Inside Iraqi Torture Chambers

Originally posted by pritchke: Possibly Magik, however I do believe the governments do understate the possible dangers of DU for a long, long time. Lets say for that I am correct and that DU is extremely dangerous and the government tells the truth about the past lie/understatement that troops are not at risk about the dangers of DU, the consequences would be huge. -They would need to replace everything that contains DU. A small military could do it but I think it would be an expensive project for the US and UK. - Justified lawsuits from soldiers with their hair falling out and mild radiation sickness. - Possible drop in enrolment Just to name a few. Let me put it another way if the material was used in the workplace I am sure that people would not be allowed near it without the proper protection including something protecting inhalation. Why are the troops not treated under the same rules as standards used for hazardous materials in other workplaces. I do have one question that I don't know. Who authorizes the materials used? and which experts determine if the materials used is safe or not for the application used? For a public application I know such things need an engineering stamp of approval. Our military however is not restricted by such a standard so they have a work around with things that may not be a compliant product if need be, I am not sure but I think it would be similar with your military. PS. I could not find any articles on the health benefits of DU.

I never sdaid there were health benefits to DU. It is a weapons material used for taking life not saving it. I am also aware that Uranium is toxic and Never ment to indicate that I didn't believe that it would be hazardous to your health. But I also know that it isn't dangerous is handled properly and that when it is used, it is out of necessity and not desire to harm innocents.

Your paranoia about the government hiding information about its effects and lieing about it are ...well paranoia, You just seem to like conspiracy theories. It is used because testing shows that ballisticly it is a good material for use in takeing out armored vehicles. Now if our enemies would quite using armor, then we wouldnt need DU rounds now would we?

[ 04-11-2003, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Skunk]

Now if our enemies would quite using armor, then we wouldnt need DU rounds now would we?

And if everyone agreed to limit their weapons to paint ball guns, the world could learn to enjoy war too...

[Animal]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Quote: Originally posted by Animal: Nobody denies the nature of Saddam's regime. That was never in question.

Yet many people still say the war should never have been fought...which would have left the prisoners locked in their cells and subjected to regular torture sessions. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Animal: Like Donut said, had Bush an co. stated from the start that this war was about human rights, most everyone would agree but it wasn't about HR it was about WoMD. To change the reasoning behind the war half way through it doesn't, in my eyes, still doesn't justify it.

No it wouldn't have. Why? Because there are NO "U.N. Resolutions" authorizing "serious consequences" for human rights violations. The same countries would have still opposed the U.S. and would have offered the very same arguments being echoed here - "what about North Korea, Africa, etc etc".

And it baffles me that many members are now using the argument that "changing our motives still doesn't justify the war". So I suppose we should have just left these people to die a slow, tortured death in Saddam's prisons since we didn't state from Day 1 that we were interested in freeing them. I'm sorry, the logic of that argument completely escapes me.

Originally posted by Animal: The west (I use that term broadly) could have put an end to Saddam during the original gulf war, but decided not to. That decision had consequences, and even though the situation is being solved as we speak (type), the responsibility of those consequences cannot be ignored.

The "west" didn't put an end to Saddam in 1991 because we did not have U.N. Authorization to - NOT because we "just decided not to". The Coalition Forces of 1991 were under the authority of the U.N. and the only thing they were "authorized" to do was to repel Saddam's forces from Kuwait. Once they crossed back into Iraq, the U.N. would not allow the Coalition Forces to seek further action against them.

I firmly believe that is one of the main reasons George W. Bush did NOT want the U.N. in charge of this operation. He used the threat of WoMD in an attempt to gain the support of the U.N. After all, they HAD unanimously passed a resolution calling for "serious consequences" if Saddam Hussein did not completely disarm. After 12 years of waiting, it was obvious to some that Saddam was NEVER going to comply with Resolution 1441...and it was equally obvious that the U.N. had neither the strength nor the fortitude to actually enforce it's own resolution. So President Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the rest of the Coalition of the Willing went in on their own and solved the problem once and for all.

