Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Cavalier22 on January 16, 2007, 03:45:06 PM
-
"It exterminates thousands and forces them not to eat or drink, and they will have to evacuate their homes without taking anything with them, until we can finally purge them." -Saddam, on a tape recorded in the 1980's on his plans to murder Kurds with chemical weapons.
Yet, American leaders on on par with this mass murderor. ::)
-
Yet, American leaders on on par with this mass murderor. ::)
WTF is that suppose to mean?????
-
I think he's referring to the left's uncanny ability to portray our free world leaders as despots far worse and more evil than even Saddam. He is, of course, correct to criticise this.
-
There is no doubt in my mind that saddam was one evil prick.
But i question whether it was worth the 3000 US lives and the 20,000 US wounded aling with the 400 billion we are in debt to dislodge this bastard from the hole he was cornered in that thousands of miles from our soil. A hole and a situation where he didn;t have any offensive capabilty both physically and logically to seriously attack the US with.
Buta parade of Alarmists and Aggression Justifiers will undoubtedly beat the fear based terror drum.
-
There is no doubt in my mind that saddam was one evil prick.
But i question whether it was worth the 3000 US lives and the 20,000 US wounded aling with the 400 billion we are in debt to dislodge this bastard from the hole he was cornered in that thousands of miles from our soil. A hole and a situation where he didn;t have any offensive capabilty both physically and logically to seriously attack the US with.
Buta parade of Alarmists and Aggression Justifiers will undoubtedly beat the fear based terror drum.
At very worst, we have removed a despot who murdered brutally hundreds and thousands of innocents. The first and only leader of a nation to commit genocide upon his own citizens. Your trivialisation of this is worrying. On top of this, I'm surprised you are so sure that if Saddam was able to aqcuire a weapon able to kill westerners (whether he had one or not is now irrelevant) he might not use it. Keep in mind it's not that far from Baghdad to Jerusalem, we have a strong need to defend our allies from state-sponsored terror - and consider too the American lives in Israel. Don't trivialise the efforts of those that have given their lives so that you and I may live ours free of brutal dictators.
-
At very worst, we have removed a despot who murdered brutally hundreds and thousands of innocents. The first and only leader of a nation to commit genocide upon his own citizens. Your trivialisation of this is worrying. On top of this, I'm surprised you are so sure that if Saddam was able to aqcuire a weapon able to kill westerners (whether he had one or not is now irrelevant) he might not use it. Keep in mind it's not that far from Baghdad to Jerusalem, we have a strong need to defend our allies from state-sponsored terror - and consider too the American lives in Israel. Don't trivialise the efforts of those that have given their lives so that you and I may live ours free of brutal dictators.
Well on the genocide thing: Hitler killed germens jews, and there was bosnia and the killing fields in Cambodia. So i don't htink he's the first.
But as far as Saddam goes, you must remember, "power" is like an animal: It will make choices that ensures it's survival. Saddam was no idiot. Any aggression after the gulf war in 1991 would spell instand death to his power which something he would never give up.
-
Well on the genocide thing: Hitler killed germens jews, and there was bosnia and the killing fields in Cambodia. So i don't htink he's the first.
But as far as Saddam goes, you must remember, "power" is like an animal: It will make choices that ensures it's survival. Saddam was no idiot. Any aggression after the gulf war in 1991 would spell instand death to his power which something he would never give up.
You assume Saddam was as rational as you or I. He wasn't. Also, you are correct to point out Hitler etc. in your example, I meant to clarify what I said as being 'Saddam was the first and only leader of a nation to use a chemical weapon on his own citizens'.
-
You assume Saddam was as rational as you or I. He wasn't. Also, you are correct to point out Hitler etc. in your example, I meant to clarify what I said as being 'Saddam was the first and only leader of a nation to use a chemical weapon on his own citizens'.
Chemical weapons that the United States sold to him. We as a nation stood and by and shook the bastard's hand in '84 as he gased his own people, but when he threatened the western oil interests he suddenly turned into an enemy of America.
