I hate being right

The latter two cases in the first quote are correct, there is plenty of evidence. The first examples are mostly based on expat statements, although I would suspect there may be truth in some of the cases. HRW and Amnesty take a similar non-committal stance on those issues. But the style of beating (common in the middle east) and the assasination of the bodyguard are pretty much indisputable (Saddam actually sent Uday to prison for that - much more severe of a punishment than that received by Faisal ibn Musad for the assasination of king Faisal al Saud, who was just given house arrest).No iron maiden was found, no "coffins" in torture centers, shredders, acid baths, etc in any report that I have read (and I've read a *lot*) (and I would expect things like that to make big news) although there have been (in addition to electrocution equipment) a number of hooks for hanging people from (another common practice in the middle east, including Israel). Again, notice how most of this "They eat babies!" style propaganda falls apart once we actually take control of the country. No shock. The people who were spreading it were mostly members of the Iraqi National Congress, who was receiving millions of dollars every year for their "anti-Saddam" activities, and mainly spent it on themselves and on propaganda. And now their head, much to the dismay of real Iraqis, is a major figure in their government. I define "real" Iraqis as those who didn't flee to Jordan and run the nation's largest banking scam in history, and then, after being convicted on several dozen felony counts, sneak out of the country in the trunk of a car.I personally uncovered one of their operations during the buildup to the war. There was a group that suddenly appeared called the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq", which had a number of big-name Republicans and a few big-name Democrats behind it. Their official goal was to sway public opinion in favor of the US invading Iraq. I looked up the IP for their web server, and tried connecting to that IP. Strange - it turned out to be an arabic language news site! Which, from chatting with people on its forum, were mostly targetted at ex-pats. I did an nslookup on the IP, and got a URL... but it was a different URL! I typed that URL in, and got... the Iraqi National Congress's homepage! In short, the Inc was part of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq propaganda campaign, and they also had an expat news/chat site going on the same web server as the committee.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Rei, you seem so tuned into everything I'm tuned into. I think... I think... I think I'm falling in love.hehehehIf you have anything to say about the Israeli-Palestinian issue (especially backing me up on Sharon's atrocities) I'd love to see what you have to say in the "I don't understand the Palestinian situation" thread.But to keep this post on topic, while rrhain may be right that torture did occur, you are so right that it is the same torture going on everywhere in that part of the world (and the US "renders" prisoners to that area for that very reason). Uzbhekistan's leader has the Hussein boys beat by some degree... But hey he's our friend on the war on terror so who are you to question his methods?Knowing that you like the Onion, have you ever read "Get your war on"? The site is at
www.mnftiu.cc | David Rees and his various projects
Just click on the "Get your war on" link. That guy is on top of things and he's hilarious. He's the only comedian I know dealing with Uzbhekistan at all.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-25-2003]

I love "Get Your War On" - I found it from cursor.org And I didn't know there was an Israel/Palestine thread, I'll be right over hehe------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Yasser Arafat isn't such a nice guy either, you know. He claims to the UN that all he wants is peace, for which he gets a Nobel Prize, but then is recorded on his own television preaching death and destruction to every last Israeli man, woman and child. Now he's been caught stealing $1.5 billion (NZ) from the Palestinian budget and putting it in his own account.As to the Iraq war, I merely suggest that the French, Chinese and Russians could have been a little more responsible by at least allowing the US to put forward a plan before threatening to veto it; perhaps they also should have considered helping to take out a tyrant whom they'd helped to support by selling him most of his weapons in past years and, in the case of France, a nuclear reactor no questions asked. All this business was, of course, in exchange for oil. It would seem their anti-war stance was not so much to protect civilians as to make sure their oil supplies didn't get burned.

