This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Saddam Hussein Arrested
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"Everyone's head is a cheap movie show." -- Jeff G. Bone
"Everyone's head is a cheap movie show." -- Jeff G. Bone
Re:who cares? (Score:3, Informative)
The US military seems to think so (see below). And regardless of your opinion on Bush, I'd have to think that a lot of Americans believe the "we've done something great, go us (and me, implicitly), but be vigilant for more" line that's sure to come.
From MSNBC:
From hiding, U.S. commanders have said Saddam played some role in the anti-U.S. resistance that has killed hundreds of soldiers and civilians in Iraq.
In the latest attack, a suspected suicide bomber detonated explosives in a car outside a police station Sunday morning west of Baghdad, killing at least 17 people and wounding 33 more, the U.S. military said.
Re:Not bad. (Score:5, Informative)
Do you remember the troops turning on protestors in Tiananmen Square?
Or is it that Iraq is strategically useful and that even pressing China about human rights seems to cause problems with selling them goods and services?
Re:Thread: place yer bets (Score:3, Informative)
When scrambling to get off a needless jab at the Bush administration, you should slow down and actually read what you're typing.
Dumbass.
Re:Good News (Score:4, Informative)
First, Halliburton was awarded the no-bid contract by your favorite pal in 1999. Previously their WAS a bid process and Haliburton lost in 1997. Then Slick Willie did away with the bids and just gave it to Haliburton. Yes, that's right CLINTON!
Secondly, Halliburton didn't overcharge the taxpayers, their subcontractor for fuel supply charged THEM that amount.
Thirdly, I will never understand why people think the economy is in the power of the president. Does he hold your hand when you buy stuff? Does he tell you what to buy? Uh.. NO! Get real.
Fourthly, health insurance. It costs a lot because of the malpractice suits and drug costs. You want health insurance? Go back to school and get a real education, then a good job. But I refuse to pay for healthcare of low-lifes happy in their burger flipping career.
Re:Bush (Score:1, Informative)
Capturing Saddam does not negate the fact that the war was unjust. Saddam was not linked to 9/11. The United States supplied no proof (even remotely conclusive) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (post-2002, I know how Bush supporters think). Saddam was not an immenient threat to the United States or surrounding countries.
It also does not change how Bush has completely screwed the environment: Kyoto, removing greenhouse gasses as a pollutant, tax breaks for expensive SUV owners, "Healthy Forests" initiative, "Clean Skies" initiative. Bush is a total corporate whore, which is something that affects the everyone.
Bush has totally screwed up international relations between the United States and the World. Instead of fostering cooperation, he seems to do everything to tear down cooperation with NATO allies and the UN. The US had incredible support and sympathy after 9/11. Yet we have now lost it all.
Plus, every time Bush talks about the danger of Saddam and his WMDs, very few people mention North Korea: a country with an active nuclear weapons program, the materials for several nuclear bombs, and has stated its intention to build one.
The real problem this event will completely overshadow many more troubling events that affect people directly. Stop listening to the soundbite and really LISTEN to the entire story.
Re:No connection (Score:1, Informative)
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting to note that US vetoed in UN Security Council a resolution that condemmed Saddams gassing. At that time, Saddam was the Good Guy fighting Evil Iran. And US did provide Saddam with chemical weapons and know how.
Re:bin laden.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:who cares? (Score:2, Informative)
Lies, Lies, and more Lies... (Score:1, Informative)
The US government DID invade a soveriegn nation. It did so without international support. It did so in violation of international law. The means, especially in this case, do not justify the ends.
==
1. It had international support; France, Germany, and Russia do not constitute "International"
2. It did not violate International Law, that is almost laughable. It went in under the original agreement of cease fire through which the first Gulf War was stopped. Picking nits, no UN Security Council Resolution that passed opposed it.
So, play your little ignorance game, its far far easy to do as you don't provide any links to real news sites to back it up.
Re:bin laden.. (Score:4, Informative)
1) the proof is in the putting - al qaeda was cranking out incriminating audio propaganda non-stop. in fact, in one tape, bin laden claimed that attacks on the world trade center were actually self-defense, and therefore supported by islamic law. [september11news.com]
2) the presence in guantanamo bay of lots of known al qaeda operatives who have detailed their planning procedures for the september 11 attacks is a pretty good clue.
