Pictures from Iraq

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

Eh, no. I didn't make anything up. None of the information presented was mine. And it was all cited. If you disagree with the numbers you can check the sources, I provided them.

(and this is all very sad that we are measuring war based on how many people were killed, but i think itsrelevant. to show how fucked up war is)


You are dismissing figures published in the Lancet, and replacing them with numbers taken from some random website that no one else cares about. The Lancet wouldn't publish something if it were "made up". And they wouldn't be using numbers from iraqbodycount.org.(I don't know anybody that does)

And the reason for that has nothing to with what they found. It has everything to do with how they found it.


iraqbodycount.org, only counts those that died "violent deaths" that were reported in the media.

The 2 obvious flaws in that method, and maybe the reason no respectable journalists report on it, is that it excludes the incredibly large portion of people that die non-violent deaths. Which is a considerable number.

And obviously the media can't possibly report on every single death.

A very large section of the deaths are left out, in the thousands range for sure, probably in the hundreds of thousands.

Probably huh? you dont even see it, but you say something like this in every post regarding deaths. you make shit up.

Commy wrote:

Really? Saddam Hussein sanctioned Iraq.

That is news to every single person in the world.

why is this so hard for you to understand? the UN sanctioned Iraq based on direct actions by Saddam. this might be news to you but Saddam could have avoided sanctions if he abided by international law such as not invading other countries. you keep making this sound like the United States (and the US alone) put sanctions on Iraq because it had nothing better to do that day.

read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

Commy wrote:

you know hundreds of thousands of little kids were killed in those sanctions? (i'm not gonna post any links, you'll pretend i invented them or whatever) -United States former Secretary of State Madeline Albright accepted tha500,000 children died as a result of the sanctions, on national tv, but i'm making that up too right?

I'm sure thats true and guess what...its Saddams fault for this happening. its mind boggling how you can not grasp this concept.

Commy wrote:

what in the fuck did they ever do to anyone? for that to happen?

and this country put those sanctions on that country that killed those children. Saddam Hussein was a piece of shit but he didn't sanction Iraq. The US/UN did.

they were sanctioned for a reason numb nuts!



its pointless quoting the rest of your post. if you can grasp the facts above, this debate is pointless.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Probably huh? you dont even see it, but you say something like this in every post regarding deaths. you make shit up.

it was 170,000.

cited a few posts ago.

you're missing the point entirely though, as usual...

your trying to get me to use iraqbody count over methods accepted by places like Cambridge and published in the Lancet.

no thanks.

why is this so hard for you to understand? the UN sanctioned Iraq based on direct actions by Saddam. this might be news to you but Saddam could have avoided sanctions if he abided by international law such as not invading other countries. you keep making this sound like the United States (and the US alone) put sanctions on Iraq because it had nothing better to do that day.

read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

chronological order

---

Saddam follows orders

Gets millions in military aid, handshakes from US officials

Uses that to kill a bunch of his own people

Everything is just fantastic

He kill's the wrong guys -rich Kuwaitis...can't have that.

Saddam disobeys orders from the master (that's us)

UN (that's us) imposes sanctions

hundreds of thousands of people are killed.

Saddam's grip on power is strengthened (people gotta eat)

????
oh yeah, blame Saddam.

Invade.





it all good though because the US is rebuilding Iraq.

happy ending.


o and lets never bring up the bad parts again, and forget the horrors of war (no more pictures please) and do it all over again next year. maybe africa next time.

I'm sure thats true and guess what...its Saddams fault for this happening. its mind boggling how you can not grasp this concept.

So, when leaders don't do what we say, we get to kill a bunch of their people and blame it on them?

why is that? can only the US do that? what about China?

what a wonderful precedent the Bush's have set in international politics and warfare.

"Do what we say or we we kill all of your people and blame it on you."

I hope when its China's turn they don't pick us.

its pointless quoting the rest of your post. if you can grasp the facts above, this debate is pointless.

[/quote]

for the first time in 2 days i agree with you.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

kill a bunch of his own people..

blame Saddam.

YES!!!! NEWSFLASH....killing "a bunch of his own people" is HIS FAULT!!!! not ours.

along with invading Iran....invading Kuwait.

HIS FAULT!!! Saddam is to blame. get that through your thick fucking skull.

I'll get to the rest of your post later its friday.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

chronological order

---

Saddam follows orders

Gets millions in military aid, handshakes from US officials

Uses that to kill a bunch of his own people

Everything is just fantastic

He kill's the wrong guys -rich Kuwaitis...can't have that.

Saddam disobeys orders from the master (that's us)

UN (that's us) imposes sanctions

hundreds of thousands of people are killed.