Wrong thread, and completely incorrect. Please post that on the Israel-Palestine thread though, I'd love to be able to be able to rip that post apart; I just don't want to do it somewhere where the admins will jump all over me.

quote:

---

As to the Iraq war, I merely suggest that the French, Chinese and Russians could have been a little more responsible by at least allowing the US to put forward a plan before threatening to veto it

---

If you had actually kept up with the news before the war (don't feel bad, the US media was atrocious; to keep up with things related to Iraq, you pretty much had to read the British press), you would have been aware of the number of Bush adminsitration officials before the war who had been leaked (and confirmed) as speaking about how the decision to attack Iraq was already made - long before the inspectors even reentered the country. Some even told foreign officials that; I can track down articles if you'd like.

quote:

---

perhaps they also should have considered helping to take out a tyrant whom they'd helped to support by selling him most of his weapons in past years

---

Wrong. The US was Iraq's biggest supplier of weapons during the 1980s. And that weapons trade was reestablished by none other than our very own Donald Rumsfeld back in 1983 (right about when the first chemical weapons reports were coming out). We steadily increased our sales as more reports came back. After the Halabja bombing, the Reagan administration helped defeat a resolution that would merely condemn Iraq for the attack and discourage arms sales (the attack was partially done from Bell-ST helicopters, BTW)

quote:

---

and, in the case of France, a nuclear reactor no questions asked.

---

You talking about the Osiraq reactor, back when he wasn't hated? BTW, if you want to talk about nuclear proliferation, you should be criticizing the US first-off. Want examples of US nuclear technology that we've exported?

quote:

---

All this business was, of course, in exchange for oil. It would seem their anti-war stance was not so much to protect civilians as to make sure their oil supplies didn't get burned.

---

That was the most ridiculous allegation. France's imports from and exports to Iraq were tiny. The biggest importer of Iraqi oil right before we invaded? America (despite the geographic distance). Last I checked, the US was the world's second worst consumer of energy per capita (second only to the UAE). And yet, our oil reserves are miniscule. We are pathetically dependant on foreign oil imports, and this was made clear. In our invasion, the first thing we targetted was the oil fields. When we took Baghdad, we abandoned the central bank and museums, health records, records on the former government, and everything else for days - the only building that we secured off the bat was the oil ministry. I feel most sorry about the book repositories - huge amounts of ancient literature which was completely torched.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

They were more responsible. The only proposal the US was putting on the table was war. That was it. War. A unilateral invasion based on no real intelligence that Iraq posed an imminent threat to anyone, and LOTS of intelligence that it such a war would end badly.What could the US add to the proposal that would change the assessment that war was not necessary at that time?By the way the French called the US bluff and said they'd be willing to accept a much more limited weapons inspection schedule. The US turned them down because it would have prevented the war from going on as scheduled.Stranger still is how you maintain such a position in the post war reality. The French (and most of the rest of the world) were proven right. War sucked. There was never a question of if Hussein's forces would be defeated. The question was if that would deliver anything positive.While I admit war offered the tantalizing possibility of a new and shining Iraq, that offer was as good as buying a single lottery ticket and counting on the millions rolling in. The much more probable result, which has happened, is a slide into Islamic extremism.We have actually given it new life and a new foothold in Iraq, where previously it was in decline. Even if they manage to get a real democratic government in place, there is no guarantee that it will stay in place or do what we want.You do know the British conquered Iraq about 100 years ago and installed a gleaming new Iraqi government that would change the region forever? Yeah, 80 years later western powers put Saddam into power to fix the vaccuum created after it collapsed.Let's talk in 20 years, and then 50, and then 80.All we did was kill and injure more innocent people than died in 9-11, left a whole country in ruins (including many cultural ruins), and got their oil.Maybe the US should have been a little more responsible and listened to the French plan before vetoing it.------------------
holmes

Any sign of those pesky WMDs yet? How about Saddam Hussain? Or Osama bin Laden?Never mind. Isn't North Korea next onthe list? Or maybe its Iran.

