Flash: Iran Invasion Being Prepared



All the stuff about Saddam boils down to a mass of propaganda in my view. The truth is Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein.
True, I agree Saddam had a very poor record on human rights but many Arabs still looked up to him as a leader who would stand up for certain Arab rights.
They made a big meal about the gassing of the Kurds but the situation was exaggerated in order to win support for the war. It smacks of the lies that were told about how Saddam's soldiers were supposed to have entered a Kuwait hospital and pulled babies from incubators. A classic example of spin.
Ask yourself this question: How many Iraqis has Bush and his cronies killed over the last decade? Thousands according to ABC News and the BBC.
Prior to 9/11, Iraqis had been denied essential medication to supply hospitals for many years. Arabs were shown images of dying children in Baghdad hospitals since Bush and his colleagues were claiming medicines could be used to make chemical weapons and the much vamped "weapons of mass destruction."
None of that justified the 9/11 attacks by any means. Mass murder is wrong whoever endorses it. But I think sanctions fueled the radicals who joined the cause of Al Quaida.
However, it's been getting worse. Something like 500,000 children alone have died from Bush's war and the images of burnt children in ill-equipped hospitals continue to be broadcast worldwide. Add to that the images of Iraqi prisoners being abused for kicks, the 14,000 wounded American soldiers who were duped into combat and almost 2000 killled, and you have a very shaky foreign policy.
My view is if Saddam is to be tried in a court of law, let's see the pioneers of the war in Iraq go on trial with him, including Bush, Blair and Rumsfeld.
This is how I see it and this view, that used to be a minority opinion, is becoming more widespread.
I do take your point about Saddam's regime being far from ideal but the alternative seems worse the way the situation is developing for the average Iraqi.


wolfix said:
Wouldn't gassing the Kurds be considered a slight "ethnic conflict?" Give the people of Iraq some credit..... They have been concious of their ethnic diversity for many years. Saddam just ruled in such a way that "infighting" was considered a capitol crime.
 
A girlfriend in North Carolina wrote me today as follows:

"I have mixed feelings about the war. I am glad that torture and rape rooms are gone. The question is ...how much better off are the people at this point. I think they feel freer, but will they ever have true freedom, like you and I."

To me this kind of illustrates how people with good intentions and high ideals have been duped by Bush. So many people in the U.S. have believed Bush when he has stated how much he wants the Iraqi people to be free e.t.c. Many folks have just swallowed hook line and sinker this concept that Saddam was such a monster bent on attacking our countries.

My friend also writes:

"He just got back from Iraq. He had lost an eye. He wanted to get out and go home but they put him behind a desk to finish out his term. He didn't seem down, but I would guess lucky to be alive."

Don't want to sound patronisng but I guess Madonna got that right. She even made a video that depicted wounded troops and victims of war but she had to call it off at the last minute, scared of the message being too blunt.

But it's sad for that friend of hers who lost an eye and it's sad for the family around the corner from my house who had to bury their son.

War is a terrible situation, I think.
 
You do not believe half of what you wrote , can you???? Saddam was a little light on human rights??? I believe the human rights wing of the UN had him listed as one of the worst.
The Washinton Post , a left leaning newspaper printed that the Iraqis used poisan gas to kill 5,000 Kurds in a "single" village back in 1988.
So basically the liberal media wrote this for propaganda reasons??
Amnesty International tells a story of Iraq citizens facing appalling human right abuses and living in a state of fear. Thousands were killed by security forces of Saddam to create a climate of fear. So the liberals tell us......So if this is all propaganda , then why should be believe the liberal media on anything else?