Saddam's grip on power is strengthened (people gotta eat)

????
oh yeah, blame Saddam.

Invade.

LOL starting to make sense now...you really dont get it. its scary. please research the history of Iraq and Saddam over the weekend. google shit, it works.

jlew24asu

I'll even help you out..

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107644.html

Rise of the Baath Party

Kassim was overthrown and killed in a coup staged on March 8, 1963, by the military and the Baath Socialist Party. The Baath Party advocated secularism, pan-Arabism, and socialism. The following year, the new leader, Abdel Salam Arif, consolidated his power by driving out the Baath Party. He adopted a new constitution in 1964. In 1966, he died in a helicopter crash. His brother, Gen. Abdel Rahman Arif, assumed the presidency, crushed the opposition, and won an indefinite extension of his term in 1967.

Arif's regime was ousted in July 1968 by a junta led by Maj. Gen. Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr of the Baath Party. Bakr and his second-in-command, Saddam Hussein, imposed authoritarian rule in an effort to end the decades of political instability that followed World War II. A leading producer of oil in the world, Iraq used its oil revenues to develop one of the strongest military forces in the region.

Saddam Hussein's Ascendancy Brings Series of Wars

On July 16, 1979, President Bakr was succeeded by Saddam Hussein, whose regime steadily developed an international reputation for repression, human rights abuses, and terrorism.

A long-standing territorial dispute over control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway between Iraq and Iran broke into full-scale war on Sept. 20, 1980, when Iraq invaded western Iran. The eight-year war cost the lives of an estimated 1.5 million people and finally ended in a UN-brokered cease-fire in 1988. Poison gas was used by both Iran and Iraq.

In July 1990, President Hussein asserted spurious territorial claims on Kuwaiti land. A mediation attempt by Arab leaders failed, and on Aug. 2, 1990, Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait and set up a puppet government. The UN unsuccessfully imposed trade sanctions against Iraq to pressure it to withdraw. On Jan. 18, 1991, UN forces, under the leadership of U.S. general Norman Schwarzkopf, launched the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm), liberating Kuwait in less than a week.

The war did little to dwarf Iraq's resilient dictator. Rebellions by both Shiites and Kurds, encouraged by the U.S., were brutally crushed. In 1991, the UN set up a northern no-fly zone to protect Iraq's Kurdish population; in 1992 a southern no-fly zone was established as a buffer between Iraq and Kuwait and to protect Shiites.

The UN Steps In With Sanctions and Weapons Inspections

The UN Security Council imposed sanctions beginning in 1990 that barred Iraq from selling oil except in exchange for food and medicine. The sanctions against Iraq failed to crush its leader but caused catastrophic suffering among its people—the country's infrastructure was in ruins, and disease, malnutrition, and the infant mortality rate skyrocketed.

The UN weapons inspections team mandated to ascertain that Iraq had destroyed all its nuclear, chemical, biological, and ballistic arms after the war was continually thwarted by Saddam Hussein. In Nov. 1997, he expelled the American members of the UN inspections team, a standoff that stretched on until Feb. 1998. But in Aug. 1998, Hussein again put a halt to the inspections. On Dec. 16, the United States and Britain began Operation Desert Fox, four days of intensive air strikes. From then on, the U.S. and Britain conducted hundreds of air strikes on Iraqi targets within the no-fly zones. The sustained low-level warfare continued unabated into 2003.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Commy wrote:

kill a bunch of his own people..

blame Saddam.

YES!!!! NEWSFLASH....killing "a bunch of his own people" is HIS FAULT!!!! not ours.

Did Saddam sanction Iraq?

No.


The US/UN did, therefore, all of those people that died as a direct result of those sanctions, were killed by the US/UN.

along with invading Iran....invading Kuwait.

HIS FAULT!!! Saddam is to blame. get that through your thick fucking skull.

Saddam was OUR guy for a time. You realize that don't you?


Say you hire a cop. That you know to be a killer. You give him a gun, a car.. He goes out and kills a bunch of innocent people. You put his picture in the paper and you call him a hero and you shake his hand etc. You give him a new gun. He then goes out and kills one of your buddies.

Its you own damn fault. You just gave a gun to a murderer. It doesn't give you the right to go and kill his family and all his friends and everyone he knew and then blame him for everything.

Pure madness.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

I'll even help you out..