3) bin laden had already established a pattern of conduct with the USS cole and khobar towers bombings that made him particularly interesting to international terrorism experts. keep in mind that the burden of proof in a legal context is "beyond reasonable doubt." if you have any contrary evidence that can cast doubt on these allegations (and i mean more than just contradicting them - "no he didn't...."), then let's bring it on.
jon
Re:No invasion == pro Saddam (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe we agree on the notion that the Chinese government is not really a nice, democratic government by our standards. After all, people are not really allowed to express freely their opinion (at least if their opinion is in contradiction to the opinion of the Party). Many people sit in jails as political prisoners, there are no free elections, and what the Chines are doing in Tibet is also not really nice.
So, under the assumption that you agree with me that the Chinese government is bad, I see from your reasoning that you favor an US invasion into China, right? After all (just to abuse a slightly changed quote from you): You cannot be anti-invasion and anti-Chinese government, by opposing the invasion, the Chinese government stays in power.
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
(1) That there can't have been more than 50 people there.
(2) There were clearly more press than Iraquis.
(3) The troops had blocked off the surrounding streets which were deserted - presumably to stop anyone not part of the 'demonstration' from taking part.
Uh, no. (Score:5, Informative)
But don't take my word for it... here's the Wikipedia entry for the incident [wikipedia.org]
Re:who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Ever hear of Salman Pak? (Score:4, Informative)
I guess you've never heard of Salman Pak [newsmax.com]. No surprise, it's received almost no coverage in the mainstream media, presumably the basis for your philosophy.
Basically, terrorists from around the world came to train on a Boeing 707 fuselage on how to take over an airplane using only knives, and infiltrate the cabin to take control of the aircraft.
Remember, don't get too many beliefs based on somebody else's view of events. Ideas are fine, beliefs are dangerous.
Try a google search, there's lots of documentation out there.
Re:bin laden.. (Score:2, Informative)
Does that answer your question?
Re:Iraqi, U.S., or international trial appropriate (Score:5, Informative)
I can find no reference that details any proof what-so-ever that there were civilians in the convoy, again just scant claims that that was the case (no pictures of references of course).
As for the Geneva convention, being a military officer, I dare say that I am more educated than you in this matter but again, a simple web search clears things up.
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
The Geneva convention outlaws attacking civilians not engaged in hostilites and outlaws attacking surrendering combatants. Unfortunately, the Geneva Convention is poorly written on this point, as it refers to civilians and surrendering combatants in the same sentance. This leads to the misinterpretation that combatants not currently engaged in combat are somehow protected. There is a tremendous difference between retreat and surrender.Re:Not bad. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:See no evil, hear no evil... (Score:1, Informative)
RIEGLE REPORT, CHAPTER 1, PART 2 (http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/r_1_2.html)
Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials (which have been considered by various nations for use in war), with their associated disease symptoms:
Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax is a disease producing bacteria identified by the Department of Defense in The Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Contress, as being a major component in the Iraqi biological warfare program.
Anthrax is an often fatal infectious disease due to ingestion of spores. It begins abruptly with high fever, difficulty in breathing, and chest pain. The disease eventually results in septicemia (blood poisoning), and the mortality is high. Once septicemia is advanced, antibiotic therapy may prove useless, probably because the exotoxins remain, despite the death of the bacteria.
Clostridium Botulinum: A bacterial source of botulinum toxin, which causes vomiting, constipation, thirst, general weakness, headache, fever, dizziness, double vision, dilation of the pupils and paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing. It is often fatal.
Histoplasma Capsulatum: causes a disease superfically resembling tuberculosis that may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, an influenza like illness and an acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules, usually on the shins. Reactivated infection usually involves the lungs, the brain, spinal membranes, heart, peritoneum, and the adrenals.
Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause chronic fatique, loss of appetite, profuse sweating when at rest, pain in joints and muscles, insomnia, nausea, and damage to major organs.
Clostridium Perfringens: a highly toxic bateria which causes gas gangrene. The bacteria produce toxins that move along muscle bundles in the body killing cells and producing necrotic tissue that is then favorable for further growth of the bacteria itself. Eventually, these toxins and bacteria enter the bloodstream and cause a systemic illness.
In addition, several shipments of Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) and genetic materials, as well as human and bacterial DNA, were shipped directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.
