially saying we have to address one problem and not the other. I don't think our obligation to protect American citizens is tied to our obligation to help make the world a safer place. The war isn't the cause of our sorry public school system. Nor is the war the cause of crime in the U.S. The war is not preventing the U.S. from addressing education and crime.
I'm not saying the "WAR" is a cuase for a poor public education system. I'm simply saying that when schools are over crowded, teachers are under paid, and things like Art and Band programs are getting cut it's hard for me to see us spending 800 billion on a war we should have never been invovled in in the first place when we could take that money and put into our education system. Have you seen where we rank in the international world lately as far as our students are concerned?
Re: addressing one problem not another etc... I believe in the old saying: "Charity starts at home" 800 billion would go a long way into making this country great and it's greatness lasting for generations to come.
Precisely what did we gain from the war in Iraq? Other than the private "contracts" 240 has referenced, but hasn't read.
Are you saying American Comapnies haven't profited from Iraq? Are you saying we didn't give out "no bid" contracts? Are you saying Haliburton's (very overused example) stock hasn't dramatically increased due to contracts they gained from American invading Iraq?
-
Thousands and thousand are dying right now!
Yeah, we should have said, "too fucking bad" ....just like we've told Africa and the 300,000+ who have died there in the last 10 years from ethnic cleansing and civil war.
And that's right it's not my mother and daughter getting raped......BUT IT IS MY CHILDREN WHO ARE INA SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT SUCKS ASS......forcing me to put them in private schools. It is MY CHILDREN... who are at danger from the common street thug, or serial killer, or child molester... AND YES IT'S MY CHILDREN who are now facing a greater danger from terrorism becuase of the bumbling idiots who decided we needed to invaded Iraq with too few troops.
Got more news for you: WE WEREN'T DAMMED IF WE HAD JUST LEFT IRAQ ALONE AND KEPT OUR THUMB ON IT LIKE HAD BEEN DOING.
It so stupid to see these people like yourself running around waving the "sadaam was a mnster and we had to stop him flag" OPEN you dam eyes. WE ONLY APPLY THAT BULLSHIT WHEN OUR COUNTRY HAS SOMETHING TO GAIN FROM IT. Don't be so naive.
-
This is why the arguement of "Sadaam's transgressions" as a reason for us to go to war doesn't hold. The fact is, is we don't follow that line of responses all over the world. We only do it when it benefets us.
I'm not saying the "WAR" is a cuase for a poor public education system. I'm simply saying that when schools are over crowded, teachers are under paid, and things like Art and Band programs are getting cut it's hard for me to see us spending 800 billion on a war we should have never been invovled in in the first place when we could take that money and put into our education system. Have you seen where we rank in the international world lately as far as our students are concerned?
Re: addressing one problem not another etc... I believe in the old saying: "Charity starts at home" 800 billion would go a long way into making this country great and it's greatness lasting for generations to come.
Are you saying American Comapnies haven't profited from Iraq? Are you saying we didn't give out "no bid" contracts? Are you saying Haliburton's (very overused example) stock hasn't dramatically increased due to contracts they gained from American invading Iraq?
I am certain some American companies have profited from the war in Iraq. War always benefits some industry. I don't know anything about the so-called "no-bid" contracts. I don't know what they say, who the parties are, terms, the subject matter, compensation, how they are terminated, etc. Do you? Yes, I've read Halliburton’s stock has dramatically increased. So what. Are you saying we went to war in Iraq to benefit Halliburton?
You and others have said we had ulterior motives to invade Iraq. I haven't heard anyone provide one ulterior motive that wasn't based on wild innuendo. When the war first started people said we went in to steal the oil. When that turned out to be false, the argument morphed into Halliburton and "no bid" contracts. Doesn't make any sense to me.
-
Thousands and thousand are dying right now!
Yeah, we should have said, "too fucking bad" ....just like we've told Africa and the 300,000+ who have died there in the last 10 years from ethnic cleansing and civil war.