Since this thread started with a TRIPLE DOG DARE...I'll offer another one. To those who still seem to oppose the war on general principle, I TRIPLE DOG DARE you to offer proof that the results of the war were not beneficial for the general population of Iraq. Show me proof that the average Iraqi citizen is not better off today than they were this time last week.[/QUOTE]Okay, you triple dog dare me to offer you proof that the Iraqi poplulation is better off without Saddam.

I never once said whether or not Iraq was better off without Saddam. However when the US declares that Saddam is in violation of WoMD resolutions placed upon it by the UN, promptly fingers the UN, invades Iraq and then turns it into a human rights campaign, I have a real problem with the motives behind that.

Sure, the coalition attempted to minimize civilian casualties. Have you ever seen the devastation created by a Cruise Missile? I lived in Northern Alberta (that's Canada, that area north of the US border) when they tested the Cruise Missile and have seen the capabilities first hand. They may be able to pinpoint a flea on a dogs back, but the blast radius will take out a city block. Why don't we start talking about cluster bombs, or even better the Mother Of All Bombs. Exactly why was the MOAB developed? The US didn't have enough firepower to obliterate the world several times over?

I was also under the impression that the UN stopped the original Gulf War until Timber corrected me and informed me that Bush Sr. decided not to continue. So which is it?

So you ask me for proof that the average Iraqi citizen is not better off now than a week ago. I ask you, prove to me that they are better off now. Is mass looting and chaos your idea of freedom? Is draping a US flag over the face of a statue democratic?

I mean no offense, even though this may come across a little on the harsh side, but all I hear is how the US is doing such a good thing, how the US is bringing freedom to the Iraqis, lets praise the US for their actions. Well, you still have North Korea, Syria, South Africa, Uganda, and dozen other "opressed" countries to go. As soon as the US brings freedom to the world, then I will praise them for their actions.

Again, no disrespect intended, but look at it from something other than a US perspective.

[Mordenheim]

Who cares what people but Iraqi's think. Unless you live there you can NOT answer that question. By the dancing, looting, and people waving and yes even chants of "go bush" ... I think the answer is easy.

Chaos and looting... come on! what did people expect. These people have been repressed for decades! I expect some bloodshed frankly. I would be looking to put the hurt on someone.

That is not the real question though. The place is not even cleared out yet. Massive aid and the begining of a new foundation have not even started. A pre-term government has not even begun nor a election down the road. Jesus people! The future is a heck of a lot brighter and there is NO body who can honestly argue otherwise. Anybody who does is seriously not giving honest weight to the horror and brutality that NO person should live under.

As for this notion we should free everyone. Why? we would just be harrased by France and others along the way. Why should we die more blood so other countries who stabbed us in the back try to run in with smiles and greedy hands. I don't think we will attack Syria. Sadam was a big removal in MANY ways. Everyone is glad his people now have a real shot at changing their destiny. I also was listening to a former Iraqi last night. He said unlike some middle east countries Iraq has a real shot at democracy. He pointed to the Kurdish who carved out their own semi government. I wish them the best.

Praise America? Unless you are Iraqi I would gamble most could care a less. I mean honestly... who the heck want's praise. How about a little "Sadam needed to removed and no one else was sure as heck going to do it". That would be enough.

[John D Harris]

As I asked earlier If a man pulls somebody out of a burning house does it really make a poops difference if the man was casing the neighborhood for a robbery? In other words motive smotives, its results that matter. motives don't feed people bringing them bread does, motives don't stop dictators troops on the ground does. Would any of you wrong motives people rather the Iraqi people continued to be brutalized, tortured, raped, and killed until somebody desides to come up with the right motive? Would you sleep better at night knowing the screams, and cries of pain continued until a motive you agreed with was found? Well let me ease your minds reason # 8 for going into Iraq was because Sodamn Insane is a brutal Dictator that tortuted, and killed the people of Iraq. (as Given by President Bush, then Sec. Def. Rumsfled) so now you can join the war was the thing to do crowd.

