Haditha

Wobbie

spyguy wrote:

no we should have never "decided" for them but we did. cant go back and change it ya know.

I just wish Bush and his architects of the war would say "We fucked up - BAD." It'll never ever happen but to continue to assert it was the right thing to do is inane. :mad:

I also wish Obama and/or McCain would say it because we all know it's true!

spyguy

polaris wrote:

i said a relative peace - compared to now, it was fantastic ... they may not have been happy but they had food, water and could live their lives ... what do they got now? ... they've been bombed back 2 centuries ... what was once one of the jewels of the middle east full of culture and modernism is now another wreckage of air raids and depleted uranium ...

best and worst thing ever to happen to iraq was when they nationalized their oil ... they were able to put money into roads, school, water treatment plants but they should have known the west wouldn't sit still ... and now they have thier oil back on the blood of innocent people ...

but you cant go back and change it. and the kurds? its they are living in paradise compared to saddam. its going to take many years for Iraq to be better then they were before the invasion. no question about that. I believe they are on the track now. its going to take time.

MrBrian

spyguy wrote:

but you cant go back and change it. and the kurds? its they are living in paradise compared to saddam. its going to take many years for Iraq to be better then they were before the invasion. no question about that. I believe they are on the track now. its going to take time.

You do know that any proof that Saddam gassed the kurds all by himself is fairly poor. Infact it is well known that the Kurds were caught in the crossfire of the Iran/Iraq war. A war that the US was involved in of course.

Where do you think the Chem weapons came from?

Also some tests that were done shows that some of the chemical weapons used on the kurds were infact weapons Iran had, not Iraq.

spyguy

MrBrian wrote:

You do know that any proof that Saddam gassed the kurds all by himself is fairly poor. Infact it is well known that the Kurds were caught in the crossfire of the Iran/Iraq war. A war that the US was involved in of course.

Where do you think the Chem weapons came from?

Also some tests that were done shows that some of the chemical weapons used on the kurds were infact weapons Iran had, not Iraq.

so saddam didnt gas the kurds? is that what your saying?

MrBrian

spyguy wrote:

so saddam didnt gas the kurds? is that what your saying?

I'm saying that not enough proof exists that he did, So how can one use it as a reason for war? It's not a game you know.

The rest of my post is pretty clear I think.
---

So enough of this saddam gassed his own people on purpose shit. Next thing you will tell me that Iraq attacked Kuwait for no reason at all.

spyguy

MrBrian wrote:

I'm saying that not enough proof exists that he did, So how can one use it as a reason for war? It's not a game you know.

actually this is plenty of proof saddam gassed the kurds. I bet you couldnt provide one sliver of evidence to the contrary.

MrBrian wrote:

So enough of this saddam gassed his own people on purpose shit. Next thing you will tell me that Iraq attacked Kuwait for no reason at all.

saddam invaded Kuwait to steal their oil, avoid paying his debt, and because he was a sociopath who thought he would rule the entire middle east. that qualify as reasons.

MrBrian

spyguy wrote:

actually this is plenty of proof saddam gassed the kurds. I bet you couldnt provide one sliver of evidence to the contrary.




saddam invaded Kuwait to steal their oil, avoid paying his debt, and because he was a sociopath who thought he would rule the entire middle east. that qualify as reasons.

U think so?...Please do a search yourself and see the large amount of articles,news stories and information on this subject. iran/iraq war.

Also look up directional drilling.

---

This is all old news to me, I don't have the time to debate it with you..Sorry.

spyguy

MrBrian wrote:

U think so?...Please do a search yourself and see the large amount of articles,news stories and information on this subject. iran/iraq war.

Also look up directional drilling.

---

This is all old news to me, I don't have the time to debate it with you..Sorry.

I'll be sure to do that. but its a well known fact that saddam was 100% responsible for using chemical weapons on the kurds. have a nice day

MrBrian

shit bro, I hope I didnt come off being rude in that last post of mine. sorry.

Was not my intention,

MrBrian

spyguy wrote:

I'll be sure to do that. but its a well known fact that saddam was 100% responsible for using chemical weapons on the kurds. have a nice day

Prove it.

fuck

spyguy you seem to think that this U.S. invasion was in the best interest of the Iraqi people. of course, I doubt that you've ever even spoken to an Iraqi.

Iraqis are far worse now, during the occupation, than they were during Saddam's control. 1.2 million people are dead DUE TO THE U.S. INVASION. that does not mean that the U.S. has killed 1.2 million people violently, it means that due to this invasion, people were killed. it could mean people having no houses because they were bombed, so they live on the streets, catch diseases, and die, etc.

not only did 1.2 million people die, but 3 million Iraqis were displaced and are now seeking refuge in other countries. Under Saddam's control, we NEVER saw 3 million Iraqis seeking to live in other countries, like we are witnessing now. And, of course, the U.S., the occupier, only accepts like 4000 Iraqi refugees. 4000 out of 3 million.