"Selective perception is worse then any perception at all."
Molly van Retsye
1998
 
I take your point but I would only have backed the war if I knew the Iraqis wanted intervention and the intervention had international backing.
Now, had America invaded Baghdad after the first Gulf War, I seriously doubt we would now have this problem with international terrorism but that's just my own take. I think the ongoing sanctions against Iraq fueled hatred in the Arab world. Some people disagree with me and believe 9/11 would have happened regardless.
I do think, though, that the case against Saddam was exaggerated. He was bad but so was Pinochet. In fact, I met some victims of Pinochet who came over here to teach Spanish some years ago and I would say Pinochet was probably worse than Saddam Hussein.
Another question:
Europe and the U.S. took part in the slave trade not so long ago. How many negroes were sold to plantation owners or died on cargo ships? So, do you think these crimes compared with those of SH? If so, do you think Europe and the U.S. should have been bombed on account of those crimes and the poor human rights record?
Are we all so squeaky clean?


wolfix said:
You do not believe half of what you wrote , can you???? Saddam was a little light on human rights??? I believe the human rights wing of the UN had him listed as one of the worst.
The Washinton Post , a left leaning newspaper printed that the Iraqis used poisan gas to kill 5,000 Kurds in a "single" village back in 1988.
So basically the liberal media wrote this for propaganda reasons??
Amnesty International tells a story of Iraq citizens facing appalling human right abuses and living in a state of fear. Thousands were killed by security forces of Saddam to create a climate of fear. So the liberals tell us......So if this is all propaganda , then why should be believe the liberal media on anything else?

"Selective perception is worse then any perception at all."
Molly van Retsye
1998
 
Carrera said:
I take your point but I would only have backed the war if I knew the Iraqis wanted intervention and the intervention had international backing.
Now, had America invaded Baghdad after the first Gulf War, I seriously doubt we would now have this problem with international terrorism but that's just my own take. I think the ongoing sanctions against Iraq fueled hatred in the Arab world. Some people disagree with me and believe 9/11 would have happened regardless.
I do think, though, that the case against Saddam was exaggerated. He was bad but so was Pinochet. In fact, I met some victims of Pinochet who came over here to teach Spanish some years ago and I would say Pinochet was probably worse than Saddam Hussein.
Another question:
Europe and the U.S. took part in the slave trade not so long ago. How many negroes were sold to plantation owners or died on cargo ships? So, do you think these crimes compared with those of SH? If so, do you think Europe and the U.S. should have been bombed on account of those crimes and the poor human rights record?
Are we all so squeaky clean?
The slave trade issue is a non-issue here in the states. And it is not because we want to bury our heads in the sand. It was over 150 years ago and I believe that the USA had prescribed the death pentaly for slave trading about 180 years ago.
There have been many leaders with worse human rights record then Saddam. But 9/11 was a wake-up call. My government is to act in accordance in my best interest, not in the best interest of any other nation. And Blair may be acting in the best interest of keeping Britian safe. The people in the mid-east have always been in conflict with western values. What's new????? I remember someone complaining about Moslems moving into London in massive numbers.
It seems to me that the US takes heat whenever it reacts to a situation on a world-wide scale. And yet, the US military may be also be the reason that Europe has been a peaceful place for over 50 years. My future son-in-law made the comment the other day that he doesn't mind the US military in Europe. He is from Copenhagen. He stated that "the US military has kept Germany at home ." And if the European nations had to have a national military strong enough to keep certain nations at bay , then the taxation of their citizens may have gotten out of control. This is what I think is funny.... The liberals in the US was falling all over themselves worshipping Blair before the Iraqi war. And now they are attacking him. I love hearing them tell everyone in earshot that Bush duped the American people. Give the American people some credit. We know exactly what we voted for. The American people do not like "public policy" shoved down their throats.
I have watched BBC recently and i understand as to why Europeans have such a problem with Americans. They reported that the US aid to the "tsunami victims" was the smallest percentage of any major country...... True, but what a deceptive report. The US gave more financial help from the private sector than all the other countries combined. Basically , we gave on our own free will.
The BBC is no different then Fox. They have a agenda. Most of the media does.
I have a picture of Kennedy on my fridge.... There is a quote....."Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem."
Saddam's regime needed to be changed. The method of change may be argued, but change was neccesary. Hopefully the situation may straighten out and for the better. One place where Bush made a mistake was giving the perception that we would be in and out quickly of Iraq. Even the re-construction of Berlin did not even begin for over 5 years after the treaty was signed.
 
wolfix said:
You do not believe half of what you wrote , can you???? Saddam was a little light on human rights??? I believe the human rights wing of the UN had him listed as one of the worst.
The Washinton Post , a left leaning newspaper printed that the Iraqis used poisan gas to kill 5,000 Kurds in a "single" village back in 1988.


