Should We be Cheering the deaths of American Army?

[crit13]

Frodo, your posts are high in word count yet low in content.

Even though Saddam spent some money on schools, that doesn't excuse him from living like a king while his people experienced hard ships. Not to mention starting the war with Iran which devastated both countries. At the end of the day he spent BILLIONS on himself while he threw some s[Edited Out]s to his people.

Let me ask you, how much do you think were dying then, on a yearly basis, and how much have died thus far due to the war and the aftermath of the war? Please bring some reliable figures, for we all dealing with facts here right, and not some misconstrued astronomical figure to the power of 1000 that has no factual basis.

Unfortunately, the real numbers will NEVER be revealed since they are finding mass graves all the time and a lot of bodies will NEVER be found.

The ones dying then, to a large extent, were dying because they were taking up arms against Saddam, metaphorically speaking if not always physically. Political dissidents, religious leaders, ect... and then of course there those unfortunate by-standers who got caught in the cross-fire, what your PR men would conveniently call "collateral damage", isnt that right? Now many of those same people have taken up arms again, this time not against some internal foe, but against an illegitimate and brutal occupying force. And again, same old drum beat, same old "collateral damage", just wearing different stripes. And you say that the US has nothing against the Iraqi people? Why of course not.

I find it remarkable how you can compare a man smoking a cigar while he called out government leaders one by one to be executed for nothing other than having opposing views from himself, to the US army which for all intense and purposes does not want to be there.

Saddam stands less than one chance in 25 million of getting back to the thrones of power.

Nothing short of a pipe dream. I can assure you that he has more than enough influence to find himself back in power. Some Iraqis are still terrified that he will return and no one has seen him in months.

if the US, being the God-inspired, benign, noble, selfless, and generous nation that it is, rid the people of Iraq of Saddam and his regime for no other purpose than that he was a madman who tortured and killed them, out of no other factor than that sheerly magnificent Western concern for the human rights and the plight of other poor and wretched peoples, then why not leave, after this high and moral act has been done?

If they left tomorrow, who would lead Iraq? The Shias? Why? and what would happen to the Sunnis? Can you guarantee that Iraq would not erupt in cival war. How long do you think it would take for Iran to throw their hat in the ring?

[Frodo]

Frodo, your posts are high in word count yet low in content.

oooo, getting a lil edgy arent we?

Even though Saddam spent some money on schools, that doesn't excuse him from living like a king while his people experienced hard ships. Not to mention starting the war with Iran which devastated both countries. At the end of the day he spent BILLIONS on himself while he threw some s[Edited Out]s to his people.

again, a very inaccurate description: my mother, as a school teacher in the 80's, used to receive around 150 Iraqi dinars a month. That was around $450 USD at the time. That was average salary for a school teacher. While spending money left and right on me and my brothers (being the spoiled rugrats we were), she was barely able to spend half of that every month. I do wonder though, can a poor person in the US or some other countries in the West claim to eat a box of KFC mgnuggets or a chicken filet or beaf shawarma some three times a week?

Again, Saddam did not focus his money or his policies on lavish spendings, as was the norm of other filthy-rich Gulf nations. the great majority of his economic policies were strained and focused on the embetterment of Iraqi society, on raising the literacy rates, on giving women access to more high-tech and sensitive jobs and positions, and of course, of one-day achieving military independence from the West. it was not until after the Gulf War and the economic sanctions that Saddam decided, perhaps meant as being rebellious, gave in to the temptations of government and family corruption that so signifies the great majority of the other ME countries. Please, for the love of God, stop making a clown of yourself by once again resuming your duty of commenting on things you have the least accurate idea about.

Unfortunately, the real numbers will NEVER be revealed since they are finding mass graves all the time and a lot of bodies will NEVER be found.

Come on, you can at least try to get some sort of official estimate, cant you? Maybe try doing a search on google or yahoo or somethin'.

Using similar logic, I could also claim that those killed directly or indirectly by the use of US cluster bombs, depleted uranium, and what amounted to the most systematic and awful use of "biological warfare" (in more politically correct terms, its called economic sanctions) ever witnessed in history.