Do everyone a favor and stop acting like you give a flying fuck up about the Iraqi people. That way you don't use that liberation garbage to justify our presence there. ::)
-
Chemical weapons that the United States sold to him. We as a nation stood and by and shook the bastard's hand in '84 as he gased his own people, but when he threatened the western oil interests he suddenly turned into an enemy of America.
Do everyone a favor and stop acting like you give a flying f**k up about the Iraqi people. That way you don't use that liberation garbage to justify our presence there. ::)
We sold him poison gas, did we? You'll provide me with some information confirming this 'Camel Jockey' and I'll go right ahead and forward it to the UN so that the US may be persecuted accordingly ::)
As I have pointed out previously, Saddam was happily selling Iraq's oil to nations before we visited him once again and got involved in an expensive war. Why didn't we just buy it off him if we are so evil?
By the way, I'll keep giving a f**k about the Iraqi people (as you so thoughtfully put it), and you can sit back and care less. You sure seem like the right person to make moral decisions on liberating nations.
-
"It exterminates thousands and forces them not to eat or drink, and they will have to evacuate their homes without taking anything with them, until we can finally purge them." -Saddam, on a tape recorded in the 1980's on his plans to murder Kurds with chemical weapons.
Yet, American leaders on on par with this mass murderor. ::)
Glad he's dead.
-
Glad he's dead.
Me too - the world is a better place.
-
We sold him poison gas, did we? You'll provide me with some information confirming this 'Camel Jockey' and I'll go right ahead and forward it to the UN so that the US may be persecuted accordingly ::)
you don't know history, dude. you need about a year of reading til you're able to tread water here on the political board.
-
Me too - the world is a better place.
Absolutely.
-
you don't know history, dude. you need about a year of reading til you're able to tread water here on the political board.
If I am so absent minded you will surely provide me with evidence accordingly, and prove my point of view incorrect, dude.
-
you don't know history, dude. you need about a year of reading til you're able to tread water here on the political board.
This coming from a guy who thinks the moon landings never happened. ::)
-
If I am so absent minded you will surely provide me with evidence accordingly, and prove my point of view incorrect, dude.
You're not absent minded. You just don't know the facts.
CBS) Newly released documents show that U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, played a leading role in building up Iraq's military in the 1980s when Iraq was using chemical weapons, a newspaper reports.
It was Rumsfeld, now defense secretary and then a special presidential envoy, whose December 1983 meeting with Saddam Hussein led to the normalization of ties between Washington and Baghdad, according to the Washington Post.
The cozy relationship was an effort to build a regional bulwark against America's enemies in Iran.
The newspaper says a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague.
At the same time, there were multiple reports Iraq was using chemical weapons to repulse the Iranian advance; one State Department official told Secretary of State George Shultz that Iraq was engaging in "almost daily use of (chemical weapons)" against Iranian troops.
This policy led to several Rumsfeld visits to Baghdad, as a private citizen working as a presidential envoy.
Congressional investigations after the Gulf War revealed that the Commerce Department had licensed sales of biological agents, including anthrax, and insecticides, which could be used in chemical weapons, to Iraq.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml
-
This coming from a guy who thinks the moon landings never happened. ::)
Haha, two good posts, he also believes 9/11 was an inside job, oh dear ::) What a great person to give advice on 'history'.
-
This coming from a guy who thinks the moon landings never happened. ::)
the above post details the released document which show we did exactly what I said we did. Please do your research before making statements.
-
the above post details the released document which show we did exactly what I said we did. Please do your research before making statements.
Actually, that's a newspaper article, a much debated one also. Please don't confuse your suspicions as fact, Rob.
-
Actually, that's a newspaper article, a much debated one also. Please don't confuse your suspicions as fact, Rob.
Bruce,
Please show me documentation which says these US govt documents are incorrect. The US Commerce Department had licensed sales of biological agents, including anthrax, and insecticides, which could be used in chemical weapons, to Iraq, and it admits it.