Weird that they would contradict themselves by publishing the Administration's story that the Iranians gassed Halabja in 1990... Kinda hard to dispute the evidence given by experts of an Administration that supplied Saddam with his Chemical Weapons and provided detailed planning for deployment of them.

Who can you trust Wolfix ? :)

The Coalition forces have killed more civillians.
The sanctions killed more civillians.
The ongoing Civil war is killing more civillians.
The death rate has *rose* significantly during Sanctions and they
have risen again since since Saddam was desposed.

Saddam ain't ever going to win a Peace Prize, I am not going to stick up for the man. However, I'm not going to ignore the fact that the Coalition Occupation of Iraq is killing Civilians at a far higher rate than Saddam ever did. Bush and Blair *were* informed of that as a likely outcome of their actions, they are just as culpable, just as responsible for the deaths on their watch as Saddam was for the deaths on his watch.
 
"Saddam's regime needed to be changed. The method of change may be argued, but change was neccesary."
How about:
"The Bush regime needs to be changed. The method of change many be argued, but change is necessary."
What gives George W Bush the right (or wisdom) to determine whether a government should be changed and a country bombed, is the key question?
I think there's been a lot of media brainwashing at play here and it wouldn't be a bad idea to try and deprogram the public conscience.
First thing we need to digest: George Bush and his cohorts aren't interested in your human rights, my human rights or Iraqi human rights. This isn't a leader who espouses the cause of human rights or lives according to the Bible he bases himself upon.
!7,000 U.S. troops have been injured in combat - many seriously as a result of Bush and Blair's God complex. Nearly 2000 U.S. troops have died, believing they were protecting their country from a WMD attack or a terrorist threat based in Iraq. Some 500,000 Iraqi children have died and heavens knows how many civilians.
Meantime, as Bianca Jagger points out, Bush has presided over countless state executions and, in one case, a disabled half-wit was executed at his behest.
Still not convinced? Well, how come Nazi war criminals were treated according to the Geneva convention while Iraqi POW's were denied the most basic rights, used as trophies, humiliated and even tortured e.t.c.? How come Bush is shipping terror suspects off to Egypt to be tortured for information? How come Iraqi works or art and treasures have been smuggled out of Iraq and are now being sold in London or elsewhere?
It seems obvious to me Bush ain't a champion of the human rights cause. As the Bible says, for that matter, "By their fruits ye shall know them."









wolfix said:
The slave trade issue is a non-issue here in the states. And it is not because we want to bury our heads in the sand. It was over 150 years ago and I believe that the USA had prescribed the death pentaly for slave trading about 180 years ago.
There have been many leaders with worse human rights record then Saddam. But 9/11 was a wake-up call. My government is to act in accordance in my best interest, not in the best interest of any other nation. And Blair may be acting in the best interest of keeping Britian safe. The people in the mid-east have always been in conflict with western values. What's new????? I remember someone complaining about Moslems moving into London in massive numbers.
It seems to me that the US takes heat whenever it reacts to a situation on a world-wide scale. And yet, the US military may be also be the reason that Europe has been a peaceful place for over 50 years. My future son-in-law made the comment the other day that he doesn't mind the US military in Europe. He is from Copenhagen. He stated that "the US military has kept Germany at home ." And if the European nations had to have a national military strong enough to keep certain nations at bay , then the taxation of their citizens may have gotten out of control. This is what I think is funny.... The liberals in the US was falling all over themselves worshipping Blair before the Iraqi war. And now they are attacking him. I love hearing them tell everyone in earshot that Bush duped the American people. Give the American people some credit. We know exactly what we voted for. The American people do not like "public policy" shoved down their throats.
I have watched BBC recently and i understand as to why Europeans have such a problem with Americans. They reported that the US aid to the "tsunami victims" was the smallest percentage of any major country...... True, but what a deceptive report. The US gave more financial help from the private sector than all the other countries combined. Basically , we gave on our own free will.
The BBC is no different then Fox. They have a agenda. Most of the media does.
I have a picture of Kennedy on my fridge.... There is a quote....."Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem."
Saddam's regime needed to be changed. The method of change may be argued, but change was neccesary. Hopefully the situation may straighten out and for the better. One place where Bush made a mistake was giving the perception that we would be in and out quickly of Iraq. Even the re-construction of Berlin did not even begin for over 5 years after the treaty was signed.
 