I find it remarkable how you can compare a man smoking a cigar while he called out government leaders one by one to be executed for nothing other than having opposing views from himself, to the US army which for all intense and purposes does not want to be there.

why of course you cant compare the two. one is a dirty, lazy, embicilic, uncivilized, de-enlightened, regressive rag-head Semite, while the US army consists of those charming, civilized, progressive, enlightened, and noble Americans who carry nothing but torches of light and civilization to the people of Iraq, who want nothing other than to carry out this civilizational mission of Manifest Destiny and getting this hard and tough job so they can get the hell out. they are two opposites, quite clearly. one belonging to the bankrupt, backward, full-of-cow poo East and the other to the West who has always been able to make the desert bloom. how dare I even compare the two? they are on two opposite ends of the pole, two dialectics, likes positive and negative, light and darkness, good and evil? ugghh, I am beginning to sicken myself.

Nothing short of a pipe dream. I can assure you that he has more than enough influence to find himself back in power. Some Iraqis are still terrified that he will return and no one has seen him in months.

of course you're living in Iraq right now, or you have relatives, cousins and uncles and aunts and brothers and sisters who tell you all of this, right? or should i be a lil' less optimistic and assume that the la-la land portrayal of yours is what you've put together (all by yourself too) from CBC, CNN, the National Post, ect...?

If they left tomorrow, who would lead Iraq? The Shias? Why? and what would happen to the Sunnis? Can you guarantee that Iraq would not erupt in cival war. How long do you think it would take for Iran to throw their hat in the ring?

Most likely the Shias, primarily because they compose of at least 70% of the population of Iraq and therefore, by the yardstick of democracy itself, they are the majority and their say in what the future of Iraq would and should look like is their inalienable right. If Iraq were to have erupted a civil war, it would have done so long ago, buddy. Again you base your argument on a preconception that is skewed and far from the truth. There is VERY little animosity and religious tension between the Sunnis and Shias of Iraq, and it was the Ba'ath regime which emphasized these differences for political purposes and which the majority of Iraqis (to their credit) simply are oblivious too.

Iran simply has not portrayed any evidence of having expansionist ambitions (nothing like Israel, of course), and so your linkage is quite laughable.

[Guest Reginald Barnabas]

"A more accurate portrayal would be to say that the person getting drowned was in fact in the process of getting drowned due to the sinister and immoral motives and acts of that same life-guard. in other words, the life-guard himself was doing the act of plunging that poor guy's face in the water, his fingers clinging to the guy's throat, barely giving the fella a chance to come up for some breathing air, and then at the end of it all, decides he would be the great and awe-inspiring superman and help the guy out of the water. "

Excuse me, but hasn't the U.S. been anti-Saddam for the last 12 years or so?

This life guard left the pool years ago, and the simpelton who kept swimming almost drown himself because he didn't know how to swim (get rid of Saddam), and then when saved, he bites the lifegaurd?

I think the life guard should throw him back and let the ingrate drown, it would be peotic justice!

[Gypsy]

Excuse me, but hasn't the U.S. been anti-Saddam for the last 12 years or so?

How about the 25 years when US was PRO-SADDAM?

[Che]

Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

sounds to me the Amerikan zioNazis were more than anti-saddam

[Guest Reginald Barnabas]

"How about the 25 years when US was PRO-SADDAM? "

And how about the fact that Italy was on the U.S. side during world war I, but fought against us in world war II, situations change, or is that something beyond the comprehension of muslims?

[Guest Reginald Barnabas]

"Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

sounds to me the Amerikan zioNazis were more than anti-saddam "

Just how does one come to the figure of 1/2 million children died, a seance, Oui-Ja board, Saddams version?

Just how did the sanctions kill them, and was it only the U.S. imposing the sanctions, or the whole world via the U.N.?

Also the text above how much taken of context was that?

[Che]

maybe u should find out why Hans von Sponeck UN humanitarian Official resigned in protest of the US-UK sponsored-endorsed sanctions

i guess u guys advocate collective punishment against Iraqi civilains, but when it happens to u, u go and turn the world upside down

[Gypsy]

Iraqi Cops Order U.S. To Clear Out in 48 Hours

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/...ain541815.shtml

CBS/AP) Iraqi police gave U.S. troops in Fallujah an ultimatum on Thursday, threatening to abandon their posts unless the Americans clear out of town, reports CBS News Correspondent David Hawkins.

"We demand the American forces leave in 48 hours," said one Fallujah officer. "And take the barbed wire with you. It's a barrier between us and our people."

An anti-American demonstration took place following an overnight rocket attack on the Fallujah police station, carried out by Iraqi insurgents.

Iraqis are now saying the presence of American soldiers, which has spurred the now constant string of stealth strikes is putting their lives in danger.