Please don't resort to attacking the credibility of CBS and US govt docuements.
-
Bruce,
Please show me documentation which says these US govt documents are incorrect. The US Commerce Department had licensed sales of biological agents, including anthrax, and insecticides, which could be used in chemical weapons, to Iraq, and it admits it.
Please don't resort to attacking the credibility of CBS and US govt docuements.
I'll attack the credibility of CBS as far as I like, actually.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132602,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132602,00.html)
Besides, aren't you the one attacking the same US Gov't for 9/11?? Hmm, seems a touch hypocritical.
Please provide me with US Gov't documents proving the above claims.
-
Bruce,
Please show me documentation which says these US govt documents are incorrect. The US Commerce Department had licensed sales of biological agents, including anthrax, and insecticides, which could be used in chemical weapons, to Iraq, and it admits it.
Please don't resort to attacking the credibility of CBS and US govt docuements.
Sounds a little inconsistent. If the CIA is preventing the media from reporting a 911 conspiracy (as you have claimed), seems a little odd they would allow the media to report this damaging link between Saddam's WMD's and the American government.
-
Sounds a little inconsistent. If the CIA is preventing the media from reporting a 911 conspiracy (as you have claimed), seems a little odd they would allow the media to report this damaging link between Saddam's WMD's and the American government.
Precisely, Rob can't have it both ways with the US government.
-
I'll attack the credibility of CBS as far as I like, actually.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132602,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132602,00.html)
Besides, aren't you the one attacking the same US Gov't for 9/11?? Hmm, seems a touch hypocritical.
Please provide me with US Gov't documents proving the above claims.
1) I believe a very small group of people in teh US helped the terrorists. big difference from "blaming the govt".
2) I see an article where Oreilly attacks Dan Rather for something else.
You cannot debunk the US Commerce dept statements, nor can you even debunk CBS' report on it. You insult me, then you throw out an Oreilly opinion piece on something else.
You're losing me, getting bored here.
-
1) I believe a very small group of people in teh US helped the terrorists. big difference from "blaming the govt".
2) I see an article where Oreilly attacks Dan Rather for something else.
You cannot debunk the US Commerce dept statements, nor can you even debunk CBS' report on it. You insult me, then you throw out an Oreilly opinion piece on something else.
You're losing me, getting bored here.
You asked me to not attack CBS's credibility (or lack thereof), there's my reason for being a skeptic of theirs. I notice you cannot provide me with any US government documents confirming your previous posts. You have also said 9/11 is an 'inside job', please then explain the governments absence from proceedings.
-
When the small group that investigates 911 has the most to benefit from it and most involvement in the anomalies of that day - that makes it an inside job. i dont wanna oargue semantics for 6 hours when your mind is already set. why waste the time?
And as far as doubting we sold WMD to Iraq in the 80s, just type it into google and find 5 other sources. your mind is already made up now.
-
When the small group that investigates 911 has the most to benefit from it and most involvement in the anomalies of that day - that makes it an inside job. i dont wanna oargue semantics for 6 hours when your mind is already set. why waste the time?
And as far as doubting we sold WMD to Iraq in the 80s, just type it into google and find 5 other sources. your mind is already made up now.
I could say the same for you, but I don't exactly expect to change your mind, Rob. It's for the benefit of others that take the time to read this.
Again, I note you cannot provide me with one US government document despite your claim of their existence.
-
I don't feel like digging thru hundreds of pages of documents to find one line you'll debate. CBS and others all reported it. Are they all wrong?
Can you deliver one thing that says CBS was wrong about us selling WMD to Iraq? CBS mkaing that up would be the story of the decade, ya know.
-
I don't feel like digging thru hundreds of pages of documents to find one line you'll debate. CBS and others all reported it. Are they all wrong?
Can you deliver one thing that says CBS was wrong about us selling WMD to Iraq? CBS mkaing that up would be the story of the decade, ya know.