The point I was driving at by the slave trade issue was it raises the question as to who should judge whom, on what moral authority and grounds and by what standards. That is, would America have been better off had a third party bombed Americans into the stone ages a century or two ago for trading in slaves (those slaves from whom Condi Rice is probably descended)?
The same goes for Europe.
What would have happened to the U.S. and Europe had some third party intervened? Or what about the Middle Ages? Should the backward-looking monks and friars have been blitzed into modernity?
I hear Bush claims voices from God tell him when to interfere in history and which dicator he ought to overthrow. And now he plans to invade Iran which is starting to get a touch scary.
Finally, it's true I've definitely made quite a few comments over Moslem extremist activity in London or in Europe. I do believe extremism or religious influence (either fanatical Islamic or Christian) should be nipped at the bud. But I only believe this should be done through stricter immigration and not through violence.
In fact, I think the U.S. would have been a lot safer if it had tightened up immigration instead of attacking Iraq since the 9/11 attacks were prepared from within the U.S.A. itself.
Here's one example how lax immigration or obsession with diversity can compromise security and it happens over here as well:
(1)"The F.B.I. agent, Leandro Aragoncillo, 46, of Woodbury, N.J., an American citizen who was born in the Philippines, was charged Sept. 12 with passing classified information to government officials in Manila."
(2)"A CIA-led task force is assessing how much damage may have been done to U.S. national security after a Chinese scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico allegedly passed nuclear secrets to China, U.S. officials said Tuesday."
 
On a final note, it's amazing how many Bush threads have been raised this week. Seeing as Junior's a keen cyclist I guess he's be feeling a touch unpopular if he tuned into this soap box.
How does a political leader become so unpopular?
 
Well Carrera, the last few posts of yours are the most reasonable and accurate I've seen you put up. Good on ya. :)

Concerning the Bush junta's record and their continuous lying about it, even Nixon knew enough to face reality when he said, "Don't judge them by their words. Judge them by their actions", and "Nobody is a friend of ours. Let's face it."
 
Bianca Jagger is a half wit.... She really should not do much of anything that requires facts and a thinking process. FACT----> Bush has no control over the death sentence..... That is chosen by the courts. And Bush cannot even pardon without permission from the parole board. And only once during his term did it come up. Ann Richards was a Democratic govenor before him .....And look at her record. So , if Bianca Jagger is a good source of info ,why does she not know this ??? Or is it easier to raise money to support her jetset lifestyle by getting people riled up.
To argue is one thing.....But to quote Bianca Jagger is not in the scope of a logical argument. Her claim to fame was that she supposedly chased armed rebels after they abducted some citizens and confronted the rebels and won the release of the rebels prisoners..... With only a camera. But another member of the group later admitted that it really did not happen in the way the story that was released said it did....
Where do you get your information??? I have relatives that were Nazi war prisoners.....
I know many soldiers that have returned from Iraq. In my pub, they drink for free. My cook and part-time bartender have enlisted in the past 6months as part of the ROTC program on campus.. Not one of them feel as if the issue is about WMD's.
And your views on immigration are exactly what the right wingers in this county push.
Maybe we should eliminate the terrorists before they reach our shores....
 
so good to see you avail yourself of amnesty international. they do keep an eye out, and the us is not above this scrutiny.



wolfix said:
Amnesty International tells a story of Iraq citizens facing appalling human right abuses and living in a state of fear.
 
this is one reason why i believe in restitution for slavery, including acknowlegement, apology, and monetary compensation to those whose ancestors where involved. the money trail is there and in public record to permit this and make it a reality.
in this way the us can finally have a realistic stance concerning clearing the victimization of the past and permit a moral standpoint to be respected upon with the dealings at hand and of the future.
it is indeed a slippery slope of massive proportion to duck this as a "non-issue"
and go on to ratonalize support for continuing a legacy of victimization.

if you think this is a non issue, one you are insulated from, know i am not alone. just do a web search for slavery retribution and see for yourself.