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107644.html

Rise of the Baath Party

Kassim was overthrown and killed in a coup staged on March 8, 1963, by the military and the Baath Socialist Party. The Baath Party advocated secularism, pan-Arabism, and socialism. The following year, the new leader, Abdel Salam Arif, consolidated his power by driving out the Baath Party. He adopted a new constitution in 1964. In 1966, he died in a helicopter crash. His brother, Gen. Abdel Rahman Arif, assumed the presidency, crushed the opposition, and won an indefinite extension of his term in 1967.

Arif's regime was ousted in July 1968 by a junta led by Maj. Gen. Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr of the Baath Party. Bakr and his second-in-command, Saddam Hussein, imposed authoritarian rule in an effort to end the decades of political instability that followed World War II. A leading producer of oil in the world, Iraq used its oil revenues to develop one of the strongest military forces in the region.

Saddam Hussein's Ascendancy Brings Series of Wars

On July 16, 1979, President Bakr was succeeded by Saddam Hussein, whose regime steadily developed an international reputation for repression, human rights abuses, and terrorism.

A long-standing territorial dispute over control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway between Iraq and Iran broke into full-scale war on Sept. 20, 1980, when Iraq invaded western Iran. The eight-year war cost the lives of an estimated 1.5 million people and finally ended in a UN-brokered cease-fire in 1988. Poison gas was used by both Iran and Iraq.

In July 1990, President Hussein asserted spurious territorial claims on Kuwaiti land. A mediation attempt by Arab leaders failed, and on Aug. 2, 1990, Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait and set up a puppet government. The UN unsuccessfully imposed trade sanctions against Iraq to pressure it to withdraw. On Jan. 18, 1991, UN forces, under the leadership of U.S. general Norman Schwarzkopf, launched the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm), liberating Kuwait in less than a week.

The war did little to dwarf Iraq's resilient dictator. Rebellions by both Shiites and Kurds, encouraged by the U.S., were brutally crushed. In 1991, the UN set up a northern no-fly zone to protect Iraq's Kurdish population; in 1992 a southern no-fly zone was established as a buffer between Iraq and Kuwait and to protect Shiites.

The UN Steps In With Sanctions and Weapons Inspections

The UN Security Council imposed sanctions beginning in 1990 that barred Iraq from selling oil except in exchange for food and medicine. The sanctions against Iraq failed to crush its leader but caused catastrophic suffering among its people—the country's infrastructure was in ruins, and disease, malnutrition, and the infant mortality rate skyrocketed.

The UN weapons inspections team mandated to ascertain that Iraq had destroyed all its nuclear, chemical, biological, and ballistic arms after the war was continually thwarted by Saddam Hussein. In Nov. 1997, he expelled the American members of the UN inspections team, a standoff that stretched on until Feb. 1998. But in Aug. 1998, Hussein again put a halt to the inspections. On Dec. 16, the United States and Britain began Operation Desert Fox, four days of intensive air strikes. From then on, the U.S. and Britain conducted hundreds of air strikes on Iraqi targets within the no-fly zones. The sustained low-level warfare continued unabated into 2003.

Yeah, I'm still not seeing the part that explains if Iraq's militant hardline dictator disobeys a direct order from Washington, they get to kill a bunch of Iraqi civilians.

Maybe I skimmed over it or something.

Or the part that explains how withholding food and medicine from a poor war torn country was even considered in the first place.




This part was interesting.

Saddam's ascension was in 1978.

CIA involvement began in 1972.

Which suggests he was our guy from the beginning.

Which may or may not be true. (there are also reports that Saddam was directly trained by the CIA-to kill the leader at the time, in the 70's, which would explain why the CIA wasn't able to assassinate him years later-he knew their methods.)

But all of that can't be verified, so lets pretend it never happened.

What is true is that he was our guy for a time. And that can be verified. The picture I provided suggests that. And there is massive documentation out there as well. He was armed in the Iran/Iraq war, he had political support...those kinds of things.


So the guy you're trying so hard to blame everything on was our guy. Probably from the beginning, though that's not really relevant. Through the gassing of the Kurds for sure, and the Iran war, which was done with US made chemical weapons.


But Saddam went his own way. He stepped out of line. He started killing the wrong people.

OUR guy stepped out of line.. OUR guy that we armed and gave political support to.

He stepped out of line, the United States killed him and millions of his people.







This was also interesting. (from your post)


"The sanctions against Iraq failed to crush its leader but caused catastrophic suffering among its people—the country's infrastructure was in ruins, and disease, malnutrition, and the infant mortality rate skyrocketed."


referring to the bold.

the sentence implies "crush[ing] its leader" was the goal. (where is the article from btw?) Which goes against conventional wisdom in this case. Its generally accepted that the sanctions imposed on Iraq strengthened his hold on power. Iraqis could no longer provide for themselves, not like they could before the sanctions...instead they had to rely on Saddam in order to survive, making his hold on power even stronger.