Hardly. CBS is about as reliable as Dan Rather was, ya know? I beginning to think you're not as sure about all of this as you once seemed to be....
-
I have stuff to do, don't want to waste three hours debating what is widely known.
If I post the same report from other media sources, will you consider it credible?
From my experiences here, I could post the same story from multiple sources, and people here believed that CBS, NBC, CNN and ABC all "made up the story" because they hate Bush. They're that blind to information - they believe that anything that isn't on FOXnews.com is a lie. Seriously. So you understand my apprehension.
Please give me a number of sources which say the US sold WMD to Iraq that would cause you to believe the story. 2? 5? 10? 25? (keeping in mind with each add'l article you require, you are requiring the previous number of media reports to be lies)
-
Chemical weapons that the United States sold to him. We as a nation stood and by and shook the bastard's hand in '84 as he gased his own people, but when he threatened the western oil interests he suddenly turned into an enemy of America.
Do everyone a favor and stop acting like you give a flying f**k up about the Iraqi people. That way you don't use that liberation garbage to justify our presence there. ::)
So you think we sold it to knowing thats what he was going to use it for?
Patiently waiting for a conspiracy theorie to say "well of course" ::)!!
-
So you think we sold it to knowing thats what he was going to use it for?
Patiently waiting for a conspiracy theorie to say "well of course" ::)!!
I have no clue.
But BRUCE is still debating whether we ever sold them to him at all.
We can't argue intent until we determine if CBS and other media all lied about this.
-
I have no clue.
But BRUCE is still debating whether we ever sold them to him at all.
We can't argue intent until we determine if CBS and other media all lied about this.
Dear Bruce,
I hate to admit it...but we did sell them the weapons.....and If I recall correctly, it had something to do with protecting them from Iran (or something like that). Back to work!
-
Dear Bruce,
I hate to admit it...but we did sell them the weapons.....and If I recall correctly, it had something to do with protecting them from Iran (or something like that). Back to work!
LOL!!
Joe, I know how ya feel sometimes with me when I assume the worst about bush's intentions :)
BRUCE has been challenging everything tonight - down to whether or not defense contractors turn a profit during wartime. I'm banging my head against the wall! lol
-
Dear Bruce,
I hate to admit it...but we did sell them the weapons.....and If I recall correctly, it had something to do with protecting them from Iran (or something like that). Back to work!
I disagreed with what 240 said about WMD being sold to Iraq, specifically Anthrax. Please direct me to a source that confirms America armed Saddam with WMD.
-
LOL!!
Joe, I know how ya feel sometimes with me when I assume the worst about bush's intentions :)
BRUCE has been challenging everything tonight - down to whether or not defense contractors turn a profit during wartime. I'm banging my head against the wall! lol
Guilty as charged! ;)
I actually didn't dispute whether or not defence contractors turn a profit though, Rob, you know that. I disputed whether this was moral or not, and asked you to provide evidence of where it isn't.
-
the above post details the released document which show we did exactly what I said we did. Please do your research before making statements.
Read your own article, dumbass. The U.S. government licensed the sale of dual-use items that have both civilian and military applications. Lots of dangerous chemical and biological agents have legitimate civilian applications. For example, Zyklon-B was used as a pesticide before the Nazis started gassing people with it.
American firms didn't send any actual weapons to Iraq. That was left to companies in Singapore, The Netherlands, Germany, Britain, and India. You should be blaming those governments for not having tighter export control laws. In fact, many of these countries are still exporting dual-use items to Iran.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2115216&C=mideast
-
Read your own article, dumbass.
see, right there you go from discussion to a cnut, calling names. makes me not wanna debate this shit with ya.
-
see, right there you go from discussion to a cnut, calling names. makes me not wanna debate this shit with ya.
He made some good points, but you don't deserve to be called names for your opinion.
-
Read your own article, dumbass. The U.S. government licensed the sale of dual-use items that have both civilian and military applications. Lots of dangerous chemical and biological agents have legitimate civilian applications.