And that's right it's not my mother and daughter getting raped......BUT IT IS MY CHILDREN WHO ARE INA SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT SUCKS ASS......forcing me to put them in private schools. It is MY CHILDREN... who are at danger from the common street thug, or serial killer, or child molester... AND YES IT'S MY CHILDREN who are now facing a greater danger from terrorism becuase of the bumbling idiots who decided we needed to invaded Iraq with too few troops.
Got more news for you: WE WEREN'T DAMMED IF WE HAD JUST LEFT IRAQ ALONE AND KEPT OUR THUMB ON IT LIKE HAD BEEN DOING.
It so stupid to see these people like yourself running around waving the "sadaam was a mnster and we had to stop him flag" OPEN you dam eyes. WE ONLY APPLY THAT BULLSHIT WHEN OUR COUNTRY HAS SOMETHING TO GAIN FROM IT. Don't be so naive.
So because we failed to help then, we should not do it in the future is that what we are saying? we should be confined to what we do by strictly what we have done or havent done in the past, so we shouldnt learn from our experiences of our past failures or successes?
and if we never invaded Iraq i can conclude from what you are saying that your children would not be in danger from street thugs? and our educational system would be that much improved? you talk about the 800 billion spent on the war, and the incentives that Rumsfield has benefited from as if thats is the only source of corruption in our nation. there was as much corruption in the govt. before Bush took over it didnt start from this administration.
"AND YES IT'S MY CHILDREN who are now facing a greater danger from terrorism because of the bumbling idiots who decided we needed to invaded Iraq with too few troops." so your problem is that we used too few troops? if we used more troops then we would have less threat of terrorism according to your logic.
and i know first hand that many kids who go through the current public school system that "sucks ass" according to you will be exceedingly successful in the future. dont blame the public school system, its not perfect or great but if used properly does help in producing highly productive and intelligent individuals. perhaps the fact that youre children need to go to a private school and that the public system that is utilized by so many other children including first generation kids whose first language isnt even English is not the root of the problem?? many kids going through the same public school system your kids could not will go on to do great things.
-
So because we failed to help then, we should not do it in the future is that what we are saying?
No, I'm not talking about 1990. I'm talking about in 2003, going in with 150K troops with no thought out plan, just a bunch of fatal assumptions.
and if we never invaded Iraq i can conclude from what you are saying that your children would not be in danger from street thugs? and our educational system would be that much improved?
Well, even an uneducated person can figure out that when high schools are cancelling many programs like art and music..... and calss room sizes are in the 30's then obviously part of 800 billion would go a long way in making our education system better.
you talk about the 800 billion spent on the war, and the incentives that Rumsfield has benefited from as if thats is the only source of corruption in our nation.
You are assuming that that's the only curruption I'm talking about here.... much like Rumsfield assumed we had enough troops to invade Iraq and maintain order and peace after we toppled the government. Of course that's not the only corruption in the US. But right now, that's a very obvous one.
"AND YES IT'S MY CHILDREN who are now facing a greater danger from terrorism because of the bumbling idiots who decided we needed to invaded Iraq with too few troops." so your problem is that we used too few troops? if we used more troops then we would have less threat of terrorism according to your logic.
Although i was against invading Iraq from the beggining, YES. If we used more troops like triple as much or more, the pillaging of government & city buildings wouldn't have occured.... we would have had a stronger presence in every city and major road. We could have nip the insurgency in the bud before it gained momentum.... now look at it. Terrorism is worse now becuase we didn;t do the job right in Iraq. Iraq now is a major haven for terrorist. If that wasn't true, sir, then we wouldn't be losing an average of 5 US soldiers a day.
Fact is, we let the Iraqi people down.... by our bumbling incompitence.
and i know first hand that many kids who go through the current public school system that "sucks ass" according to you will be exceedingly successful in the future. dont blame the public school system, its not perfect or great but if used properly does help in producing highly productive and intelligent individuals. perhaps the fact that youre children need to go to a private school and that the public system that is utilized by so many other children including first generation kids whose first language isnt even English is not the root of the problem?? many kids going through the same public school system your kids could not will go on to do great things.
Are you living in a dream world? have you seen how are kids compare to the rest of the world? We suck ass. Why? Becuase our school system is over burdened and under funded. What world are you living in?