Your job to paint a picture that one day, due to this invasion, Iraqis will be able to enjoy all the freedoms of strip clubs, bars, and hookers is ridiculous.

"BUT PEOPLE LIVED IN FEAR!"

what the fuck do you think they're living in now??

Wobbie

spyguy wrote:

so saddam didnt gas the kurds? is that what your saying?

Whether he did or didn't is immaterial. We were there for WMD, remember? And now, as last night's 60 Minutes showed, our soldiers have to make up their own reasons why they're there. Some still think it's because of 911. They're just "following orders" and end up getting caught up in shit like killing civilians. There are generations of Kurds, Sunnis and Shites who will never forgive the US for invading their country, no matter what the supposed reason :mad:

polaris

spyguy wrote:

actually this is plenty of proof saddam gassed the kurds. I bet you couldnt provide one sliver of evidence to the contrary.




saddam invaded Kuwait to steal their oil, avoid paying his debt, and because he was a sociopath who thought he would rule the entire middle east. that qualify as reasons.

the most senior cia guy in iraq at the time of the gassing who was first there determined that the iranians gassed the kurds ...

as for your assertation about kuwait - i find it funny that you keep asking me if i'm serious or nuts ...

spyguy

_outlaw wrote:

spyguy you seem to think that this U.S. invasion was in the best interest of the Iraqi people. of course, I doubt that you've ever even spoken to an Iraqi.


Iraqis are far worse now, during the occupation, than they were during Saddam's control. 1.2 million people are dead DUE TO THE U.S. INVASION. that does not mean that the U.S. has killed 1.2 million people violently, it means that due to this invasion, people were killed. it could mean people having no houses because they were bombed, so they live on the streets, catch diseases, and die, etc.

not only did 1.2 million people die, but 3 million Iraqis were displaced and are now seeking refuge in other countries. Under Saddam's control, we NEVER saw 3 million Iraqis seeking to live in other countries, like we are witnessing now. And, of course, the U.S., the occupier, only accepts like 4000 Iraqi refugees. 4000 out of 3 million.

Your job to paint a picture that one day, due to this invasion, Iraqis will be able to enjoy all the freedoms of strip clubs, bars, and hookers is ridiculous.

"BUT PEOPLE LIVED IN FEAR!"

what the fuck do you think they're living in now??

not true. I absolutely do not think it was in their best interest. but it happened. cant take it back now, so time to find some silver lining.

spyguy

polaris wrote:

the most senior cia guy in iraq at the time of the gassing who was first there determined that the iranians gassed the kurds ...

would love to see some proof, I would be happy to stand corrected

polaris wrote:

as for your assertation about kuwait - i find it funny that you keep asking me if i'm serious or nuts ...

what was I wrong about?

MrBrian

Just a basic quick search on it

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1148.htm

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E7DD1638F932A05752C0A9659C8B63

(from the new york times)

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

---

spyguy

imalive wrote:

Whether he did or didn't is immaterial. We were there for WMD, remember? And now, as last night's 60 Minutes showed, our soldiers have to make up their own reasons why they're there. Some still think it's because of 911. They're just "following orders" and end up getting caught up in shit like killing civilians. There are generations of Kurds, Sunnis and Shites who will never forgive the US for invading their country, no matter what the supposed reason :mad:

well all we can do is move forward. its obvious invading Iraq was wrong but now what? time to pick up and pieces and try and give something that Iraq has never had. a free country. its a long shot but why focus on the negatives, they cant be changed. want to have bush tried for war crimes? ok fine go for it. wont change anything

Open

spyguy wrote:

not true. I absolutely do not think it was in their best interest. but it happened. cant take it back now, so time to find some silver lining.

No..its time to admit it was a mistake and learn from it. Instead of defending it and trying to explain it away as the US doing the Iraqis a favor.

Wobbie

spyguy wrote:

not true. I absolutely do not think it was in their best interest. but it happened. cant take it back now, so time to find some silver lining.

That is so fucked up!! It's like you're saying "it is what it is, get over it." Tell that to the hundreds of thousands who have died. Are you in the 23% who approve of Bush's performance? Truly, the dude should be put on trial for war crimes (as should have Saddam). :mad:

spyguy wrote:

well all we can do is move forward. its obvious invading Iraq was wrong but now what? time to pick up and pieces and try and give something that Iraq has never had. a free country. its a long shot but why focus on the negatives, they cant be changed. want to have bush tried for war crimes? ok fine go for it. wont change anything

True, I guess. Iraq may or may not have a free country. It won't be because we tell them to.

And yeah, I would like to see Bush on trial. It won't bring anyone back but at least he won't be chilling in Crawford and getting hefty appearance fees from "his people." :mad:

polaris

spyguy wrote:

would love to see some proof, I would be happy to stand corrected

let me know if Mr. Brian's links aren't enough

spyguy wrote:

what was I wrong about?

in my estimation - everything ... you basically said saddam was a mad man bent on ruling the middle east ... is there anyone else on this board who thinks this or even think it is remotely possible?