He will have to do some real fast moves to get the U.S. from coming in.

[ 03-16-2003: Message edited by: D2 ]

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by 20 20:
The Monday deadline was for the U.N. to get it's act together. It didn't. So now Bush will give Sadam 72 hours to get out of Iraq. If not...

---

They are saying now it will be 48 hours, ofcourse the Bush address to the nation will be on in 12 minutes and then we will know for sure how much time.

All I have to say is...

Semper Fi boys and good luck to rest of the men and women fighting for freedom.

--------------------

[ 03-18-2003: Message edited by: Cacophonous ]

--------------------

Why do you ask?

O

--------------------

Don't worry Lindi, I doubt we'll be sending france the bill. Besides, I didn't see anyone else in the UN offering to help pay the daily cost of our troops setting around Iraq the last few months. Even if our troops did more to get some missles crushed than any inspector could

03-17-2003
See Men Shredded, Then Say You Don't Back War
-- Ann Clwyd - Indict - http://www.indict.org.uk

“There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.”

This is one of the many witness statements that were taken by researchers from Indict — the organisation I chair — to provide evidence for legal cases against specific Iraqi individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. This account was taken in the past two weeks.

Another witness told us about practices of the security services towards women: “Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched; men were forced to watch as their wives were raped . . . women were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation.”

The accounts Indict has heard over the past six years are disgusting and horrifying. Our task is not merely passively to record what we are told but to challenge it as well, so that the evidence we produce is of the highest quality. All witnesses swear that their statements are true and sign them.

For these humanitarian reasons alone, it is essential to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam. The 17 UN resolutions passed since 1991 on Iraq include Resolution 688, which calls for an end to repression of Iraqi civilians. It has been ignored. Torture, execution and ethnic-cleansing are everyday life in Saddam’s Iraq.

Were it not for the no-fly zones in the south and north of Iraq — which some people still claim are illegal — the Kurds and the Shia would no doubt still be attacked by Iraqi helicopter gunships.

For more than 20 years, senior Iraqi officials have committed genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This list includes far more than the gassing of 5,000 in Halabja and other villages in 1988. It includes serial war crimes during the Iran-Iraq war; the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds in 1987-88; the invasion of Kuwait and the killing of more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians; the violent suppression, which I witnessed, of the 1991 Kurdish uprising that led to 30,000 or more civilian deaths; the draining of the Southern Marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed thousands of Shias; and the summary executions of thousands of political opponents.

Many Iraqis wonder why the world applauded the military intervention that eventually rescued the Cambodians from Pol Pot and the Ugandans from Idi Amin when these took place without UN help. They ask why the world has ignored the crimes against them?

All these crimes have been recorded in detail by the UN, the US, Kuwaiti, British, Iranian and other Governments and groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Indict. Yet the Security Council has failed to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq because of opposition from France, China and Russia. As a result, no Iraqi official has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century. I have said incessantly that I would have preferred such a tribunal to war. But the time for offering Saddam incentives and more time is over.

I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight.

It's only reasonable that they'd offer such an insipid argument. They know that if WMDs are found, they'll look pretty damn lame.

And on the other point, WTF if the UN doesn't think they should contribute to the "clean up". They fucking pay for little anyways (with OUR money).

Anybody hear Tony Blair this (Tuesday) morning ? Damn, he's good .... for a "Labour Party" mensch.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by outrider:
Yea I watched his parliment meeting this morning. They are pretty cool meetings.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find Lindi's "cleanup" concerns kinda pathetic or at the very least, a bit fake?

---

quote:

---

"Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Goering, Hitler's #2 man, before being sentenced to death at the Nuremberg trials.

---

--------------------

DGhost

I kind of wish that I could share your blind confidense in that only good things will come of the war and the actions taken by the US coalition. However I don't, I find the situation in the world very distressfull and doubt that will all just go away in a few days when US forces sieze Bhagdad.

.., and I really intend this to be my last post about this issue. Guess I'm really developing a temper or something.

Ever notice how the liberal left IGNORES any postings or news about the atrocities going on? Right here in this very thread, they talk about his son personally putting people through a wood chipper, er, excuse me, PLASTIC shredder. Feeding some of them in feet first so they can scream out their last few seconds of life in the worst agony imaginable. But George Bush is the VILLAIN in this scenario? Jeezus.