Are we not the richest greatest country in the world? Then shouldn't we have the best education system? No, instead we go and play BRain washed cop around the world. BRILLIANT!
-
I am certain some American companies have profited from the war in Iraq. War always benefits some industry. I don't know anything about the so-called "no-bid" contracts. I don't know what they say, who the parties are, terms, the subject matter, compensation, how they are terminated, etc. Do you? Yes, I've read Halliburton’s stock has dramatically increased. So what. Are you saying we went to war in Iraq to benefit Halliburton?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/082903B.shtml (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/082903B.shtml)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml)
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/no_bid_and_no_problem.php (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/no_bid_and_no_problem.php)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1010/p02s01-usfp.html (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1010/p02s01-usfp.html)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112801735.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112801735.html)
Remember, You asked what we gain from invading Iraq and setting up a democratic goverment:
Our companies profit from contracts with the new Iraqi government and ours.
we get more of a military presence in the gulf.
Also, you tell me if a no-bid contract smells of corruption or not? Did someone or somegroup get paid off hansomely?
You and others have said we had ulterior motives to invade Iraq. I haven't heard anyone provide one ulterior motive that wasn't based on wild innuendo. When the war first started people said we went in to steal the oil. When that turned out to be false, the argument morphed into Halliburton and "no bid" contracts. Doesn't make any sense to me.
We never went into Iraq to "take" control of the oil directly. That's hasn't been the way we do things. What we do is install what ever government will honor contracts we make with the disrtibution of their resources and in turn people in the that government get paid off. What happens then is that country never really benefits from it. It's one of the reason we are the richest country int he world. I don't exactly have a problem with it in most cases, becuase that business. But in this case, whether it was really our motive or not, i don't agree with invading a country to do it. Why do you think right after the war France was all willing to "go in and help?" They wanted some of the action ;)
-
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pot.html
ever wonder why we didn't go after this guy???
orrrr
ever wonder why saddam ws an ally before..i mean he waaas killing folks then also no?
soo do tell..what magic number of people did he have to kill for us to consider him bad?
i'm all ears...oh do tell...
saddam ws evil and i'm glad he is gonna die...but dont bullshit me and insult my intelligence by telling me the war ws some kinda telescopic philanthropy on bushes part...
see how i give him a compliment and insult him at the same time in the above sentence??
nooo you dont..u r republicans :)
;D
-
Wow, there's evil people in the world?!! :o (Ozmo makes some fine points)
-
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/082903B.shtml (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/082903B.shtml)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml)
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/no_bid_and_no_problem.php (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/no_bid_and_no_problem.php)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1010/p02s01-usfp.html (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1010/p02s01-usfp.html)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112801735.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112801735.html)
Remember, You asked what we gain from invading Iraq and setting up a democratic goverment:
Our companies profit from contracts with the new Iraqi government and ours.
we get more of a military presence in the gulf.
Also, you tell me if a no-bid contract smells of corruption or not? Did someone or somegroup get paid off hansomely?
We never went into Iraq to "take" control of the oil directly. That's hasn't been the way we do things. What we do is install what ever government will honor contracts we make with the disrtibution of their resources and in turn people in the that government get paid off. What happens then is that country never really benefits from it. It's one of the reason we are the richest country int he world. I don't exactly have a problem with it in most cases, becuase that business. But in this case, whether it was really our motive or not, i don't agree with invading a country to do it. Why do you think right after the war France was all willing to "go in and help?" They wanted some of the action ;)
We don't control their oil directly or indirectly. Ozmo, claiming that the U.S. went to war in Iraq so a couple of private U.S. companies could get private contracts that can be terminated at any time doesn't make any sense. It doesn't give the U.S. control of anything. Contracts can always be broken. That theory doesn't hold up.
-
We don't control their oil directly or indirectly. Ozmo, claiming that the U.S. went to war in Iraq so a couple of private U.S. companies could get private contracts that can be terminated at any time doesn't make any sense. It doesn't give the U.S. control of anything. Contracts can always be broken. That theory doesn't hold up.
You don't think people were placed in high government positions with the new Iraqi government who can insure American companies keep those contracts? Those people are placed there and they are paid dividens.