Syria.Besides, NK?! Why the hell would we go after a country with WMD?!------------------
Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

28 Americans were killed in Iraq last week... this week, it looks like its the Italians who are taking the hits... last week, Medact's analysis indicated that between 22,000 and 55,000 Iraqis have died in this so far... the conservatives are lynching Lynch for accusing the pentagon of using her as a propaganda tool...... the US is preparing 85,000 more troops... and reactivating draft boards ...You know, I'd actually be rather happy about being so right if all of this misery wasn't the result of being correct. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This from a very knowledgeable and very experience 68 year old SUPER
Atheist.Any person who believes in RIGHT Over Wrong, and in Good Over Evil knows that getting rid of regime which had a special prison set up JUST for the holding, beating, raping, torture and murder of CHILDREN, was the FIGHT THING TO DO!PERIOD! END Of STORY!Next, anyone who is SO IGNORANT of the FACTS and is SO LACKING in the use of both logic and common sense as to NOT KNOW that Saddass did have WMD
and that THEY WILL BE FOUND, probalby has trouble dressing themselves!Neil C. Reinhardt

Anyone who does not know that TWELVE
YEARS and SEVENTEEN UN Resolutions are MORE than enough reason for us to FREE Iraq, is so illogical their thoughs are not revelent!Neil C. Reinhardt

If I thought for a damn minute that Bush's heart was literally bleeding for the poor, oppressed Iraqi people, then I'd be in support of the war. But Bush's heart bleeds for nobody but his rich pals. Now while it is possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, that's a dangerous path. It generally leads to doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.Bush started a war as a big present to Halliburton et al. and justified it with made-up "intelligence". The fact that it may have worked out for some of the Iraqi people (you know, besides the ones we killed) doesn't make it right. If Bush can start a war for corporate interest, what else do you think he's capable of? Next time the results may not be good for anybody but his cronies.Bush can start by opening those Cheney Energy Panel records, the way republicans sued to have Clinton's Health Panel records opened.

quote:

---

Anyone who does not know that TWELVE YEARS and SEVENTEEN UN Resolutions are MORE than enough reason for us to FREE Iraq, is so illogical their thoughs are not revelent!

---

Is this supposed to imply that you don't want me to reply to your post?Thankfully the above is not my position, so my thoughts must be relevant and here is my reply!:1) There are other countries with outstanding UN resolutions violations (more than 17) for longer than 12 years. Does this mean we should be invading them right now?2) Is invasion the only method for dealing with such countries, or are there other options available?3) If invasion is the "only" option, is it best to conduct it in a way that we're defying the will of the UN and violates international law?4) And looking back at the Iraq situation in specific, given the world situation as it was, didn't we have more pressing issues to deal with?I do believe Saddam was a dictator and that his regime had to be dealt with in some way. I just do not believe this was the way to do it.------------------
holmes

Really?Another way to handle it?What do you suggest? to Pray?While we watched Saddass, his sons and his regime imprison, beat, rape and kill more children?To murder hundreds of thousands more Iraqi's?People like you crack me up as you are aways talking about "some other
way' yet you NEVER give a viable and workable "other way"(Sorry if I mispell some things. Any one with a working brain knows that as long as the desired communication
is achieved, correct spelling is not
a requirment.)I'll bet you were against us freeing Kuwiat or stopping the killing in Bosina, Crosia and Kosovo.Anyone who was against that was WRONG
as well!Guys like you sit around wringing your hands and talking while people
are being tortured and killed by the
thousands while people like me take action to stop it.If we had not taken action, at least
tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands MORE people would be dead.Te FACTS are that MANY MORE PEOPLE were KILLED by SADDAM EACH year than have died in this war!There was NO other answer and if you do not realize that you are just plain naive. (And since I am trying to be nice, I am not even saying what I really think.)Or maybe you and those who think like you, can somehow figure out a way to go live with Alice in Wonderland. You should feel right at home there!After all, the real world may be a little too much for your type to handle.

CrashfrogYou call your response LOGICAL?It is so FAR from being a rational and logical reply, it is not worth my time to responed to any further than
this.