Originally posted by Mordenheim: who the heck want's praise. How about a little "Sadam needed to removed and no one else was sure as heck going to do it". That would be enough.

No kidding.

no one else was sure as heck going to do it
Esp those countries so set against the war that they would cause dissension in the UN...those same countries who are now millions in uncollected debts for weapons, machinery and who knows what else that they had been providing Iraq's government while saying they had nothing to do with what was going on there.

[ 04-12-2003, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Lil Lil ]

[Mordenheim]

Look at that.. Lil Lil coming in for the knock out [img]smile.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Animal]

Originally posted by Mordenheim: Who cares what people but Iraqi's think. Unless you live there you can NOT answer that question. By the dancing, looting, and people waving and yes even chants of "go bush" ... I think the answer is easy. Chaos and looting... come on! what did people expect. These people have been repressed for decades! I expect some bloodshed frankly. I would be looking to put the hurt on someone. That is not the real question though. The place is not even cleared out yet. Massive aid and the begining of a new foundation have not even started. A pre-term government has not even begun nor a election down the road. Jesus people! The future is a heck of a lot brighter and there is NO body who can honestly argue otherwise. Anybody who does is seriously not giving honest weight to the horror and brutality that NO person should live under. As for this notion we should free everyone. Why? we would just be harrased by France and others along the way. Why should we die more blood so other countries who stabbed us in the back try to run in with smiles and greedy hands. I don't think we will attack Syria. Sadam was a big removal in MANY ways. Everyone is glad his people now have a real shot at changing their destiny. I also was listening to a former Iraqi last night. He said unlike some middle east countries Iraq has a real shot at democracy. He pointed to the Kurdish who carved out their own semi government. I wish them the best. Praise America? Unless you are Iraqi I would gamble most could care a less. I mean honestly... who the heck want's praise. How about a little "Sadam needed to removed and no one else was sure as heck going to do it". That would be enough.

Yes, chants of "Go Bush." Either your with the US or against it. Bush made that VERY clear from day one. What choice do these people have. Like you say, WE do not live there. IF they don't support the the coalition, they are labeled an enemy. It's a no win situation for Iraq. Pick the lesser of two evils, if you will.

A pre term govenment. Yes a great idea, but will it be headed by an indepedent Iraqi citizen? The US has already planned the pre term Iraqi government for them. You have your freedom but... only to a certain point.

Perhaps you shouldn't free everyone. Okay, you shouldn't free everyone. So why Iraq? Why of all the countries that suffer the same attrocities, did the coalition CHOOSE Iraq?

I'm not against the removal of Saddam. I want to know the REAL reasons for it, not the "official" reasons for it. Whether you are pro-war or anti-war the one thing we all have in common: The war isn't what it was originaly claimed to be.

[Animal]

Originally posted by John D Harris: As I asked earlier If a man pulls somebody out of a burning house does it really make a poops difference if the man was casing the neighborhood for a robbery? In other words motive smotives, its results that matter. motives don't feed people bringing them bread does, motives don't stop dictators troops on the ground does. Would any of you wrong motives people rather the Iraqi people continued to be brutalized, tortured, raped, and killed until somebody desides to come up with the right motive? Would you sleep better at night knowing the screams, and cries of pain continued until a motive you agreed with was found? Well let me ease your minds reason # 8 for going into Iraq was because Sodamn Insane is a brutal Dictator that tortuted, and killed the people of Iraq. (as Given by President Bush, then Sec. Def. Rumsfled) so now you can join the war was the thing to do crowd.

Okay fair enough. So keep going. The attrocities don't stop with Saddam. If the coalition is going to start a job, they need to finish it.