The following is a detailed listing of biological materials, provided by the American Type Culture Collection, which were exported to agencies of the government of Iraq pursuant to the issueance of an export licensed by the U.S. Commerce Department:
Date : February 8, 1985
Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Agency
Materials Shipped:
Ustilago nuda (Jensen) Rostrup
Date : February 22, 1985
Sent To : Ministry of Higher Education
Materials Shipped:
Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC 32136)
Class III pathogen
Date : July 11, 1985
Sent To : Middle and Near East Regional A
Material Shipped:
Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC 32136)
Class III pathogen
Date : May 2, 1986
Sent To : Ministry of Higher Education
Materials Shipped:
1. Bacillus Anthracis Cohn (ATCC 10)
Batch # 08-20-82 (2 each)
Class III pathogen
2. Bacillus Subtilis (Ehrenberg) Cohn (ATCC 82)
Batch # 06-20-84 (2 each)
3. Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 3502)
Batch # 07-07-81 (3 each)
Class III pathogen
4. Clostridium perfringens (Weillon and Zuber) Hauduroy, et al (ATCC 3624)
Batch # 10-85SV (2 each)
5. Bacillus subtilis (ATCC 6051)
Batch # 12-06-84 (2 each)
6. Francisella tularensis var. tularensis Olsufiev (ATCC 6223)
Batch # 05-14-79 (2 each)
Avirulent, suitable for preparations of diagnotic antigens
7. Clostridium tetani (ATCC 9441)
Batch # 03-84 (3 each)
Highly toxigenic
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Saddam-9/11 Link (Score:3, Informative)
Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=
These documents are proof that Iraq and Saddam was tied to 9/11. Capturing Saddam is a wonderful victory on its own merits, but since you need proof connecting him with 9/11, here it is.
President's Speach Download (Score:2, Informative)
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Informative)
But, that man (saddam) ordered the gasing that killed 5,000 civilians of his own people.
In this comment of yours, you linked to a BBC story about the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja. You may be interested to know that despite the public statements of our President and other major figures of his administration, the U.S. intelligence community suspects that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds in Halabja. See the piece written in the New York Times on January 31, 2003 by Stephen Pelletiere, who wrote:
The piece goes on from there. I encourage you to read it.
Re:Iraqi, U.S., or international trial appropriate (Score:3, Informative)
In this case I don't think that applies. Then I remembered more aptly this administrations policies and, even more important, that its an election year.
And to close talking about your last section: I'd just like to remind you that you're stereotyping America quite a bit. While I will do nothing to defend this administration note that there are a very large number of Americans who don't like unilateralism.
Re:Ever hear of Salman Pak? (Score:3, Informative)
WTF? From the linked article:
I wouldn't expect the vice chairman of UNSCOM to use phrases such as "Like derrrrrr...", for one... Oh well, maybe he picked it up from his teenage daughter.
Re:bin laden.. (Score:3, Informative)
The War is illegal because it was never declared.
Simple question. What law was broken?
In a legal sence, the United States of America has only been at war with Iraq one time. 1991.
War wasn't declared then either.
Re:bin laden vs. safer (Score:3, Informative)
Senator Bob Graham, ranking Democrat on the Intelligence committee, asked the intelligence community whether or not invading Iraq would make the US safer. The intelligence committee, before the war, said we would be less safe if we invaded. Remember - this is before the war when evidence of WMD was paraded around the world.
This was public knowledge. It ran in major newspapers. All members of congress must have at least heard of it, even if most Americans did not. They voted to give Bush the green light anyhow.
I heard about this on the NPR (American public radio) program This American Life (www.thislife.org). It was broadcast 12/20/02 and you can go to that website and listen for free to Bob Graham say that himself.
Further, he asks the radio staff to question Bush on some issues. Apparently it is not any easier for him to get answers from the administration than it is for anyone else. They try. Have a listen.
________________________________________
Re:Forgetting one or two things (Score:3, Informative)
Iraq does not
True, thank you Isreal. They bombed Saddam's French supplied nuclear reactor in 1981. Isreal gets a lot flack for their unilateralist actions, but that probably prevented Saddam from having those weapons in 1991.
Yeah, why the development of ABM, especially of theatre level, defenses would be a good idea. And just remember this: a bajillion troops vs. the amount of firepower contain with in one of our ballistic missle subs...
Re:who cares? (Score:3, Informative)
SQ2.gif [informatio...house.info] Shows a tank and several people in the square beneath the pedestal where the saddam statue once stood. The statue is no longer there. SQ2 was taken well after SQ1 as you can see from the amount of sunshine falling onto nearby buildings (like the mosque-looking building next to the square). In SQ1 there is no direct sunshine on any building. Tanks and humvees are visible surrounding the square..