At least two more U.S. soldiers were killed today in Iraqi ambushes. The first attack occurred in the town of Mahmudiyah, approximately 20 miles south of Baghdad. The second took place in Baqouba, 45 miles to the north.

In other developments:

Pleading for patience after another deadly attack on U.S. troops, President Bush said the United States will "have to remain tough" and "stay the course" in Iraq.

The U.S. expects to spend an average $3.9 billion a month on Iraq from January through September this year, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.

[crit13]

oooo, getting a lil edgy arent we?

Not in the least. Just pointing to the fact that you love to hear yourself talk.

Saddam did not focus his money or his policies on lavish spendings, as was the norm of other filthy-rich Gulf nations. the great majority of his economic policies were strained and focused on the embetterment of Iraqi society,

Thank you for showing me what a Saint Saddam really was. What was I thinking?

Please, for the love of God, stop making a clown of yourself

All righty then Krusty.

Come on, you can at least try to get some sort of official estimate, cant you? Maybe try doing a search on google or yahoo or somethin'.

You would only dismiss is as western propaganda anyways, why bother?

Using similar logic, I could also claim that those killed directly or indirectly by the use of US cluster bombs, depleted uranium, and what amounted to the most systematic and awful use of "biological warfare" (in more politically correct terms, its called economic sanctions) ever witnessed in history.

Look who's talking about things they don't know anything about now.

why of course you cant compare the two. one is a dirty, lazy, embicilic, uncivilized, de-enlightened, regressive rag-head Semite, while the US army consists of those charming, civilized, progressive, enlightened, and noble Americans

As much as you hate the US, at least they don't gas their own people. The government doesn't come in the middle of the night kidnapping people that don't comply with their views. Only to be found in a mass grave years later. Yes, it is a night and day difference.

of course you're living in Iraq right now, or you have relatives, cousins and uncles and aunts and brothers and sisters who tell you all of this, right? or should i be a lil' less optimistic and assume that the la-la land portrayal of yours is what you've put together (all by yourself too) from CBC, CNN, the National Post, ect...?

Of course since you live in America, you can claim the same. :blink:

There are over 5,000 independant television stations and 10's of thousands of independant newspapers. What do you have? A single state sponsored station and a couple of state sponsored papers. But of course you get most of your info from your clerics during flag burning ceremonies.

Most likely the Shias, primarily because they compose of at least 70% of the population of Iraq and therefore, by the yardstick of democracy itself, they are the majority and their say in what the future of Iraq would and should look like is their inalienable right. If Iraq were to have erupted a civil war, it would have done so long ago, buddy. Again you base your argument on a preconception that is skewed and far from the truth. There is VERY little animosity and religious tension between the Sunnis and Shias of Iraq, and it was the Ba'ath regime which emphasized these differences for political purposes and which the majority of Iraqis (to their credit) simply are oblivious too.

I'm sure there are Sunni muslims on this forum who would beg to differ.

As far as cival war breaking out long ago, how could it? Saddam had spies everywhere. Why do you think people went missing in the night? To participate in some all ages dance party?

Iran simply has not portrayed any evidence of having expansionist ambitions (nothing like Israel, of course), and so your linkage is quite laughable.

Implying that Iran has not supported the Shias in Iraq in any way is even more laughable. Are you sure you live in Iraq?

[Dhzokhar]

As much as you hate the US, at least they don't gas their own people.

What about the native indians? Oh yeah thats rite the americans helped them by giving them blankets didnt they. What they forgot to mention was that the blankets had been used by people who had suffered from small pox. Biological weaponry, the sister of chemical weaponry!!! :D

Edited July 11, 2003 by Dhzokhar

[Guest Reginald Barnabas]

"What about the native indians? Oh yeah thats rite the americans helped them by giving them blankets didnt they."

That was the British red coats who did that, we threw them out, get your facts straight!

[Dhzokhar]

That was the British red coats who did that, we threw them out, get your facts straight!

Hmm i guess its better to blame someone else isnt regie? its pretty interesting your blaming the british yet you complain when people here blame the americans for something or rather. :angel:

[Guest Reginald Barnabas]

"Hmm i guess its better to blame someone else isnt regie? its pretty interesting your blaming the british yet you complain when people here blame the americans for something or rather."

The U.S. is no saint, but in comparison to the Muslim countries in the M.E. it is at least an old fashioned Nun.

[Dhzokhar]

The U.S. is no saint, but in comparison to the Muslim countries in the M.E. it is at least an old fashioned Nun.