Maybe would should have left Europe to their fate in WWII. Just fought Japan, and ignored what occured on the continent. There would now be NO France. Well, the land would still be there, but the country sure as shit would not be. Nor would there be a Poland, Austria, Hungary, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, or any of the baltics. The Third Reich would most likely have gone after the Middle East shortly thereafter.

The goddamn war was so close at one point that a single spy helped turn the tide by sending false information to Berlin as a double agent. This caused the Germans to think that the Normandy Invasion was coming in much farther to the north of France, and moved their troops there. It was the only reason that the Americans were able to get enough of a toe hold on the continent to be able to stay without being wiped out in the first push.

But it seems that it was all done for nothing. My Grandfather and his 5 brothers fought in that war, along with a lot of men who didn't come back. And it seems that it was all in vain. I am sorry that he has to see this.

O

[ 03-18-2003: Message edited by: Oicu812 ]

--------------------

If he is truly a madmen, then why not bring him to the International court of La Haye for crimes against humanity?

This way, if he refuse to cooperate, the U.N. could declare him a criminal for all the crimes he has done against humanity and the US of A. could bring him to the international court of La Haye. But no, alas, no one has such intention, they all want the frigging petrol.

For me, this a war of propangada before anything else. Watching CNN is like being brainwashed.

There is no such things as "doing it for the good of the planet" only economic interest are running this planet.

That's my personnal opinion of course.. Everybody has it's own!

--------------------

DGhost

I really think that Saddam and he's sons deseve to burn in hell for said atrocities and I hardly think my political beliefs don't affect that, rather being human does.

Bush however is attacking Iraq because of WMDs, which Iraq has said it has gotten rid off or is getting rid off (admitedly under preasure). Also he is attacking Iraq with out the support of the UN. Doing the right thing the wrong way. Just read DGhosts reply he said it better.

I believe that many, many people in the world are very thankfull for what the US did during WWII. Question is, did the US really have a choise? What if the 3rd reich would have conquered Russia and perhaps the Far-East, do you think he'd stop there? With all the research and resourses the Germans had going by then it might have been too late, even for the US.

We don't need any oil from Iraq.

As a matter of fact, the Bush family is heavily invested in oil. Sure is!

Guess what happens when we free Iraq? Oil prices go down, right?

So how is this greed on the part of the President? If he is only in it for himself, then he would want oil prices to be as high as possible, because he has a bunch of wells putting out oil 24x7!

So, obviously, the motive here IS NOT OIL OR GREED. It is all about putting AN END TO TERRORISM and FASCIST DICTATORS WHO SUPPORT TERRORISTS. Don't merely regurgitate some mindless pap that someone else has forced you to swallow, and think things through for yourself. We will spend BILLIONS on this war and the inevitable rebuilding that will take place afterwards. We will leave the country better than we found it by a LONG shot, and put a real democracy in place. One where the sons of the President CANNOT get away with raping any woman they want to, or killing thousands of men.

quote:

---

This way, if he refuse to cooperate, the U.N. could declare him a criminal for all the crimes he has done against humanity and the US of A. could bring him to the international court of La Haye. But no, alas, no one has such intention, they all want the frigging petrol.

---

Just how do you suggest we arrest him and bring to trial? Go knock on his door, with a search warrant? WTF do you think all the troops are over there FOR? Surely not OIL!

Gee, maybe we should have just arrested Hitler! Why didn't Roosevelt and Churchill think of THAT?

The UN already HAS declared him a criminal. It has for 12 years now. The UN has resolution after resolution telling him to disarm, quit it, cut it the fuck out.

In the end, it is all a bunch of talk. The UN and its' resolutions are a waste of paper. They have done NOTHING but give this insane bastard a dozen more years to build weapons, and try his damndest to get his hands on a nuke. And we mean to correct that.

O

--------------------

quote:

---

I believe that many, many people in the world are very thankfull for what the US did during WWII. Question is, did the US really have a choise? What if the 3rd reich would have conquered Russia and perhaps the Far-East, do you think he'd stop there? With all the research and resourses the Germans had going by then it might have been too late, even for the US.

---

I agree with you! Wholeheartedly! We HAD no choice, even from the viewpoint of our OWN security, regardless of what Hitler was doing!

Problem is, we are nearing the same place with Saddam right now. Granted, he doesn't yet control the land mass that Hitler did, but a nuke is the GREATEST equalizer, don't you think? This makes "Saddam the Tinpot Dictator" even more powerful than Hitler, from the war standpoint. Hitler had to send over WAVES of buzz bombs and fighters to lay London to waste, and Saddam can do it with nothing more than a large speedboat with a nuke onboard. MUCH harder to defend against! This is why we cannot allow this to go on any further. We have no choice.