Carrera said:
Europe and the U.S. took part in the slave trade not so long ago. How many negroes were sold to plantation owners or died on cargo ships? So, do you think these crimes compared with those of SH? If so, do you think Europe and the U.S. should have been bombed on account of those crimes and the poor human rights record?
Are we all so squeaky clean?
 
Fine! You made one or two reasonable objections in your post.
O.K., so I accept the death penalty issue is bigger than Bush and has implications that go beyond the president.
However, Bush has never, to my knowledge ever spoken out against the death penalty or compared the issue to abortion. Bush hasn't raised the fact that crime in the U.S. is basically very high and that death-penalty-endorsing states actually have higher crime than more liberal states such as New York.
Bianca Jagger kind of has my admiration for taking a poke at Bob Geldof who seems to have sold out by sucking up to Blair and Bush. Geldof hasn't said much about the 50,000 Iraqi children who have died as a result of an illegal war and has been duped into giving Bush some a bit of a face lift in the public eye. Moreover, I think B.J. is disgusted by the war and the oil element that motivated it.
By the way, speaking of celebrities and Iraq I recall Muhammad Ali travelling to Iraq some years ago to secure the release of many western hostages during the first Gulf War. If Ali was as mentally agile as he was 2 decades ago I guess he'd be up their with Bianca.

wolfix said:
Bianca Jagger is a half wit.... She really should not do much of anything that requires facts and a thinking process. FACT----> Bush has no control over the death sentence..... That is chosen by the courts. And Bush cannot even pardon without permission from the parole board. And only once during his term did it come up. Ann Richards was a Democratic govenor before him .....And look at her record. So , if Bianca Jagger is a good source of info ,why does she not know this ??? Or is it easier to raise money to support her jetset lifestyle by getting people riled up.
To argue is one thing.....But to quote Bianca Jagger is not in the scope of a logical argument. Her claim to fame was that she supposedly chased armed rebels after they abducted some citizens and confronted the rebels and won the release of the rebels prisoners..... With only a camera. But another member of the group later admitted that it really did not happen in the way the story that was released said it did....
Where do you get your information??? I have relatives that were Nazi war prisoners.....
I know many soldiers that have returned from Iraq. In my pub, they drink for free. My cook and part-time bartender have enlisted in the past 6months as part of the ROTC program on campus.. Not one of them feel as if the issue is about WMD's.
And your views on immigration are exactly what the right wingers in this county push.
Maybe we should eliminate the terrorists before they reach our shores....
 
Again ..... New York in your views is a liberal state....no death penalty.
Texas, which is the state being attacked here bcause of the Bush connection has the death penalty.
Fact ----> New York has a "higher crime rate" then Texas when it comes to violent crime which is addressed by the death penalty. But they both are insignificant to the Democratic contolled area of Washington, DC.
New York has also a greater violent crime rate then Ohio, Virginia, and Missouri which are death penalty states.

However, I am against the death penalty. But who is govenor or president has nothing to do with the crime rate or death penalty. Violent crime is usually more prevalent in larger cities.

Here is an interesting statistic.....Your chances are far greater of going to prision in America if you live in a Democratic county then a Republican one. And it is overwhelmingly that way.
I know..... In the county I live in we are ranked #2 in the entire country. Our democratics in this county love their prison system.
I'll tell you why I lean more Republican then Democratic. In most issues, not all. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe if a person causes a problem then they should have to deal with it. I see large government as a hindrence to freedom. It drives me up a wall when someone wants "cradle to grave" life support but do not want to pay for it, or they scream when the government wants to control things other things in their lives.
I honestly believe that university students should take "Economics 101" before being allowed to take any other classes..... In order to have a society that operates in the best way for the largest amount of citizens , money must be understood. It is the base of society.
 
wolfix said:
I honestly believe that university students should take "Economics 101" before being allowed to take any other classes..... In order to have a society that operates in the best way for the largest amount of citizens , money must be understood. It is the base of society.