SQ3.gif [informatio...house.info] backs up in time to after the tank had arrived, but before anybody managed to climb to the top of the statue's pedestal. The resolution is too bad to tell who is a journalist, who is an Iraqi wanting to topple the statue, and who is just someone out to see the spectacle. Certainly some of the people seem to be standing as if they were journalists (honestly I can only find one who I am fairly certain is a photojournalist).
SQ4.gif [informatio...house.info] shows a closeup of the statue with an American flag draped over Saddam's head and some Iraqi bystanders on the sidewalk across the street from the square.
I don't think these pictures tell a story different from what was broadcast around the world. I don't agree with information clearing house's interpretation of the facts. I see a group of Iraqi's who want to vandalize a statue which symbolized their oppression. The only possible media spin is crowd size. From these pictures the crowd looks to be in the 100-200 range. I think most people looking at the pictures would arrive at that number which is why the "they are clearly mostly journalists" argument comes up -- to downplay how many Iraqis might be there. However these pictures do not support that argument, the quality is simply inadequate to make such an inference.
I need better evidence to convince me that this was a staged scene.
Re:bin laden.. (Score:4, Informative)
The Bush government never actually *said* that Hussain was behind 9/11, but various officials, press announcements, State of the Union Addresses, etc, implied it rather strongly. Since our "liberal" media wouldn't dream of correcting the Bush government's insinuations the image of Saddam as the 9/11 mastermind stuck in the public's mind.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:bin laden.. (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. Please stop repeating that. The Kurds were killed in a fight between Iranian and Iraqi forces in their city. They were not the intentional targets of either sides chemical weapons. And the US Army sent in specialists after the battle, that concluded in a nice big official report that they were killed by Iranian chemical weapons, since Iraq was using Mustard Gas, but they were killed by a blood agent, which chlorine gas is not. So, IRAN accidentially killed Kurds with chemical weapons. Both sides were irresponsible for using their US weapons in a populated city, however. (That's right, both bought their chemical weapons from the US government)
While we are talking about that sort of thing, mass graves: In accordance with their religion, Muslims bury their dead as soon as possible. That is why there was such an outrage over displaying the corpses of Hussein's sons. Because it was desecrating their dead! Especially dressing them up and cleaning their wounds, which you are also not supposed to do! (To put it in a Sci-Fi context, the series Space: Above and Beyond. The aliens mutulated fallen human troops. Humans were outraged and disgusted. But it turns out that the aliens were honouring their fallen foes as they honoured their own dead. And they were outraged in turn, by humans daring to cover their fallen with dirt, or else burn them to nothing.)
But anyways, the result is that if thousands of people are killed, mass graves are really the only option. So what killed all of these people. Well, after Gulf War I, the US told the Shi'ite and the Kurds that they had completely destroyed the Iraqi army. Both peoples revolted, slaughtering entire cities. Now, the Republican Guard was not so decimated as the US told them, and they regrouped after the war, and put down the rebellions with deadly force. That is where the mass graves came from. Because it would dishonor the dead to fix them up, and put them in their best clothes, and ship them off to their family, and THEN bury them. They needed to be burried as soon as possible.
Now, perhaps they used too much force...let's imagine this: Say some group in the US somewhere, it doesn't really matter who, realizes that most of the National Guard and army Reserves are already off in Iraq. So they rise up in a few cities, and kill all of the police, and the mayor, and basically anybody who works for any sort of government. City sanitation, DMV, everybody. Now, that done, they move on to the next city. People who fight back at them are killed, too. Now, what would the National Guard be justified in doing to them? Should they bust out the tear gas and rubber bullets? Or the mortars and the gunships?
Now, on to Kuwait. In 1990, Hussein in person flew to the White House, and asked G. H. W. Bush's permission to invade. And George said to go for it, it was none of his business what Iraq did to protect itself from oil thieves. And I think everybody knows what follows after that. Either way, Kuwait is run by a dictatorship with death squards, too. But the dictator is pro-US, so it is a good brutal regeim. But that sort of thing completely negates any "We had to get rid of a brutah dictator!" argument, since they are propping up another right next door!
