What has Saddam actually done?

[Timber Loftis]

Iraqi Crimes:
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/crimes/
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-warcrim...,2085372.story (even accuses the US of failing to take a leadership role in bringing Hussein to justice)
and http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/doss.html is the same article published by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/foundation.html is from the Iraq foundation founded in 1991 by those whose loved ones suffer in Iraq.

Justification of use of First Strike:
http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/bush-intro.html

AND

Just to truly sit the fence on this one, here are sites discussing the War Crimes committed in Iraq by the US during the war and in denying medical supplies since the war:
http://home.mail.de/akin/usa_again_iraq.html
http://www.humanrightsmonitor.org/article427.html
http://www.pakdirectory.net/Iraq_Report.asp is a Pakistani site which accuses the US/UK of conspiracy to commit war crimes in Iraq via sanctions

Now, there, you've got evidence. Both sides. Get back to arguing about it rather than asking for evidence.

[ 03-01-2003, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Your trying to make this debate personal by saying I'm deaf, blind and dumb to the facts and calling me a conspiracy theorist in spite of the fact you have offered nothing else to back up your claims here. Not you personally Chewie, but all those who have been given that exact same list over and over with the relevant background on all of it is a frustrating waste of time when people choose to ignore the facts presented or refuse to believe that they are real, or forget that they exist time and time again. Colin Powell did an excellent job of presenting al this info with sources quoted as close as could be with out getting them killed. There was nothing personal ment, just a frustration at yet again being asked for the same info...as if it had never been presented before....*sigh* Please tell me you can see how that might be frustrating at least, wether we agree on the war or not. As usually the pro-war debate is lacking any real substance...a bunch of name-calling and smoke and mirrors...typical. I called no names. To say some one is deaf, and blind to the facts is not name calling, it is descriptive of actions not a persons nature.

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: And neither does the Anti-war debate. It's mostly touchy feely stuff and people trying like hell to hide their heads in the sand, hoping it'll just go away. That's not how you solve problems. The squeeky wheel gets the oil or so I've always heard. Well the squeeky wheel is Saddam. He's had twelve long years to dis-arm and he's not done it yet and he won't usless it's at the point of a bayonet! Now the US is applying the oil with a match to follow!

Yeah lets have the WWMS crowd weigh in on the subject [img]smile.gif[/img]

(What Would Minsk Say [img]smile.gif[/img] )

[Wutang]

Desdicado - yes there are several evil regimes in the world, and the US is tackling them one at a time. If it isn't Iraq, it'll be another country and then we'd still have the same intense UN debates.

Iraq probably wouldn't be such an issue today, if the US hadn't been attacked on 9/11. Osama bin Laden hates the US presence in Saudi Arabia and in the Gulf. And why is the US in Saudi Arabia? To keep watch over Iraq since 1991. We can't possibly withdraw from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf til we resolve the Iraq situation ASAP and stabilize the Middle East.

As for Israel, I support their right to exist. Yes you can blame them for a lot of human rights violations but they're fighting for their own survival; surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbors (except Egypt).

It's really sad that after like 4 wars in the past 50 years, the Israelis and Palestinians/Arab nations are no closer to peace than in 1948.

And yes the US has been critical in the past with Israel.

[ 03-01-2003, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Wutang ]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Wutang: As for Israel, I support their right to exist. Yes you can blame them for a lot of human rights violations but they're fighting for their own survival; surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbors (except Egypt).

Not saying I'm for or against what you've stated here. But if Israel have a right to fight for their survival, and you support that, then why not support Iraq's right to fight for survival too? They are both violators of human rights and breakers of armistice, so why support one and destroy the other?
Is it because of democracy? Israel is 'democratic' and thus has a stronger right to protection?
Is it because Saddam says he doesn't like your president?
Are you scared of Saddam?
America has the greatest stockpile of WoMD on Earth, and to date has been the only nation in history to ever use atomic weapons in anger. Surely the United States government should be given the order to disarm, to get rid of these weapons that can only be used to destruction on a massive scale. If they refuse, if they blatantly maintain their weapons programmes, then surely they are a threat to global stability and should be invaded and disarmed by force! Sounds kind of ridiculous doesn't it? Sounds like I'm just being critical of a nation because they appear to have the ability to violently attack mine doesn't it?
Iraq isn't allowed WoMD because they might not use them 'responsibly'. But how do you gauge responisbility with weapons? The United States of America has no problem with deploying troops the world over in order to 'keep the peace', to 'defend national interests'. Nuclear submarines constantly patrol the world's oceans with missiles permanently targeted at strategic locations, so why isn't Iraq allowed to point it's missiles at it's own strategic targets such as Israel or Kuwait? Why doesn't the American government scrap their WoMD development plans and dismantle their missiles?

The answer is simple. This is not about justice. This is not about securing 'long-term peace'. This is about bolstering personal strength. This is about securing international power. This is about forging strategic alliances and removing any and all viable military opposition to American global interests, regardless of the affects upon foreign populations. Keep your own forces strong, and your opponent's weak. There is alot of strategic and monetary profit to be had in this venture, but rest assured that no American working or middle class is going to see any of it. This is a loot-haul for the wealthy few, and the working-class soldiers will troop on in for their comparitively paultry paychecks and sense of national 'liberty'. But hey, whatever makes you feel like a big man eh?