And this isn't a new revelation. They knew that going in.

Which means getting rid of Saddam was never their intention.

I believe they liked having a firm dictator to control the various factions in Iraq. And that fits with current US policy. See any number of a dozen examples of the US installing and arming a militant dictator. Saddam may have been the only one who could keep order...and CIA involvement goes back to 1972, suggesting he was our guy from the beginning.



The guy your trying to blame all of this on was OUR GUY.



The point i was making about Saddam given a greenlight to invade Kuwait by Washington is much more thurough here.

A quote from the last US/Iraq meeting that took place before the war, diplomacy at the highest level, between the US ambassador and Saddam Hussein, is as follows.

"The US has no position on your Arab-Arab conflict." US ambassador April Glaspie, referring directly to the Iraqi troop buildup on the Kuwait border, after Saddam had called Kuwait's action "Parallel to war".

AND

Washington Post:

Since the invasion, highly classified U.S. intelligence
assessments have determined that Saddam took U.S. statements
of neutrality ... as a green light from the Bush administration
for an invasion. One senior Iraqi military official ... has
told the agency [CIA] that Saddam seemed to be sincerely
surprised by the subsequent bellicose reaction.

AND

Rep. Lee Hamilton asked if it would be correct to say that
if Iraq "charged across the border into Kuwait" the United States
did "not have a treaty commitment which would obligate us to
engage U.S. forces" there.
"That is correct," John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near
Eastern and South Asian Affairs, responded.


and there is more, but you get the idea.

All of this could have been avoided IF the US wasn't playing politics with people's lives.

If the sanctions were put on Iraq because Saddam invaded Kuwait (what you're suggesting), and the invasion could have been avoided if Washington hadn't given the greenlight, the US is responsible for the sanctions and subsequent invasions (obviously).

Add the CIA involvement in 72, the US arms political support, Rumsfeld..


It all comes right back home.

Saddam was a pawn, a good little pawn when he was killing the right people, but nothing more.. Not the Hitler of the 90's or whatever he's been called. Just a pawn in a sick game that US policy planners play all over the world.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

Did Saddam sanction Iraq?

No.

The US/UN did, therefore, all of those people that died as a direct result of those sanctions, were killed by the US/UN.

why did the United Nations sanction Iraq?

Commy wrote:

Saddam was OUR guy for a time. You realize that don't you?

what the fuck does that even mean? Saddam was not "our" guy. again, research the history of how Saddam came to power. its shocking how ignorant you are to this subject.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

This part was interesting.

Saddam's ascension was in 1978.

CIA involvement began in 1972.

Which suggests he was our guy from the beginning.

responses like this are becoming par for the course with you.

Commy wrote:

Which may or may not be true..

yea no shit. but you certainly seem to think it is.




It

Commy

why did the United Nations sanction Iraq?

because the US told them to.

what the fuck does that even mean? Saddam was not "our" guy. again, research the history of how Saddam came to power. its shocking how ignorant you are to this subject.

recall the deeds as if they're all
someone else's atrocious strories.



according to you...

The US destroyed Iraq to save it.
The US killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people to free them.
Iraqi's are all very happy that we have invaded and occupied their country.
We are training more guys to run around with guns so its getting better.
The US can do no wrong, and has no influence over the UN.

that about right?

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

because the US told them to.

Seldom right and wrong again. the United Nations security counsil passed sancations on Iraq in response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. if saddam doesnt invade, the United Nations would not have voted to pass sancations on the country.

Commy wrote:

according to you...

The US destroyed Iraq to save it.

I didnt say that

Commy wrote:

The US killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people to free them.

I didnt say this either

Commy wrote:

Iraqi's are all very happy that we have invaded and occupied their country.

all? I didnt say that either. you are on a roll. there are SOME however who are very happy we freed them from Saddam

Commy wrote:

We are training more guys to run around with guns so its getting better.

yea. those "guys with guns" are called police officers. every country has them

Commy wrote:

The US can do no wrong, and has no influence over the UN.

I didnt say this either. the US was wrong to invade Iraq and has plenty of influence in the UN.

Commy

you don't make any sense obviously. I have no idea what your position is.



I believe, the United States is waning superpower running out of economic and political pull in the world arena, is quick to move any confrontation to force, where it reigns supreme.

Every country claims to be all for diplomacy and peace-even hitler, but the veil is easily seen through, if you care to research it past the cursory mainstream accounts.

The US prefers war .