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I like Saddam, or think he was a particularly good leader. But many of the justifications given are pure lies, plain and simple. They said he had WMD, and he didn't. People have been saying "Well he shouldn't have made us think he did!" but he spend a year professing his innocence, saying he had none. He gave the inspectors free reign (He didn't want them in his palaces, but eventually gave in. Understandable, they ARE his houses, after all) People say his commits genocide. But many of the supporting evidence for that statement is false. (Unless there are others I have missed, of course. But the US reports clearly state that it wasn't Iraq that did it. So the only way to prove the US right is by first proving the US WRONG) People say he was in defiance of UN resolutions. But the US itself is in defiance of UN resolutions. And Israel is in defiance of more than any other country in the world. Yet nobody says we should over-throw them! (Ok, so plenty of people say we should over-throw them...but few credible people) People say he was brutal, but the US supports many brutal people, some moreso that Hussein was. (And in either case, the occupation is more brutal still) People say, but now they are free! We traded their security for freedom! But the US occupation is MORE restricting. More rules! More rape! At least they had (Rigged) elections before. I mean, the US only has 2 parties, and they are virtually the same. They barely differ on ANY points. They sling instults like "Big Government Democrats" and "Big Corporation Republicans" but really, both people boost government spending, and both help out the corporations. They make differing statements about controversial issues, sure, but then they don't follow through, so really there is no difference. People said "Saddam got 90% of the vote, they must be rigged!" but what percengate of the vote do Republicans and Democrats together get? Hmm? Why does one extra party make the difference?
Anyways, now they have a military dictatorship, and are repeatedly denied the rights to an election. "But you'll elect the wrong people! You arn't ready!" the US says...they can't vote because they wouldn't vote correctly...meanwhile we get reports of US soldiers killing for fun, we get videos of them beating and executing civilains while cheering and chanting. Yay.
WRONG! 6 died in the 1993 WTC attacks. (Score:3, Informative)
To, Two, Too (Score:3, Informative)
Please take a few minutes to learn the correct usage of these words. The few minutes you spend now will provide a lifetime of correct grammar joy.
Thanks.
Re:bin laden.. (Score:5, Informative)
You're wrong. Yes, the war was illegal but not because of the reason you give. International law is complicated but as far as war is concerned it's very simple:
1. War is illegal except in two cases:
2. It's legal as defense against an immediate attack.
3. It's legal if it has a UN mandate.
Thus the war was illegal but declaring or not declaring it has nothing to do with that.
Are you from the UK? (Score:2, Informative)
Amongst the fake documents they published as real news was the above "top secret memo" you cite, plus the allegation that George Galloway was paid bungs by Saddam. Both were utterly, utterly false. The Telegraph was humiliated in the UK press. The CSM published a huge apology to George, including full details of how they got the story.
Bush Still at Large (Score:2, Informative)
by Greg Palast
******************
This week, Alternative Tentacles issued the spoken word CD, "Weapon of Mass Instruction - Palast LIVE," available at www.GregPalast.com
******************
Former Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein was taken into custody yesterday at 8:30p.m. Baghdad time. Various television executives, White House spin doctors and propaganda experts at the Pentagon are at this time wrestling with the question of whether to claim PFC Jessica Lynch seized the ex-potentate or that Saddam surrendered after close hand-to-hand combat with current Iraqi strongman Paul Bremer III.
Ex-President Hussein himself told US military interrogators that he had surfaced after hearing of the appointment of his long-time associate James Baker III to settle Iraq's debts. "Hey, my homeboy Jim owes me big time," Mr. Hussein stated. He asserted that Baker and the prior Bush regime, "owe me my back pay. After all I did for these guys you'd think they'd have the decency to pay up."
The Iraqi dictator then went on to list the "hits" he conducted on behalf of the Baker-Bush administrations, ending with the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, authorized by the former US secretary of state Baker.
Mr. Hussein cited the transcript of his meeting on July 25, 1990 in Baghdad with US Ambassador April Glaspie. When Saddam asked Glaspie if the US would object to an attack on Kuwait over the small emirate's theft of Iraqi oil, America's Ambassador told him, "We have no opinion.... Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction
Glaspie, in Congressional testimony in 1991, did not deny the authenticity of the recording of her meeting with Saddam which world diplomats took as US acquiescence to an Iraqi invasion.
While having his hair styled by US military makeover artists, Saddam listed jobs completed at the request of his allies in the Carter, Reagan and Bush administrations for which he claims back wages:
1979: Seizes power with US approval; moves allegiance from Soviets to USA in Cold War.
1980: Invades Iran, then the "Unicycle of Evil," with US encouragement and arms.
1982: Reagan regime removes Saddam's regime from official US list of state sponsors of terrorism.
1983: Saddam hosts Donald Rumsfeld in Baghdad. Agrees to "go steady" with US corporate suppliers.
1984: US Commerce Department issues license for export of aflatoxin to Iraq useable in biological weapons.
1988: Kurds in Halabja, Iraq, gassed.