Bubonic plague.
Please list the civilian uses for it.
-
Ok so we sold him chemical weapons..or maybe we didn't. Nobody thought he'd use them on his own people. He was a hedg against Iranian expansion..we (Russia and the US) did the same thing all over the world. Saddam became a threat when he went off the reservation and attacked Kuwait. He further became a threat when he was seen to support terrorism. Those weapons coul now be sold to terrorists and we could not have that. Its the game we played since 1945 and we both managed not to melt the planet. Much better then the alternative.
-
He certainly had ties to terrorism, much more than you will hear about or have heard about. Islamic militiamen caught in the philipines were in possesion of a photo of their local leader meeting with Saddam, for example (to show it was not just local).
My original point is that say what y ou want about Bush- I do not believe he is a cold blooded killer like Saddam, although I have seen with my own eyes posters of him next to hitler. That kind of imagery and reckless talk just belittles and delegitimizes those who use it in my mind.
I just hope we elect a President in 08 who turns out to be the rock this nation needs to stop, if only temporarily, America's descent into a declining empire.
-
People have short friggen memories if they compare Bush to Hitler. Its ridiculous.....
-
People have short friggen memories if they compare Bush to Hitler. Its ridiculous.....
Or Saddam. Absurd.
-
As I have pointed out previously, Saddam was happily selling Iraq's oil to nations before we visited him once again and got involved in an expensive war. Why didn't we just buy it off him if we are so evil?
Um, first of all we did sell him chemical weapons and we did not condemn him when he gased the kurds and shia in the '80's. This is a fact.
And why would we buy it off of him when we can take it for free? The US also invaded Iraq to get a good striking position on Iran, which is the world's 4th largest producer of oil. Controling the flow of oil helps the US to supress the growth of China and India. Get it now?
-
Um, first of all we did sell him chemical weapons and we did not condemn him when he gased the kurds and shia in the '80's. This is a fact.
And why would we buy it off of him when we can take it for free? The US also invaded Iraq to get a good striking position on Iran, which is the world's 4th largest producer of oil. Controling the flow of oil helps the US to supress the growth of China and India. Get it now?
Nobody is going to slow the growth of India or China. These countries have a great deal of influence with other OPEC nations, Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela for example.
Their power comes from how they peg their dollar and labour rates.
Iraq still controls their own oil fields and isn't producing a substantial amount of oil. However, ,any companies were about to start oil field development before Saddam was toppled and are starting to renegotiate with Iraq. Seems to me many countries are in Iraq without the approval of the US.
China development in Iraq oil as of 2006.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-10/31/content_721068.htm (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-10/31/content_721068.htm)
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/DisplayNews.aspx?id=2460 (http://www.iraqdirectory.com/DisplayNews.aspx?id=2460)
Iran and Iraq sharing development
http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/9872 (http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/9872)
British Petroleum perfoming studies on exist oil fields.
http://www.iraqdevelopmentprogram.org/idp/news/new635.htm (http://www.iraqdevelopmentprogram.org/idp/news/new635.htm)
-
Um, first of all we did sell him chemical weapons and we did not condemn him when he gased the kurds and shia in the '80's. This is a fact.
And why would we buy it off of him when we can take it for free? The US also invaded Iraq to get a good striking position on Iran, which is the world's 4th largest producer of oil. Controling the flow of oil helps the US to supress the growth of China and India. Get it now?
Um, aren't you the same guy that asked for proof of Greenland's increasing ice thickness, then ignored the evidence I gave you? ::)
-
"It exterminates thousands and forces them not to eat or drink, and they will have to evacuate their homes without taking anything with them, until we can finally purge them." -Saddam, on a tape recorded in the 1980's on his plans to murder Kurds with chemical weapons.
Yet, American leaders on on par with this mass murderor. ::)
what a waste you were, momma should have let that jism run down her legs instead of birthing you