Who is like an old fashion nun? The US people? the government? The army? You make these stupid stamements to change the subject and you dont explain. By the way does this mean your admitting the USA used this form of bio warfare against the poor Indians?

Edited July 11, 2003 by Dhzokhar

[Guest Reginald Barnabas]

""Who is like an old fashion nun? The US people? the government? The army? You make these stupid stamements to change the subject and you dont explain. By the way does this mean your admitting the USA used this form of bio warfare against the poor Indians? "

You must have won at school in the dodge ball contests, didn't you?

You are the one who keeps throwing this American Indian dodge into the fray, to deflect the horrorific record of the muslim people slaughtering muslim people in the M.E.

[Frodo]

"A more accurate portrayal would be to say that the person getting drowned was in fact in the process of getting drowned due to the sinister and immoral motives and acts of that same life-guard. in other words, the life-guard himself was doing the act of plunging that poor guy's face in the water, his fingers clinging to the guy's throat, barely giving the fella a chance to come up for some breathing air, and then at the end of it all, decides he would be the great and awe-inspiring superman and help the guy out of the water. "

Excuse me, but hasn't the U.S. been anti-Saddam for the last 12 years or so?

This life guard left the pool years ago, and the simpelton who kept swimming almost drown himself because he didn't know how to swim (get rid of Saddam), and then when saved, he bites the lifegaurd?

I think the life guard should throw him back and let the ingrate drown, it would be peotic justice!

LOL, Jesus Christ, you sound like the conventional Lord Balfour, the quintessential imperialist, with all you're slightly veiled racist comments about "ingrates" and "simpletons".

[Frodo]

"How about the 25 years when US was PRO-SADDAM? "

And how about the fact that Italy was on the U.S. side during world war I, but fought against us in world war II, situations change, or is that something beyond the comprehension of muslims?

Situations change, ah yes, the conventional point to lay back on. Reminds me of Orwell's 1984, with Eurasia allying herself with Oceania and then changing the alliance constantly every few years, so that the old alliance must then be UNremembered and thrown down the memory hole. No morals at all are present in this equation, rather morals or anything moralistic in the least bit should be avoided and shunned. Screw the thousands and millions of people who get killed, hurt, bombed, gassed, and trampled upon in our loose liasons with evil dictators and brutal military juntas. Nevermind that we often aided and supported creating this misery and hardship and suffering. It's promiscuity at its epitome, sleeping around left and right with different despots, regardless of who he is, what he's done, nay even helping these despots carry out their genocides and ethnic cleansings and mass murders and oppression.

[Frodo]

"Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

sounds to me the Amerikan zioNazis were more than anti-saddam "

Just how does one come to the figure of 1/2 million children died, a seance, Oui-Ja board, Saddams version?

Just how did the sanctions kill them, and was it only the U.S. imposing the sanctions, or the whole world via the U.N.?

Also the text above how much taken of context was that?

LOL, everyone knows that the sanctions regime against Iraq, though at first supported almost unanimously by the UN, was later harshly criticized by many members of the the security council and UN (primarily Russia, France, Belgium, Canada, ect..) because of the disastrous effects that this embargo was having on the population of Iraq. It is also well-known that it was the US and the UK who thoroughly implimented and enforced the sanctions against Iraq and refused to budge on this issue or reconsider a policy that had so obviously and clearly embittered and impoverished the people of Iraq while doing nothing at all to Saddam and his thugs (except, of course, that great anomaly of making him even more powerful and giving him more control to oppress and control his people).

Edited July 12, 2003 by Frodo

[Frodo]

Not in the least. Just pointing to the fact that you love to hear yourself talk.

First of all, technically, a correct statement would be to say that I love to see myself type, since I'm doing no verbal talking and therefore to say that I love to hear myself talk doesnt make much sense at all.

Secondly, I dont much enjoy hearing myself talk (literally) or watch myself type, I find both tasks (especially when dealing with those who have the luxury of being brain-dead) tremendously tiring and boring. I'd rather be reading John Steinbeck's Cannery Row.

Thank you for showing me what a Saint Saddam really was. What was I thinking?