Saddam was once a wonderful tool of American middle-eastern policy, now that he has outlived his purpose and is no longer needed for supression efforts against Iran he is expendable. And now that he openly defies American-imposed edicts upon his own territorial governance, ie: he doesn't shut up and do as he's told, he is to be terminated. Not that this is bad, Saddam is an evil little man who shall burn in his own hell for the way he has chosen to live his life. But as the declared military opponents of the US dwindle in number, who is going to be left with the strength and will to forcefully oppose US foreign policy?
- The UN? Pah! The UN are organized by a collective of tired old men looking to bolster their pathetic political careers.
- The Asian communist bloc? All they care about is absorbing more resources to waste with their innefficient para-military industrialization. For all their tough-talk the communists are more likely to shake hands with thier traditional capitalist enemies than fight them if a little 'material aid' on the side is involved.
No, there are very few groups willing to stand in open arms against capitalist expansion these days, and sit-ins and banner-wavings and human-shield campaigns in 'peaceful protest' arn't going to achieve anything except guarantee journalists their bread and butter for years to come as they document the 'movements of the people' worldwide.

I can only speak for myself. Down here in NZ we're safe for now. We're not interesting enough to catch the attention of the international community, and luckily so. But I'm sure as hell not going to rely on that forever.

[ 03-02-2003, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Wutang]

The Hierophant - I'm glad you feel that living in New Zealand is actually safe. After 9/11, I don't think none of us Americans can really feel that comfortable anymore. I've stopped pretending that we all live in a glass house.

And I also envy New Zealand for not having to attract more international attention. I wish the US didn't have the obligation anymore to police the world either. In fact in my naive view of the world, I'm a bit tired seeing my taxpayers money spent policing other nations and seeing anti-US riots all the time.

After all it's so easy to blame the US for a lot of things these days and why the US is hated so much like for supporting Israel for over 50 years, propping up Western Europe since WWII, and giving billions of dollars in aid to other countries.

Yes you are right. This whole issue is about US national interests and national security.

The US didn't asked to be a world power. The US became a world power only after it was attacked in WWII and had to supply the rest of the world weapons to fight the Axis. The US in early 1940 was a 3rd or 4th rate power barely enough to field 100,000 man army. The US maintained a draft by one vote in Congress. France and UK were the world powers in 1940.

Yes Japan was atom bombed by the US but please don't blame the US. Why? That was during wartime and Japan was given a chance to surrender many times but didn't. Self pride by the ruling army elite in Japan, forced japan to continue the war. If Japan surrendered in May 1945 after Germany did, no bombs would've been dropped.

But in regards to Iraq....who would you rather see have nuclear weapons? The US or Iraq? Do you think Saddam is responsible enough not to use WOMD?

I don't think it's fair to equate Iraq with Israel's right to survive. Saddam rose to power by executing his opposition. Iraq invaded Kuwait to take over the oil fields and also to loot their rich neighbor.

You say that the US is hypocritical and should disarm itself. ok good point...but who will keep check on those rogue nations that have or will develop nuclear weapons in 4-5 years? Do you think North Korea or Iraq would feel threatened anymore if the US is totally disarmed?

What's to prevent them from selling nuclear weapons to terrorists? Would you rather see China or Russia police the world instead?

I think the US has a pretty good track record of responsibility in regards to not attacking anyone with nuclear weapons since 1945. I'm not sure you can say the same for nations that will develop weapons in a few years.

[ 03-02-2003, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: Wutang ]

[The Hierophant]

Wutang my man, we all police our own affairs, when and wherever it suits us to. But when it comes to the crunch, our enemies arn't of any nationality, they don't march under any woven flag. Our enemies are those among us that would seek to dictate our lives to generate their own material benefit. I'll shed no tears of sorrow when Saddam at last dies in some holed-in Iraqi bunker, but neither will I shed tears of pride when I see besuited politicians celebrating victory in a war that they merely watched unfold from a safe distance. American soldiers arn't the enemy here, it's the businessmen directing them that need seeing to.

[Wutang]

Agreed. I hope something good will come out after all this mess is resolved.

[Desdicado]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Magik:
1. Used Bio and Chemical weapons against Iran
2. Used Chemical and Bio weapons against the Kurds and his own people.
3. Invaded Kuwait
4. Torched the fields of kuwait endangering the environment of surrounding nations.
5. Failed to disarm as required by the cease fire agreement that Saddam signed in 1991
6. Started re-arming and importing weapons since the cease fire and his agreement to disarm
7. Has actively sought weapons and materials of Mass Destruction
8. Has also made available to terror organizations aid and comfort
9. He poses a real threat of selling bio, chemical and possibly nuclear materials to terror organization.

Lets see then,
1- ok this was 20 years ago, should Britain declare war on the US for giving Saddam the weapons he used 20 years ago?. Os should Scotland declare war on England in reprisal for the battle of Flodden in 1513?, well maybe yes actually but never mind that just now, you get my point?.
2- I didn't say he was a nice guy
3- 10 years ago
4 10 years ago again, see point 1
5 & 6 he's doing it now I guess
7 Prove it, as there is no proof so far
8 The Palestinians?, good for him I say, the US supports terrible regimes the world over.
9 Prove it, see point 7.

As for my member number, what do you mean?. I've been Desdicado for a very long time as I am a big RPG fan.

[ 03-03-2003, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Desdicado ]

[The Hierophant]

Des- you're confusing Chewbacca with Magik. You couldn't really get two more opposite political thinkers.