1987-88: US warships destroy Iranian oil platforms in Gulf and break Iranian blockade of Iraq shipping lanes, tipping war advantage back to Saddam.
In Baghdad today, the US-installed replacement for Saddam, Paul Bremer, appeared to acknowledge his predecessor Saddam's prior work for the US State Department when he told Iraqis, "For decades, you suffered at the hands of this cruel man. For decades, Saddam Hussein divided you and threatened an attack on your neighbors."
In reaction to the Bremer speech, Mr. Hussein said, "Do you think those decades of causing suffering, division and fear come cheap?" Noting that for half of that period, the suffering, division and threats were supported by Washington, Saddam added, "So where's the thanks? You'd think I'd at least get a gold watch or something for all those years on US payroll."
In a televised address from the Oval Office, George W. Bush raised Saddam's hopes of compensation when he cited Iraq's "dark and painful history" under the US-sponsored Hussein dictatorship.
Saddam was also heartened by Mr. Bush's promise that, "The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq." With new attacks by and on US and other foreign occupation forces, the former strongman stated, "It's reassuring to know my legacy of darkness and pain for Iraqis will continue under the leadership of President Bush."
Your facts are wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Secondly, a large part of the money from the "food" program was used to compensate foreign firms which had lost out through the war and sanctions.
Thirdly, a lot of essential medicines and other essential medical supplies such as oxygen could not be imported because of "dual use" considerations.
Fourthly, the UN money was kept in an escrow account in New York City. All purchases were done by UN officials.
See Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility interview with Hans Von Sponeck, and Stephen Kinzer, NY Times, Jan 3rd 1999
You know better than you president? (Score:5, Informative)
Now go and convince your own president you're right.
Re:Are you from the UK? (Score:3, Informative)
"However, the tantalising detail provided in the intelligence document uncovered by Iraq's interim government suggests that Atta's involvement with Iraqi intelligence may well have been far deeper than has hitherto been acknowledged."
In addition, as of today, December 14, the Telegraph is still publishing new articles about the Atta/Nidal/Baghdad link, as seen here [telegraph.co.uk].
Sounds to me like you're making up stories.
Ok, sure, we envy you (Score:3, Informative)
What the world thinks of America [www.cbc.ca] was a joint report carried out by ten world news agencies in their respective countries.
Some highlights that show just how much the rest of the world envies the US:
89%
Percentage of American respondents who agreed with the statement that "America is the best country in the world in which to live." Ten per cent disagreed.
6%
Percentage of Canadian respondents who said the U.S. is a better place to live than Canada. Ninety per cent said it was not better than Canada.
4 out of 5
Proportion of overall respondents who said they would not like to live in the United States if given the chance.
2 out of 3
Proportion of Russian respondents who said America's superior military power makes the world a more dangerous place. Thirty-seven per cent of Canadian respondents agreed, while 41 per cent said the military power of the U.S. makes the world a safer place.
56%
Percentage of overall respondents who said the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq. Thirty-seven per cent said the U.S. was right to invade. Fifty-one per cent said life for the Iraqi people will be better now that Saddam Hussein is gone, while only 20 per cent said life will be worse for them. Twenty per cent said it will make no difference and nine per cent said they don't know. Only 21 per cent believed the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq would result in an independent Iraqi regime.
Re:Ever hear of Salman Pak? (Score:2, Informative)
If you do a search for further information on this "somking gun" you will find that in fact the aircraft in question was used to train iraqi's in *ani-terrorism*.
I suggest you read the following (orignally published in the New Yorker)
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0506
Re:WMD && Oil != the issue (Score:3, Informative)
Errr... No. [yahoo.com]
Please, please, plese, check your facts before posting.
Thanks.
Re:bin laden.. (Score:4, Informative)
How about I go back to the 80s? When we funded Saddam in his fight against Iran? When those pictures were taken of Rumsfeld giving ol Saddam a big hug?
Face facts. We f'ed up by not finishing the job with Osama. Period.
Fresh Perspectives (Score:4, Informative)
I don't like President Bush. I think he is a short-sighted, uneducated, intolerant redneck, and it frightens me that he has the ability to launch nuclear missiles. But saying that this war is wrong or that it is illegal simply does not make sense. If there is an intelligent argument against this, I have yet to read it.
Your argument does not make sense.