I don't think that is true, large sophisticated societies existed before
currency. Co-operation is the base of society, without it you don't
have any society. Oddly enough a recent study revealed that the
people with the most money tend to be sociopaths... Go figure that
one out. :)
 
I read Dallas has roughly the highest crime rate (or maybe murder rate) in Texas.
The death penalty is what we used to call a white elephant. It doesn't work. It's that simple.
The way to minimise crime is via education and opportunity. Criminals are usually low down in the social order and have poor coping skills. Many criminals have had impoverished backgrounds, maybe raised by alcoholic parents who never showed affection or responsibility.
Above all, unlike Blair, I believe in free education.
Blair, for that matter, will fund and train foreign students who come here but he won't fund native Britons either here or in Europe. I note there seems to be a growing underclass of Britons in my area who drink, do drugs and don't enjoy the same advantages to a free education I was fortunate enough to have had in the eighties.
Sports and education kept me away from crime.
Death penalties solve nothing. It just allows others to gloat over another person's downfall and believe they are somehow superior.

wolfix said:
Again ..... New York in your views is a liberal state....no death penalty.
Texas, which is the state being attacked here bcause of the Bush connection has the death penalty.
Fact ----> New York has a "higher crime rate" then Texas when it comes to violent crime which is addressed by the death penalty. But they both are insignificant to the Democratic contolled area of Washington, DC.
New York has also a greater violent crime rate then Ohio, Virginia, and Missouri which are death penalty states.

However, I am against the death penalty. But who is govenor or president has nothing to do with the crime rate or death penalty. Violent crime is usually more prevalent in larger cities.

Here is an interesting statistic.....Your chances are far greater of going to prision in America if you live in a Democratic county then a Republican one. And it is overwhelmingly that way.
I know..... In the county I live in we are ranked #2 in the entire country. Our democratics in this county love their prison system.
I'll tell you why I lean more Republican then Democratic. In most issues, not all. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe if a person causes a problem then they should have to deal with it. I see large government as a hindrence to freedom. It drives me up a wall when someone wants "cradle to grave" life support but do not want to pay for it, or they scream when the government wants to control things other things in their lives.
I honestly believe that university students should take "Economics 101" before being allowed to take any other classes..... In order to have a society that operates in the best way for the largest amount of citizens , money must be understood. It is the base of society.
 
Carrera said:
I read Dallas has roughly the highest crime rate (or maybe murder rate) in Texas.
The death penalty is what we used to call a white elephant. It doesn't work. It's that simple.
The way to minimise crime is via education and opportunity. Criminals are usually low down in the social order and have poor coping skills. Many criminals have had impoverished backgrounds, maybe raised by alcoholic parents who never showed affection or responsibility.
Above all, unlike Blair, I believe in free education.
Blair, for that matter, will fund and train foreign students who come here but he won't fund native Britons either here or in Europe. I note there seems to be a growing underclass of Britons in my area who drink, do drugs and don't enjoy the same advantages to a free education I was fortunate enough to have had in the eighties.
Sports and education kept me away from crime.
Death penalties solve nothing. It just allows others to gloat over another person's downfall and believe they are somehow superior.
I will agree with you on the death penalty. El Paso would seem to be the violent capitol of Texas. I am from Texas originally and it is not the big bad place it is thought to be. It has that image from TV. Go east in America to their cities if a you want to see violence.

The free education thing is the tough one. And I can only comment on America and not over the pond. If a person wants to get an education in America they can. There are so many grants and other types of loans available. University students are my main customers now so I am in the flow somewhat and have 2 daughters at University. I have faced that personally.
Here is my problem with anything that the government has to provide. It simply raises taxes. One of the things I do love about my country is that we have the ability to start our own businesses. And it seems to me that it is most men's dream to own his own business. When the taxation of society is high, it becomes harder for the common man to get going..... Then he not only becomes a slave to big business [rich], he becomes a slave to the government. I do not believe in punishing the motivated people in society.
The conversations around the topic "Is America Failing," should address the problem of trying to make everything a level playing field for everyone. Not everyone is born equal. We cannot legislate fairness. I wish it was different.
We end up with an inferior product to compete with when we do not shackle our best and brightest.
Big government is a free man's prison.
 
darkboong said:
Oddly enough a recent study revealed that the
people with the most money tend to be sociopaths... Go figure that
one out. :)
That's probably true. Just go talk to my ex-wife. :eek:
 

Similar threads