And I can prove that, especially regarding Iraq.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

you don't make any sense obviously. I have no idea what your position is.

my position is easy. Saddam is responsible for international sanctions being placed on Iraq. Saddam choose to invade Kuwait..and before that Iran. there are consequences for those actions. had he choose not to invade other countries, many millions might still be alive today and he would probably still be in power. I have to keep saying this, but you need to research Saddam. its painfully obvious you do not know much about him.

The US was wrong to invade Iraq based on the reasoning given to us. The US is doing the right thing, however, by staying to help rebuild the country.

History will decide if freeing Iraq from totalitarism is the right thing.

Commy

Saddam isn't the issue. US reaction is.

I know enough about Saddam-he was a hardline militant dictator given military and political support from the United States, at one time. Which enabled him to do all sorts of terrible things in the region, including starting wars with 2 countries. He was scumbag, evil, etc.

But his crimes are nothing compared to the United States, or Britain, another country in the slaughter of Iraq that deserves to be named. It serves no purpose to find out anything more about him, unless you are trying to shift the blame around from the real perpetrators.

2 countries with far, far far worse human rights records and dozens of wars between them, the United States and Britain, have no business leading a charge to 'end totalitarianism' or save the region or remove saddam or look for wmd's or bring democracy or any of those things. They don't have the moral ground to stand on.

The current situation is proof of that. countless Iraqi's murdered, en entire country destroyed, occupied the US.

jlew24asu

But Saddam is the issue. he invaded his neighbors and commited genocide on his own people.

you seem to think Saddam was a good leader and Iraq was better off with him as president. only people who nothing little to nothing about him would think that.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

But Saddam is the issue. he invaded his neighbors and commited genocide on his own people.

you seem to think Saddam was a good leader and Iraq was better off with him as president. only people who nothing little to nothing about him would think that.

Saddam was a piece of shit, scumbag mass mnurderer.


happy?
'

WaveCameCrashin

So commy dont you think we should have just let him and his son's uday and qusay keep wreaking havoc,raping women while their husbands watched TORTURING AND KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE ? Sounds like they were real nice people. :roll: How about the guy they threw off a building with his hands tied behind his back ? It was only a few stories,just 2 broken legs that's all.

Commy

prfctlefts wrote:

So commy dont you think we should have just let him and his son's uday and qusay keep wreaking havoc,raping women while their husbands watched TORTURING AND KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE ? Sounds like they were real nice people. :roll:

Do you think Saddam's sons would have been the right people to deal with a murder in Canada or Mexico?
probably not. the guys entire family would have probably been raped and tortured.

Much like the US and Britain were the wrong guys to deal with the crimes of Saddam.
All of Iraq was raped and tortured


But none of this is about saving Iraq or removing a dictator.

Today, the US is supporting a FAR worse regime in Turkey. And Colombia is no picnic either. TODAY.

Why haven't they been invaded to "save" the people from being tortured and killed?





Iraq was about oil. not about people.

WaveCameCrashin

WTF are you talking about you need to be more specific... everything you just posted

WaveCameCrashin

Commy wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

So commy dont you think we should have just let him and his son's uday and qusay keep wreaking havoc,raping women while their husbands watched TORTURING AND KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE ? Sounds like they were real nice people. :roll:

Do you think Saddam's sons would have been the right people to deal with a murder in Canada or Mexico?
probably not. the guys entire family would have probably been raped and tortured.

Much like the US and Britain were the wrong guys to deal with the crimes of Saddam.
All of Iraq was raped and tortured


But none of this is about saving Iraq or removing a dictator.

Today, the US is supporting a FAR worse regime in Turkey. And Colombia is no picnic either. TODAY.

Why haven't they been invaded to "save" the people from being tortured and killed?





Iraq was about oil. not about people.

so who should have dealt with saddam? surely not the Iraqis.. they were and still are terrified of him even to this day even though he's dead. Did you not see what he did to the Kurds when they tried to make difference?

what Regime in turkey are we supporting ?

Iraq was not about oil we haven't gotten a damn drop any cheaper then it was before the damn war.

If it were up to me I would take out Kim Jung. He's running concentration camps full of people even children. Nat Geo was able to sneak in cameras during a time when a doctor from Eng. I think went over there to perform 100 surgeries on people with cataracts. the people that had these was a result from their drinking water if Im not mistaken. Anyway Lisa Ling interviewed a border guard from N.K. and his whole family was thrown into one of these camps cos he escaped from N.K.

He told a story about a few kids that was in one of these camps he said" they were so hungry that they were fighting over a piece of corn that one of them had dug out of cow manure :shock: :x I wish we could take this shit bag out.