None of my comments imply that Saddam was saintly or much of a nice guy, in the slightest sense. I wouldnt dream of making the comments made by US and other Western officials that Saddam was a potentially inspiring individual whose ideals conformed pretty much to Western principles and ideals (the Wall Street Journal), and I am in no position to boast (as most Western leaders most certainly could) that Saddam Hussein was at one point in time a "friend" or "ally" of mine. Quite to the contrary, my father served a short term in jail while he was studying political science as an undergrad. degree because of his political dissidence. Plus, we come from a family of hard-core Shias, and generally speaking, Shias simply HATE Saddam (myself included, and not at all marginally).

What I was doing was simply stating the facts as they are, as you fail to see them, as you are ignorant of. You have neither lived in Iraq nor ever been there, you mostly likely have not had (nor currently have) any intricate business or personal dealings with Iraq, and you certainly do NOT have any background knowledge of Iraqi history (modern or otherwise) or politics. Otherwise you wouldnt be making extremely ignorant and completely baseless comments to the effect that Saddam pocketed every last red penny that came out of the oil revenues. Unlike you, I try not to let my hatred and contempt for Hussain the Tikriti blind my view so that I began to lay accusations where they do not belong and to praise and give credit where it is not due.

All righty then Krusty.

So you watch the Simpsons? Perhaps I was wrong, there may be one (slight as it is) commonality between you and I.

You would only dismiss is as western propaganda anyways, why bother?

LOL, not really. As happened with Reginald in the past when he provided totally inaccurate information, on the population of Muslims in the US for instance or the issue of the Nation of Islam, I would simply attempt to analyze whatever you mention in light of other references and sources and stats and see how accurate they are. How about this, I promise to try not to dismiss the sources and stats you bring as western propaganda. Deal?

Look who's talking about things they don't know anything about now.

LOL, did you think that by simply throwing that disclaimer that it would somehow amount to a convincing rebuttal of my comments?

As much as you hate the US, at least they don't gas their own people. The government doesn't come in the middle of the night kidnapping people that don't comply with their views. Only to be found in a mass grave years later. Yes, it is a night and day difference.

What US is it that you claim that I hate? The people or the government? If its the former, then of course I dont, if its the later, then yes I do, and with much emphasis and, I believe, justification.

But I must concede one point. You are correct, the US doesnt gas its own people or kidnap people in the middle of the night or swarm their jails with political dissidents who speak outrageous criticisms of the government, yada yada yada. The US doesnt do anything of the sort. What the US does do though is it provides butchers and murderous thugs with the weapons, support, aid, and technological assistance to gas their OWN people, kidnap people in the middle of the night, execute political dissidents and fill mass graves. Different approach, different means, perhaps. Different as day and night, no.

Of course since you live in America, you can claim the same.

I lived in the US for 9 years prior to moving to Canada. Nonetheless, living in Canada, as you know, is similar in many ways to living in the US. Most of the channels we get on TV are American channels, our culture here is pretty indebt to the American way of life, and the most noticeable difference that we can claim with any confidence is that Canada is seperate and distinct from the US because of its border, its slightly less [Edited Out]ized use of the English language, its more compassionate social welfare system, and other meaningless details, such as having a Prime Minister instead of a President, "provinces" instead of "states", and referring to a judge as "Your Worship" instead of "Your Honor".

Regardless of all of this, you dont live anywhere near Iraq, nor are you aware of its history, its politics (both internal, regional, and international), its culture, its trends, its factions and divisions, ect... You simply get blips and snapshots from those 5000 supposedly "independent" outlets, where in Canada half are owned by Izzy, another 3 quarters by Conrad Black, and the rest by whoever else (Southam,ect..) In the US, its not much different (TimeWarner, ect..)

In any case, what is undeniably apparent from a good chunk of your comments is that they are based more on fancy and twighlight dreams that children have at night than they are on any solid facts.

I'm sure there are Sunni muslims on this forum who would beg to differ.

So do many French Canadians differ with the rest (and the majority) of Canadians on the role of Quebec and what not. Whats your point? If Shias easily make up some 70% of the Iraqi population, do they or do they not have the right to have the major (though certainly not the only) political voice in the country, a voice that has been muffled and silenced repeatedly throughout their history?

As far as cival war breaking out long ago, how could it? Saddam had spies everywhere. Why do you think people went missing in the night? To participate in some all ages dance party?

we were talking about since the fall of Saddam and his regime, if a civil war is an accident waiting to happen in Iraq, as your comments indicate, then why has it not happened? why is there absolutely no significant sign of such a trend developing? why instead do we see Iraqi protesters carrying signs that say "There Is No Difference Between Sunni and Shia" throughout the streets of Baghdad, Mosul, Karbala, Basra, Najaf, ect... why have we been seeing high intensity meetings between political thinkers and activists, who happen to be Sunni and Shia Iraqis, Iraqi Arabs (mostly Shia, many Sunni, and some Christian) and Kurds (mostly Sunni, a few Shia) ect...