The UN resolutions have done nothing to stop this. Not for the last 12 years. Nor for the NEXT 12. Diplomacy, it has been proven, does NOT work. So we either ignore him at your peril and ours, or we do something about it. If given this choice, "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" I choose action. Because if we did nothing, and he nukes ANYONE, we will be to blame. We have the intel that says he can, does, and will. Want to talk about blame for innocent casualties? I would hate to be the President that KNEW Saddam had nukes, decided to do nothing but allow the UN to Resolute, and watch a city or entire country die.

O

--------------------

The army of USA will go there, win this war, easily and give a lot of money to the country to make sure that it is rebuild. No bad intentions for that. But yes I still think that they (the power behind the government) are doing it for the money, because they will get better profit from the petrol by paying less for it since Saddam won't be leading the country anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that we should remove this madmen from his position in Irak. But doing it with these so called "good intention" that Bush has been saying all along, I don't believe that.

Strange enough, the White House Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, just declare moments ago that the US will still attack Irak even if Saddam (and his bastards sons) is leaving the country.

It's very easy, they want us, the planet, believe that they are doing it to stop the reign of terror of Saddam and stop terrorism.

From the speech of Bush:

quote:

---

The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

---

Do you actually believe that by freeing Irak from Saddam, the terrorism will actually stop? I don't. Terrorism will, sadly, continue to go on, even when Saddam will be removed from power. And maybe it would be even higher after the war start.

It's not a black and white situation for me, but rather a gray one.

--------------------

DGhost

quote:

---

I don't think that my previous post in this thread was stupid or fake, I really do think it will effect the world economy in many, yet unforseen ways. Thus I need to clarify, I've given up trying to discuss/argue about this issue with you outrider.

---

See, in the other thread I didn't feel my posts were ignorant nor naive, thus I needed to clarify as well. Yet, even though you feel I should listen to and evaluate your side, you refer to me having "blind confidense" heh.

You don't seem to like what I have to say. So far you've referred to me as ignorant, naive and being "blind" and then you get your panties in a bunch when I bring up the fact I think one of your statements seemed odd to bring up even before anyone has been killed in this pending war, like you're more concerned with having to pull money outta your pocket.

I too find the world a stressful place right now and no, I dont think terrorism will end with saddam, that is just you speaking for myself once again. I do however believe saddam is a key element in this world's terror organization as a whole and without him we will be better off in the short and long run.

For some reason I can't write about this issue (and adress your posts) without my adrenaline (and temper) building, though, so I'll stick to my original plan and stay out...

The one thing I truly find amusing is how many folks who don't live in America like to judge us and feel they know so more than us, like the places they get their news coverage are superior to ours and that we all just watch CNN.

The fact that I personally think Bush is a major idiot is bound to influence my views, but it's not intended as an insult(although I appreciate it might be taken that way)

The point is we disagree - not about Saddam being a bastard - I think we all agree on that, but on how Bush/U.S./U.K./and apparently Spain decides for the rest of the world!!! that this is it - Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. regulations (which they apparently don't care about anyway, as they don't follow U.N. regulations themselves) so we can go to war. Neither the U.S., or any other country in the world for that matter, have the right to make that choice in this kind of situation - playing world police...

And wtf does ww2 have to do with this?!?! Yeah...thank you and all, but sheesh!

And actually you have very valid points, in fact I've thought of them myself many times over the months. We are defying exactly what we are calling saddam on for defying. But isn't there at least a wee bit of difference? For 12 yrs the US has let the UN handle saddam and look where we are. We always get that "world police" term tossed at us.

...yet, doesn't everyone expect someone to be the world police? Think about it.

Does France really have such peaceful intentions or are they more concerned about money, oil and arm trades? Same with Russia.

What if the UN actually stuck to what it has said in the past over the years about saddam and resolutions and France didn't say they would VETO ANY resolution regarding force? Perhaps things would have been different, maybe? No?

Is this all about the REST of the world having a equal voice with the one remaining super power, or is this all about saddam and his dealings and killings, and continuings that are proven fact. If we don't agree that he has stockpiles, which come from UN records, then why should we believe the UN about anything else. Are they lying or telling the truth when that submit reports detailing the thousands of litres of chemicals he has?

You've not once seen me bring up ANYTHING about WWII in these matters.

I just find it funny how Bush can be called the #1 terrorist because he wants saddam removed. It's twisted logic at it's finest.