You don't think we are more economically and financially in control with this new iraqi government than with sadaam? You don't think we stronly influence economic import/export policy in the new iraq government?
We didn't go to war for that sole purpose.
I outlined why we went there.
My main point about "why" we went there is that we didn't do it becuase:
- we wanted to spread democracy (72% of Iraqis think we are causing more problems by being there. should we follow our own priciple of democracy and get out or does that only apply when it's convinient for us?)
- There were WMD's
- Or we wanted to "free" the Iraqi people.
Becuase of 9/11 we saw an opportunity to get what i outlined above. So Bush and his merry men sold the American people a "poop in plastic bags" and many people bought hook line and sinker and still believe it today.
-
No, I'm not talking about 1990. I'm talking about in 2003, going in with 150K troops with no thought out plan, just a bunch of fatal assumptions.
so you ARE saying that we have to be consistant...we failed to help in the past so therefore we must always fail to help. our past should restrict what we do now in in the future?
Well, even an uneducated person can figure out that when high schools are cancelling many programs like art and music..... and calss room sizes are in the 30's then obviously part of 800 billion would go a long way in making our education system better.
who is to say that all that money would have gone to education and not just gobbled up by the govt. in some other way? you are assuming that the money would have gone directly to the schools and thats not how it works, it never worked like that. and how was our educationsal system all those years when we werent at war? it was still well below that of those in Aisa.
You are assuming that that's the only curruption I'm talking about here.... much like Rumsfield assumed we had enough troops to invade Iraq and maintain order and peace after we toppled the government. Of course that's not the only corruption in the US. But right now, that's a very obvous one.
no youre assuming that thats the only type of corruption that has ever taken place. now your being naive.
Although i was against invading Iraq from the beggining, YES. If we used more troops like triple as much or more, the pillaging of government & city buildings wouldn't have occured.... we would have had a stronger presence in every city and major road. We could have nip the insurgency in the bud before it gained momentum.... now look at it. Terrorism is worse now becuase we didn;t do the job right in Iraq. Iraq now is a major haven for terrorist. If that wasn't true, sir, then we wouldn't be losing an average of 5 US soldiers a day.
so youre against the invation of Iraq but think we should have used more troops? and how do you know that if we used more troops there would be less terrorism? its not academic like that.
Fact is, we let the Iraqi people down.... by our bumbling incompitence.
Fact is we have given the Iraqi people an opportunity, i have three sibblings who are there now or were there recently. they see far more support from the Iraqi people than what is showed on TV. strange how good news isnt so popular. you are assuming we let the people down, you dont know that. im getting my information form people who are/were there. not to say that other soldiers havent experienced the opposite however im just relaying what i heard.
Are you living in a dream world? have you seen how are kids compare to the rest of the world? We suck ass. Why? Becuase our school system is over burdened and under funded. What world are you living in?
what world are you living in our kids were always behind in math and science for as long as i can remeber. how many times have i met,seen a kid or gone to school with a kid that couldnt speak english to save his life but knew math and science like the back of his hand. the fact that kids in other countries have less freedoms and opportunities than our kids drives them to want to excell. and so before we invaded Iraq and wasted the 800 billion our kids were ahead of other kids in other countries? or perhaps could it be a continually down ward affect that has been going on the past few decades hmmmm. or may be youre right it could have just started in 03'.
Are we not the richest greatest country in the world? Then shouldn't we have the best education system? No, instead we go and play BRain washed cop around the world. BRILLIANT!
yes we are the richest country in the world so according to you we should
be #1 in education- we are not..never were. so we should be # 1 in everything across the board then huh? becuase we have the money. well we have always been the riches country in the world but never # 1 across the board which is what your train of thought is.
-
shit sorry.
-
You don't think people were placed in high government positions with the new Iraqi government who can insure American companies keep those contracts? Those people are placed there and they are paid dividens.
You don't think we are more economically and financially in control with this new iraqi government than with sadaam? You don't think we stronly influence economic import/export policy in the new iraq government?
We didn't go to war for that sole purpose.
I outlined why we went there.