Implying that Iran has not supported the Shias in Iraq in any way is even more laughable. Are you sure you live in Iraq?

Of course it has, I never stated that Iran has not supported Shias in Iraq, I simply said that Iran has not shown any expansionist tendencies in the recent or remote past, for instance of someday accomadating Iraq into the New Persian Empire. If the US, a country thousands of miles away, with no commonality with Iraqis in general and Shias specifically, no common yardstick in terms of language, culture, religious leanings, social makeup, ect... has a right to intervene directly and invade Iraq and support whomsoever it sees fit (from the monster Saddam to those Kurds and Shias he was wiping out in the past), then why should not Iran, a neighbour of Iraq, and a country who shares a long border, a somewhat similar history, culture, and religion, and a country who would have been astronomically more justified in its criticisms and worries of threats from Saddam's Iraq due to both proximity and historical precedence (which the US doesnt have at all), be allowed to intervene and support Iraqi Shias, whether against the monster Saddam (whom we all agree is evil and was massacring and oppressing them anyways) or against the new era of illegal and illegitimate US colonialism and occupation?

Edited July 12, 2003 by Frodo

[Greg Potemkin]

"Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

sounds to me the Amerikan zioNazis were more than anti-saddam "

Just how does one come to the figure of 1/2 million children died, a seance, Oui-Ja board, Saddams version?

If you go to the following links, you will see that the estimate released from UNICEF in 1999, is approximately that number. I don't know if you put UNICEF in the same category as "a séance, OIA-Ja board, Saddam version," but the methodology in making the estimate is appended to the report.

According to the report:

Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998.

Please keep in mind that this is only an estimate of the deaths of Children under 5, and only for the eight years 1991-1998. Increased adult mortality was not addressed in this report.

http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm

http://www.unicef.org/reseval/iraqr.html

Just how did the sanctions kill them, and was it only the U.S. imposing the sanctions, or the whole world via the U.N.?

There is an excellent website which has lots of info on this subject:

http://www.casi.org.uk/guide/blame.html

As for the latter part of your question about whether it was the "whole world via the U.N." the sanctions were originally put in place by the Security Council after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but lifting them would have required another resolution of the Security Council, which could be vetoed by the U.S.,(or one of the other 5 permanent members). On several different occasions, the threat of a U.S. veto had convinced the other members of the Security Council to keep the sanctions in place.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9909/20/un.iraq/

Furthermore, it should be noted that on several different occasions, spokesmen for successive American administrations have made it plain that regardless of whether or not Iraq gave up its WMD, the United States would not lift sanctions unless and until Saddam Hussein was removed.

Do I think the answer is now for Saddam Hussein to be kicked out? Absolutely because there will not be - may I finish, please? - there will not be normalized relations with the United States, and I think this is true for most coalition partners, until Saddam Hussein is out of there. And we will continue the economic sanctions."

- President George H. Bush, 16 April 1991 - Press Conference

Saddam is discredited and cannot be redeemed. His leadership will never be accepted by the world community and, therefore, Iraqis will pay the price while he remains in power. All possible sanctions will be maintained until he is gone. Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government."

- Robert M. Gates, Deputy National Security Adviser, on 7 May 1991. Los Angeles Times (Thursday, 9 May 1991), p.10; column 1

We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions. It can only do that by complying with all of the Security Council resolutions to which it is subjected.  Is it possible to conceive of such a government under Saddam Hussein? When I was a professor, I taught that you have to consider all possibilities. As Secretary of State, I have to deal in the realm of reality and probability. And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful."

- Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, 26 March 1997 - Speech at Georgetown University

"Sanctions and the pressure of sanctions are part of a strategy of regime change, support for the opposition, and reviewing additional options that might be available of a unilateral or multilateral nature."

Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, 12 February 2002. Interview with The Financial Times

This was in direct contravention of Paragraph 22 of the relevant UN Resolution 687, which states

upon the approval by the Security Council of the programme called for in paragraph 19 above and upon Council agreement that Iraq has completed all actions contemplated in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 above, the prohibitions against the import of commodities and products originating in Iraq and the prohibitions against financial transactions related thereto contained in resolution 661 (1990) shall have no further force or effect;

Also the text above how much taken of context was that?