And why is he an idiot? Was Bill Clinton an idiot? He bombed a pharmacuetical plant w/o even once talking to the UN beforehand. Are all US presidents idiots, Riv? Or just republicans? Tell me why Bush is an idiot please.

quote:

---

Outrider:

If some people like dghost want to keep thinking it's all about oil and money, then fine. Let him think what he wants. Doesn't mean it's true, just like everything I say could be wrong. They are opinions.

---

Sooo true! This board is for giving our opinions. I think that if everybody would think all alike, this world would be truly boring....

quote:

---

Rivendell:

I have a feeling I'll end up insulting many of you if I start venting my feelings and then I find it better to just leave them unsaid...call me chicken all you like

---

No Rivendell, each person has a right to his own opinion. As you have your own opinion that may be different than mine, I will respect your choice, as I respect everybody's choice. And to reply about your latest post, no I don't think also that WW2 has anything to do with that. It's a different topic, in a different era.

--------------------

DGhost

I think war debt should be equally distributed because stoping crazy war helps everyone

quote:

---

But yes I still think that they (the power behind the government) are doing it for the money, because they will get better profit from the petrol by paying less for it since Saddam won't be leading the country anymore.

---

quote:

---

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that we should remove this madmen from his position in Irak. But doing it with these so called "good intention" that Bush has been saying all along, I don't believe that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 20 20:
[QUOTE]But yes I still think that they (the power behind the government) are doing it for the money, because they will get better profit from the petrol by paying less for it since Saddam won't be leading the country anymore.

---

I'm through discussing any of this matter online anymore. Pointless to do so when statements like school children being shot over sneakers are tossed around as logic, heh, we might as well blame it on a world where adults go on shooting rampages because of shoddy HDTV receptions, eh? What country did that happen in? I cannot remember...

Don't they know what he is doing to his own people yet what he wants to do to the USA and our allies?

I mean how can we sit back and watch people like him carry on like he does? I guess it's much easier to look the other way.

--------------------

--------------------

Inaction will cost more lives and more suffering than action.

Hmmmmm... Don't know if that'll work, but it's the best I can come up with. I know the anti-war/anti-bush crowd (can't just say anti-war, because half of them are only anti-war because they are anti-bush) will say "It will not!". Well, yes it will. If, say 5000 Iraqi civilians die in the war, then that'll even out, in one year, the 5000 people that die of starvation in Iraq in a year because Sadam won't disarm so the santions won't be lifted. (No, the sanctions aren't Bush's fault, they're SADAMS!! And that 5000 civilian deaths is probably high, hopefully). Now, lets take that over 5 years. 5000 deaths with action, 25000 deaths with inaction. Hmmmm... Works for me. We don't even have to count in the hundreds or thousands killed by Sadam every year, which no one is debating. And we don't have to count the REAL danger to the rest of the world, the U.S. included. Nope. Don't need to count them in at all, and it still adds up.

Inaction will cost more lives and more suffering than action.

--------------------

quote:

---

So, Lindi, America is just basically evil, then? Because that's what you're implying. And tell me how that cute little statement of yours answers any of the questions I asked. Or was it really an attempt at the cheap little shot it seems to be?

---

Merely using a cheap shot to point out that your country can be very greedy at times and having oil in Iraq might just be a little insentive for the attack.

quote:

---

Originally posted by outrider:
You've not once seen me bring up ANYTHING about WWII in these matters.

I just find it funny how Bush can be called the #1 terrorist because he wants saddam removed. It's twisted logic at it's finest.

And why is he an idiot? Was Bill Clinton an idiot? He bombed a pharmacuetical plant w/o even once talking to the UN beforehand. Are all US presidents idiots, Riv? Or just republicans? Tell me why Bush is an idiot please.

---

No - the ww2 comment was directed at O~

As for republicans vs. democrats - it has nothing to do with that. I thought Bill Clinton was an ok president, yes, but I had no problems with George Bush senior either. Keep in mind that I don't follow american politics closely, and therefore is judging mostly (and unjustly perhaps, but you have to make a stand on what you know - not what you don't know) based upon the foreign policy.

Why do I feel Bush jr. is an idiot? Why do you feel so and so is an idiot?
It's based on a number of different things and are very subjective - some I'm certain are illogical, some originates from views in european media (I mean...I have read about his IQ ), some originate from what I conceive (sp?) as arrogance on his part, some from how he got elected, etc...

That doesn't ring any bells - care to enlighten me? (I'm too lazy to search the web atm)