My main point about "why" we went there is that we didn't do it becuase:
- we wanted to spread democracy (72% of Iraqis think we are causing more problems by being there. should we follow our own priciple of democracy and get out or does that only apply when it's convinient for us?)
- There were WMD's
- Or we wanted to "free" the Iraqi people.
Becuase of 9/11 we saw an opportunity to get what i outlined above. So Bush and his merry men sold the American people a "poop in plastic bags" and many people bought hook line and sinker and still believe it today.
ok ok some of what you are saying does make snese Ozmo...its just too "conspiracy theorist for me"
-
You don't think people were placed in high government positions with the new Iraqi government who can insure American companies keep those contracts? Those people are placed there and they are paid dividens.
You don't think we are more economically and financially in control with this new iraqi government than with sadaam? You don't think we stronly influence economic import/export policy in the new iraq government?
We didn't go to war for that sole purpose.
I outlined why we went there.
My main point about "why" we went there is that we didn't do it becuase:
- we wanted to spread democracy (72% of Iraqis think we are causing more problems by being there. should we follow our own priciple of democracy and get out or does that only apply when it's convinient for us?)
- There were WMD's
- Or we wanted to "free" the Iraqi people.
Becuase of 9/11 we saw an opportunity to get what i outlined above. So Bush and his merry men sold the American people a "poop in plastic bags" and many people bought hook line and sinker and still believe it today.
No I don't believe the U.S. put people in the Iraqi government who will ensure whatever private contracts Iraq has with private U.S. companies will never be broken. That's an example of the wild innuendo I mentioned earlier. We might influence Iraq's imports/exports, like we probably do with many other countries, but the only thing they have of any real value is oil, and we don't control their oil.
Also, we already had a military presence in Germany, Spain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, so we didn't need a base in Iraq. That isn't why we went to war.
-
yes we are the richest country in the world so according to you we should
be #1 in education- we are not..never were. so we should be # 1 in everything across the board then huh? becuase we have the money. well we have always been the riches country in the world but never # 1 across the board which is what your train of thought is.
No, i just think we could do much better and there are better places for 800 Billiion to be spent. We could be number 2 or 4 of 5. Point is, does the average kid get a good education in America? NO. What do you think would happen if class room size never was over 18 students per class? Do you think teachers could teach and help students better? Money can make that happen. 800 billion canmake that a reality. Wouldn't you want your kid to be able to learn a musical insturment in school if he wanted?
-
No I don't believe the U.S. put people in the Iraqi government who will ensure whatever private contracts Iraq has with private U.S. companies will never be broken. That's an example of the wild innuendo I mentioned earlier. We might influence Iraq's imports/exports, like we probably do with many other countries, but the only thing they have of any real value is oil, and we don't control their oil.
Also, we already had a military presence in Germany, Spain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, so we didn't need a base in Iraq. That isn't why we went to war.
It happens in the US in a similar way right now. How do you think Haliburton got a no-bid contract? Hmm could it be Cheney?
Also, putting people who will do our bidding (indirectly and directly) in government positions in a new government is a very pruduent thing to do anyway. You really don't believe we are so silly as to leave things like this to chance?
BB, it's not a wild innuendo. It's a fact. It sound long term stratagey.
AND........
Our military presence in Germany is a result of the cold war. But in Turkey, suadi and kuwait......... That's not a military presence.... maybe 10k per country if that. 150k! now that's a military presence. along with a new government we strongly influenced in setting up.
-
It happens in the US in a similar way right now. How do you think Haliburton got a no-bid contract? Hmm could it be Cheney?
Also, putting people who will do our bidding (indirectly and directly) in government positions in a new government is a very pruduent thing to do anyway. You really don't believe we are so silly as to leave things like this to chance?
BB, it's not a wild innuendo. It's a fact. It sound long term stratagey.
AND........
Our military presence in Germany is a result of the cold war. But in Turkey, suadi and kuwait......... That's not a military presence.... maybe 10k per country if that. 150k! now that's a military presence. along with a new government we strongly influenced in setting up.
Come on Ozmo. It's not a fact at all that the U.S. placed puppets in the Iraqi government to control contracts with private U.S companies. I understand the strategy and how it would possibly work, but this claim is pure supposition.