If you want to listen to it and watch it, it can be accessed at

http://home.comcast.net/~dhamre/docAlb.htm

Judge for yourself.

Regards,

Greg

Edited July 13, 2003 by Greg Potemkin

[Guest Reginald Barnabas]

"LOL, not really. As happened with Reginald in the past when he provided totally inaccurate information, on the population of Muslims in the US for instance or the issue of the Nation of Islam, I would simply attempt to analyze whatever you mention in light of other references and sources and stats and see how accurate they are. How about this, I promise to try not to dismiss the sources and stats you bring as western propaganda. Deal?"

Prove me wrong Frodo, show us all, the verifiable stats on the Muslim numbers in America, and please don't include the Muslims (NOI, & of so called Black Muslims, who think Willy Fard is the last Prophet) into the mix!

[aghaji]

A salam alaikum

Soldiers are soldiers part of their duties are to face conflict and civil strife.

When an occupying force invades and attacks a soveriegn state then death and destruction are inevitable both to the oppressed and the oppressor.

If we look at the american forces and their supporters and the jews they take grat pleasure in inflicting pain and death on parties weaker than themselves.They are the ones who take pleasure from death and destruction they set the precedents for this distasteful behaviour.

Look at the unrest they are trying to ferment in Iran by encouraging a few thousand students out on the streets in civil unrestthese are by far the minority funded by america and zionists. The goverment in exile as these american stooges call them selves are willing to put lives of the young at risk why dont they return to Iran to protest?

It is wrong to celebrate death but the death of these purveyors of curruption is fully justified and i understand why some people may cheer at these deaths I dont feel it is the individual death they are cheering but the blow to the american and zionist masters

[Dhzokhar]

You are the one who keeps throwing this American Indian dodge into the fray, to deflect the horrorific record of the muslim people slaughtering muslim people in the M.E.

The Inidans that you seem to be convieniently fogetting. Wheres the population stats reg. You seem to be avoiding this subject. Instead you bring in the ME all the time, I am not denying the record of ME governments but you seem to be denying the black history on which your country was built upon. This is not a deflection upon anything but a subject that you seem to be dodging by coming up with 'muslims people slaughtering muslim people'-What do you mean? The government? the civilians? where are the posts to prove this 'mass slaughter'.

Edited July 12, 2003 by Dhzokhar

[Guest Reginald Barnabas]

"When an occupying force invades and attacks a soveriegn state "

Glad to know the Shias here, now considered Saddam's regime a soveriegn state.

[Guest Reginald Barnabas]

" I dont feel it is the individual death they are cheering but the blow to the american and zionist masters "

Zionist Masters? Now you are going into that outer space talk, that will imediately void any solid points you may have made.

[Guest Reginald Barnabas]

"No morals at all are present in this equation, rather morals or anything moralistic in the least bit should be avoided and shunned. Screw the thousands and millions of people who get killed, hurt, bombed, gassed, and trampled upon in our loose liasons with evil dictators and brutal military juntas. Nevermind that we often aided and supported creating this misery and hardship and suffering. It's promiscuity at its epitome, sleeping around left and right with different despots, regardless of who he is, what he's done, nay even helping these despots carry out their genocides and ethnic cleansings and mass murders and oppression. "

You are taking a naive look at the world and how one must survive in it.

First and foremost in any countries considerations of action, should be it's own self-interests, and the interests of it's peoples.

Todays freedom fighter can turn into tommorrows despot in less then a blink of the eye, no country can ignore that fact, and no major country can navigate in the global envoirment without dealing with the unsavory from time to time, accomadating the lesser of two evils to achieve your own national interests is not something endemic only to the U.S., all countries do it, even your muslim M.E. countries.

Now, please tell us what proof you have, that the U.S. knowingly helped in any genocides?

[Guest Reginald Barnabas]

"The Inidans that you seem to be convieniently fogetting. Wheres the population stats reg. You seem to be avoiding this subject. Instead you bring in the ME all the time, I am not denying the record of ME governments but you seem to be denying the black history on which your country was built upon. This is not a deflection upon anything but a subject that you seem to be dodging by coming up with 'muslims people slaughtering muslim people'-What do you mean? The government? the civilians? where are the posts to prove this 'mass slaughter'."

There was 1.8 million native americans counted in the 1990 census in the U.S. the current stats are not to be found so far, but given the birth rates over the last 12 years, one would have to say there are at least 2 million native americans.