To accuse President Bush of war crimes and not accuse Saddam Hussein at the same time is as massive MASSIVE hypocrisy. Look at the mass graves. Look at the soldiers dressed in civilian clothing, firing on coalition troops. Look at the countless incidents of Iraqi soldiers feigning surrender only to fire on coalition troops who were willing to show them mercy. Look at the thousands of Shiite Muslims who were killed by nerve gas on Saddam's orders after the first Gulf War. Look at the torture chambers that have been found. Look at the incidents of Iraqi troops firing on unarmed civilians, fleeing the horror of the war. Look at the stockpiles of humanitarian aid that were gathered up and never distributed to the people of Iraq. Look at the squads of professional rapists Saddam used to torture women and children. The list goes on and on. There are too many to name.
Your argument does not make sense.
It saddens me that people can be so blind to how simple this is. You disgust me. UN Resolution 1441 states very clearly that the point was never to "find" biological or chemical weapons in Iraq; the point was to prove whether or not they are there. And it states in no uncertain terms that absolute and unquestioned cooperation was demanded of Saddam's regime. Resolution 1441 can be found here. [un.int]
Resolution 1441 also notes many previous Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, of which I've counted four that explicitly declare Iraq in violation of the cease-fire of the first Gulf War. There are others that deal with humanitarian problems caused by Saddam's regime, and property stolen from Kuwait (which I might add was never returned or repaid).
Look further at the reports from UN weapons inspection teams, complaining of Iraq's failure to cooperate in the terms set out by Resolution 1441. Unconditional, unrestricted, unquestioned cooperation was demanded, and it was not received. I should probably mention that Iraq *eventually* cooperated with most of the things demanded in Resolution 1441, but the very fact that they cooperated "eventually" constitutes a material breach of the resolution.
Your argument does not make sense.
For every point you try to make to prove your case against the war, twelve can be brought up to prove otherwise.
Today is a great day for the world. Saddam Hussein is not worth the bullet it would take to shoot him. He is an evil, violent man who would eagerly put every man, woman, and child in the world under the control of his equally evil and violent regime, if only he could get his hands on weapons powerful enough to allow it. But you accuse President Bush of war crimes?
It doesn't make sense. It is untrue, and unfair. It is a lie, and it is hypocritical.
Read the facts people. I've tried very hard to understand the opposing viewpoint, but the only explanation I can come up with is either the silent support of terrorism and atrocity, or gross GROSS ignorance to the facts of the matter.
I'm sorry for making this post so long, but I have a lot to say on this matter. Don't believe protest groups, don't believe presidents or politicians, and don't believe France. Read the UN resolutions and reports from expert committees appointed by the UN. After you've read those, see if you can come up with a reasonable argument using facts, not slander.
God bless America! God bless Iraq! May freedom ring so much farther than from sea to shining sea. May it reach so far and ring so loud that even the most ravaged and brutalized nations of the world hear it as clearly as we do in America.
~Knautilus
Re:bin laden.. (Score:4, Informative)
TIME Magazine Exclusive (Score:4, Informative)
I am copying and pasting a portion of it below:
Saddam Hussein was captured on Sunday without a fight. But since then, according to a U.S. intelligence official in Iraq, the fallen dictator has been defiant. "He's not been very cooperative," said the official, who read the transcript of the initial interrogation report taken during the first questioning session.
After his capture, Saddam was taken to a holding cell at the Baghdad Airport. He didn't answer any of the initial questions directly, the official said, and at times seemed less than fully coherent. The transcript was full of "Saddam rhetoric type stuff," said the official who paraphrased Saddam's answers to some of the questions. When asked "How are you?" said the official, Saddam responded, "I am sad because my people are in bondage." When offered a glass of water by his interrogators, Saddam replied, "If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?"
The interrogators also asked Saddam if he knew about the location of Captain Scott Speicher, a U.S. pilot who went missing during the first Gulf War. "No," replied the former Iraqi president, "we have never kept any prisoners. I have never known what happened."
Saddam was also asked whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. "No, of course not," he replied, according to the official, "the U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us." The interrogator continued along this line, said the official, asking: "if you had no weapons of mass destruction then why not let the U.N. inspectors into your facilities?" Saddam's reply: "We didn't want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy."
The official is doubtful that the U.S. will get a significant amount of intelligence from Saddam's interrogations. "I would be surprised if he gave any info," he said. Other high-ranking regime members, he said, have by and large remained mum. "Tariq Aziz [former deputy prime minister] hasn't really spoken," he said, "and Abid Mahmoud [Saddam's former personal secretary] hasn't really given any information."