Yes we have a huge presence in Iraq now, because we're still at war. There will be a reduction in force in the gulf over time. There has to be. We don't have the manpower to keep over 150,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq. (They've had to use Honolulu police officers to man the gates at Schofield Barracks because so many soldiers were gone.) I think when all is said and done we will have one division (12-15,000 soldiers), some air force, some marines, and a ship somewhere nearby.
I think what we agree on is the war was poorly planned and in part poorly executed. Not enough manpower. Those who said we needed more manpower were silenced (e.g., General Shinseki). Some of our equipment was inadequate. Our PR campaign was terrible. We're not trained to effectively fight a guerilla war. We've lost too many service members.
We disagree on whether we should have gone in to begin with and what our motivations were/are.
-
Come on Ozmo. It's not a fact at all that the U.S. placed puppets in the Iraqi government to control contracts with private U.S companies. I understand the strategy and how it would possibly work, but this claim is pure supposition.
It's not as straight forward as that. They will place people in those postiions who will protect their interests by the mere fact those people's interests are the same or otherwise. They aren't puppets in the straight forward sense of the word. But they are bought and paid for in the sense of those words.
Yes we have a huge presence in Iraq now, because we're still at war. There will be a reduction in force in the gulf over time. There has to be. We don't have the manpower to keep over 150,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq. (They've had to use Honolulu police officers to man the gates at Schofield Barracks because so many soldiers were gone.) I think when all is said and done we will have one division (12-15,000 soldiers), some air force, some marines, and a ship somewhere nearby.
There's the quandry at present...............Wi ll it ever be stable? So far it looks like it's getting worse. If they are using police officers to man gates then we are spread very thin..........dangerousl y thin.
There is only 2 scenarios that we will leave under:
1. The country stablizes and the insurgency is crushed. (doesn't look like our present actions are working)
2. The American people get fed up enough and public opinion forces them out. (more likely this will happen)
I think what we agree on is the war was poorly planned and in part poorly executed. Not enough manpower. Those who said we needed more manpower were silenced (e.g., General Shinseki). Some of our equipment was inadequate. Our PR campaign was terrible. We're not trained to effectively fight a guerilla war. We've lost too many service members.
I agree.
:)
-
No, i just think we could do much better and there are better places for 800 Billiion to be spent. We could be number 2 or 4 of 5. Point is, does the average kid get a good education in America? NO. What do you think would happen if class room size never was over 18 students per class? Do you think teachers could teach and help students better? Money can make that happen. 800 billion canmake that a reality. Wouldn't you want your kid to be able to learn a musical insturment in school if he wanted?
the average kid in the U.S also doesnt take advantage of the things he already has. my point is that kids with much less around the world make do with what they have and excel. i dont know if it would be possible to make class sizes no larger than 18, it would greatly benefit them though. how would they do that? there are far more kids now than ever right? and yes playing a musical instrument is directly related to overall intelligence and is proven to increase IQ. all kids should play an instrument for at least a year it should be required.
-
the average kid in the U.S also doesnt take advantage of the things he already has. my point is that kids with much less around the world make do with what they have and excel. i dont know if it would be possible to make class sizes no larger than 18, it would greatly benefit them though. how would they do that? there are far more kids now than ever right? and yes playing a musical instrument is directly related to overall intelligence and is proven to increase IQ. all kids should play an instrument for at least a year it should be required.
If teachers made more money it would encourage more people to teach. With more money, schools could build more class rooms and school districts could require higher standards of teachers. THat's how we could get to 18 per class.
-
Contracts can always be broken.
{giggle} And as soon as they are, ...that nation comes off the list of democratic free societies or allied partner states, and get's put on the list of terrorist nations, or nations that support & harbour terrorists and need to be bombed into oblivion, ...or at least destabilized to such an extent, the government is overthrown in favour of a US hand-picked appointee (sanctioned by free elections of course.) ::)
Beach Bum, ...you're so cute in a naive sorta way. :-* :P How have the girls wrapped you round their pinky's lately?
-
{giggle} And as soon as they are, ...that nation comes off the list of democratic free societies or allied partner states, and get's put on the list of terrorist nations, or nations that support & harbour terrorists and need to be bombed into oblivion, ...or at least destabilized to such an extent, the government is overthrown in favour of a US hand-picked appointee (sanctioned by free elections of course.) ::)
Beach Bum, ...you're so cute in a naive sorta way. :-* :P How have the girls wrapped you round their pinky's lately?
I see. The U.S. invades Iraq so it can allow Halliburton to obtain a "no-bid" contract with the government of Iraq. The contract doesn't give the U.S. control of Iraq's oil, but it allows Halliburton to earn substantially increased profits. The U.S. puts a puppet in the Iraqi government to ensure the contract is not broken. If the contract is broken, the U.S. government puts Iraq on a terrorist list and starts the bombing all over again. Geeze Louise. ::)
My girls don't have me wrapped around anything. :-\ Maybe the little one, who likes to say "goodnight" to me about three separate times a night so she can keep giving me sugar. :)
-
My girls don't have me wrapped around anything. :-\
Sha right! ::)
Delusional in a loveable sorta way. Truth is... they OWN you.
Maybe the little one, who likes to say "goodnight" to me about three separate times a night so she can keep giving me sugar. :)
She's softening you up, ...wait til she goes for the juggular... starts rolling out the heavy artillery on you,
...looks up at you with those big brown eyes and says "Please Daddy". You'll be toast. Might as well stick a fork in ya
-
I see. The U.S. invades Iraq so it can allow Halliburton to obtain a "no-bid" contract with the government of Iraq. The contract doesn't give the U.S. control of Iraq's oil, but it allows Halliburton to earn substantially increased profits. The U.S. puts a puppet in the Iraqi government to ensure the contract is not broken. If the contract is broken, the U.S. government puts Iraq on a terrorist list and starts the bombing all over again. Geeze Louise. ::)
My girls don't have me wrapped around anything. :-\ Maybe the little one, who likes to say "goodnight" to me about three separate times a night so she can keep giving me sugar. :)
OK BB, do you really think the US will be OK with people in high ranking government positions in the new Iraqi government who do not share US interests? I'd be willing to bet many of those people who hold high ranking positions have stock in some of these companies who are "rebuilding" Iraq. Do you think they would be OK with a person who thinks Iraq should profit where haliburton is? Becuase really they should.
Com on, BB. These Galant ethical ideals by our government you seem to take for granted are not the real world and never have been. It's what been spoon fed to the American public for years................ com on, do you really think arabs "HATE DEMOCRACY?" Of course not. They hate the American Government and it's stupid people who back it's aggressive and oppressive actions. Becuase they know the truth, they have to live with it. We on the other hand live in a protected capsule isolated from it all and are fed BS like "Sadaam was a monster and we are obligated to do something about it as justification for spending 800 billion and losing 2700 US soldiers...... Nam all over again but worse. Haven't we as a people learned yet?
-
OK BB, do you really think the US will be OK with people in high ranking government positions in the new Iraqi government who do not share US interests? I'd be willing to bet many of those people who hold high ranking positions have stock in some of these companies who are "rebuilding" Iraq. Do you think they would be OK with a person who thinks Iraq should profit where haliburton is? Becuase really they should.
Com on, BB. These Galant ethical ideals by our government you seem to take for granted are not the real world and never have been. It's what been spoon fed to the American public for years................ com on, do you really think arabs "HATE DEMOCRACY?" Of course not. They hate the American Government and it's stupid people who back it's aggressive and oppressive actions. Becuase they know the truth, they have to live with it. We on the other hand live in a protected capsule isolated from it all and are fed BS like "Sadaam was a monster and we are obligated to do something about it as justification for spending 800 billion and losing 2700 US soldiers...... Nam all over again but worse. Haven't we as a people learned yet?
The U.S. will not get to determine who controls Iraq, so it's sort of a moot point. The Iraqi elections will determine who runs the country. I'm sure we'll do everything we can to influence the outcome of those elections, but that is a far cry from selecting a person who will be placed in the government for the sole purpose of safeguarding contracts with private U.S. companies.