Along with the $750,000 in cash, two AK 47 machine guns and pistol found with Saddam, the U.S. intelligence official confirmed that operatives found a briefcase with Saddam that contained a letter from a Baghdad resistance leader. Contained in the message, the official said, were the minutes from a meeting of a number of resistance leaders who came together in the capital. The official said the names found on this piece of paper will be valuable and could lead to the capture of insurgency leaders around the Sunni Triangle.
Re:bin laden.. (Score:2, Informative)
Sanctions have ended and Saddam will not return. That is wonderful. But for the record:
Saddam pocketed a bunch of the money
Of course the Iraqi government was creating cash revenue for itself. The oil-for-food (O.F.F.) program only provided commodities in exchange for oil; it didn't allow the government any access to cash. How well would the US government function without cash? Oil smuggling was the only thing that gave a salary to Iraqi teachers, public healthcare workers, and civil servants. Physicians in particular began receiving salary increases that were proportional to the crumbling of sanctions in 2000. Sure, the regime invested in social services partly to reduce popular discontent; it was self-serving. But that doesn't change the fact that sanctions, not just Saddam, violated Iraqi human rights and were in fact designed to. Bush Sr. thought of this [commondreams.org] as "Making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people."
The UN sanctions were suppose to let food and medicine get to the people of Iraq
Actually no, they were supposed to appear to allow this on paper, but not in practice. For six years Iraq could sell no oil, which cut off 90 per cent of its foreign revenue at a time when Iraq imported two-thirds of its food. As the UN predicted (Bush Sr. ignored it), this led to massive malnutrition. In 1996 the O.F.F. program began, with a pointless cap on oil exports. Two years later the cap was removed, but the US and Britain tied up $5 billion of humanitarian supplies including many spare parts for the oil industry. The point wasn't to kill Iraqis; that was just an "acceptable" consequence of wrecking Iraqi oil production and undermining its global market influence. This should come as no surprise. Donald Rumsfeld certainly wasn't preaching human rights when he shook hands [gwu.edu] with Saddam, as Reagan was launching his campaign [casi.org.uk] to support Iraq's unconventional weapons development.
No wonder UN humanitarian coordinator Denis Halliday said [salon.com] the O.F.F. program was "designed to fail". I heard this with my own ears when Halliday spoke in New York; similar things from his successor Hans von Sponeck when he spoke in Milwaukee; and more diplomatically from Sponeck's successor Tun Myat when he spoke in Baghdad.
the facts are pretty simple.
Not really, as I have shown. I'm glad this is behind us, but if the history books are honest, they will slaughter the leaders on both sides.
FYI (Score:2, Informative)
The U.S. tilt towards Iraq began under the Carter administration [pbs.org], after the fall of the Shah.
I'm guessing that France [www.zeit.de] and Germany [spiegel.de] have at least as much to worry about what Saddam might say about their support as the U.S. does.
Re:Allende? You're backing Allende over Pincochet? (Score:3, Informative)
Presumably, you don't think that a CNN article that quotes the National Security Archive and the its executive director, a White House spokesman and a CIA official as well, and which also provides plenty of additional material and links, is "Marxist" or a "tired old myth"?
Now, go read it, go check Senate and NSA records yourself (they are public documents, after all), and then come back and tell me that's the coup wasn't CIA-led. I like to see you do that, because it would make liars of the NSA, the US Senate, the White House and the CIA itself.
QED.
Re:The USA PATRIOT Act... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:bin laden.. (Score:3, Informative)
yes there is alot of propoganda on the US media sources, they are after all heavily government controled.
"Oh and what about when he dropped mustard gas on that kurdish city (more iraqi's), killed 10s of thousands there too. ALL HIS OWN PEOPLE!"
My response to this can be summarized with 3 letters. ATF. The ATF made clear with flame throwing tanks what OUR country is willing to do TO OUR OWN PEOPLE if they so much as smell like going beyond regulated in 2000 various ways but "free" speech to actual action.
Every government is crooked. Ours actually rivals and possibly surpasses China on this front. Do you have any evidence he was more crooked or vicious than any other? Of course not. And I'll repeat again, I'll start listening to WMD BS when we stop having more than the rest of world combined.
Re:bin laden.. (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, we have a term and laws for that hear too, it's called Treason. There is only one punishment for it under US law, death.
"Saddam didn't just get 90%+ of the vote."
I was talking about his popularity rating, not the voting booth. Saddam whether you believe him good, bad, or not neccesarily any worse than the US government, was EXTREMELY popular among his own people because he was reclaiming ancient land the lose of which had been a thorn to his people a very very long time. Killing and torturing traitors is a long time pastime in most nations these days.