I don't trust the government. I don't trust them with my money and I don't trust them to safeguard my liberties. That's why the courts and the media play such an important role (even though I detest the media). I understand our government is not beyond doing very bad things. What I don't buy is the theory that we went to war to steal oil or to benefit Halliburton. You cannot follow the theory from start to finish without including some rather absurd propositions. It doesn't make any sense.
I don't automatically discount conspiracy theories, but all of the dominos have to line up for me to start believing.
-
Sha right! ::)
Delusional in a loveable sorta way. Truth is... they OWN you.
She's softening you up, ...wait til she goes for the juggular... starts rolling out the heavy artillery on you,
...looks up at you with those big brown eyes and says "Please Daddy". You'll be toast. Might as well stick a fork in ya
How do you know she has brown eyes?
She already gives me the "sad face," which works much too often.
-
The U.S. will not get to determine who controls Iraq, so it's sort of a moot point. The Iraqi elections will determine who runs the country. I'm sure we'll do everything we can to influence the outcome of those elections, but that is a far cry from selecting a person who will be placed in the government for the sole purpose of safeguarding contracts with private U.S. companies.
The U.S. will determine what group gets elected. That's a certainty. They will fund the group they want in power and they will undermine the group(s) they don't want in power. The message wll be clear: You want US aid? Then this group (the one America wants, the one that will uphold contracts and pay offs to companies from America) will be in power. If they ever stablize the country and that's a big IF, America will influence the elctions via financial funding, media campaigns, and a partnership with the rich and powerful of Iraq. Opposition groups won't have a chance.
This isn't palistine, where HAMAS was the popular elected group and won the election and the US ended it's fanancial aid as a result. this is Iraq where America has invested economic interests in it's resources. The ONLY way for that not to happen in Iraq is if the insurgency wins. The insurgency knows they cannot win in a fiancial media war in a democratic arena with the united states backed groups in Iraq. So they are doing what America has failed to stop in Nam and now in Iraq.
I don't trust the government. I don't trust them with my money and I don't trust them to safeguard my liberties. That's why the courts and the media play such an important role (even though I detest the media). I understand our government is not beyond doing very bad things. What I don't buy is the theory that we went to war to steal oil or to benefit Halliburton. You cannot follow the theory from start to finish without including some rather absurd propositions. It doesn't make any sense.
One thing that seems to find it's way into converstions is "conspiracy". This is no conspiracy. It's the nature of the beast. It's what we do. It's how we control things and protect our interests. I used to view our government and it's actions much like you do. then about 10 years ago i started looking at alternantive sources of news and information and began to realize a few things:
"The Government of the United States is continually in the act of spewing propaganda in order to manipulate and or manage public opinion"
Here's some basic propaganda regarding this war:
- WMD's
- We are there to establish democracy
- People in the middle east don't want democracy
- Sadaam was a (real time) threat to the security of the United States
All of that is BULL Cha Cha.
We are not going to do anything unless there is something in it for us.
Be that:
- controlling oil distribution
- Geo-political influence
- Military influence
We didn't go in there on a charity mission.
Concerning Haliburton: (Haliburton is one of the many things we are there to benefit from) Just use some common sense:
- How ethical is a "no-bid" contract in the first place?
- Don't you think there is a serious conflict of interest with Dick Cheney being that he has strong ties with Haliburton?
- If Dick Cheney had 1 shread of integrity he would have insisted on a "bidding contract" and discourage the government from awarding Haliburton the contract.
That is plain curruption at the highest level of Governement.
Do you really think for 1 second during the time from 9/11 to the start of the Iraq war that Haliburton and Dick Cheney didn't know how a US invasioin and take over of Iraq would benefit Haliburton and how Dick Cheney could arrange "no-bid" contracts for them?
Do you think that there wasn't any motivation on the Part of Cheney and Bush in that regard to invade Iraq? It's was all part of the fruits of conquest. Do you think this Halaburton thing happened by chance?
It's simple common sense here.
this is what is soo gauling to me: They have pretty much waved this corruption in front of our faces and the American people are soo Glazed over by their TV shows and Movie stars to pay any mind to it.