Probably more then was here when Columbus landed.

[Dhzokhar]

Probably more then was here when Columbus landed.

LOL I very much doubt it.

[Guest Reginald Barnabas]

"If we look at the american forces and their supporters and the jews they take grat pleasure in inflicting pain and death on parties weaker than themselves.They are the ones who take pleasure from death and destruction they set the precedents for this distasteful behaviour."

I don't know were you get your info from, "Jihadist Maniacs R Us" maybe, but my brothers over there in Baghdad right now, and no one he knows or talks to wants to kill anyone, other then in self defense!

[Frodo]

"LOL, not really. As happened with Reginald in the past when he provided totally inaccurate information, on the population of Muslims in the US for instance or the issue of the Nation of Islam, I would simply attempt to analyze whatever you mention in light of other references and sources and stats and see how accurate they are. How about this, I promise to try not to dismiss the sources and stats you bring as western propaganda. Deal?"

Prove me wrong Frodo, show us all, the verifiable stats on the Muslim numbers in America, and please don't include the Muslims (NOI, & of so called Black Muslims, who think Willy Fard is the last Prophet) into the mix!

Hehe, I think I've already proven that from a variety of different sources in a different thread, which you then failed to respond to. for those interested (excluding Reg., since no matter what amount of proof is brought forth he will still grasp on tightly to his preconceived dogmas), please visit:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...pic=12817&st=40

and on another topic, dealing specifically with cluster bombs and their use in Iraq, please see:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...pic=12917&st=20

[Frodo]

"When an occupying force invades and attacks a soveriegn state "

Glad to know the Shias here, now considered Saddam's regime a soveriegn state.

lol i'm curious, do you know the political meaning of "sovereign" state? obviously not, since if you had the slightest clue, you would have been quite aware that a state can be sovereign no matter what political ideology it adheres to and what individual (and however evil) is the supposed leader or ruler of that state.

[Frodo]

"No morals at all are present in this equation, rather morals or anything moralistic in the least bit should be avoided and shunned. Screw the thousands and millions of people who get killed, hurt, bombed, gassed, and trampled upon in our loose liasons with evil dictators and brutal military juntas. Nevermind that we often aided and supported creating this misery and hardship and suffering. It's promiscuity at its epitome, sleeping around left and right with different despots, regardless of who he is, what he's done, nay even helping these despots carry out their genocides and ethnic cleansings and mass murders and oppression. "

You are taking a naive look at the world and how one must survive in it.

First and foremost in any countries considerations of action, should be it's own self-interests, and the interests of it's peoples.

Todays freedom fighter can turn into tommorrows despot in less then a blink of the eye, no country can ignore that fact, and no major country can navigate in the global envoirment without dealing with the unsavory from time to time, accomadating the lesser of two evils to achieve your own national interests is not something endemic only to the U.S., all countries do it, even your muslim M.E. countries.

Now, please tell us what proof you have, that the U.S. knowingly helped in any genocides?

Reg., for the love of God Almighty, if anyone is showing naivety here its you and the other stooges who have been intoxicated into believing the old myth that George Washington (or any other president or US official for that matter) cannot and has not ever told a lie. the myth of the US acting always with good intentions and never knowingly inflicting harm or destruction or death. that is a dogmatic view which again is contradicted by the bulk of the historical record.

your view that a nation should act in its own self-interest is correct, in one sense, yet it misses the point. that a nation has the right to act primarily in the best interests of its own people is pragmatically true and undeniable. yet three crucial questions arise at this point:

1) in actual reality, whose "interests" are being served by these policies? say for instance the 3+ billion USD that comes from the pockets of the average American tax payer and is given to Israel, and the endless other military machinery and technology given to it in it's own repression and oppression of the Palestinians? who benefits from that? the average American joe, like yourself? or the other endless intervenetions in the affairs of other countries with not even the remotest link or interest in the US? and so it would be befitting to give a more accurate assessment of whether the "national interests" of the US, which the media pundits and political officials have used repeatedly as the starting point for justifying their ruthless policies abraod, are really "national" interests or rather "special" interests that serve only a few.

2) when the US or any other sovereign nation acts in its own self-interest, which only makes sense and is a pragmatic and logical position to take, should this be at the expense, and through the destruction, death, and misery metted out on other peoples? or should there be a more considerate, inclusive, and moralistic policy that aims at maximizing and securing the interests of the US and the rest of the world? so take the example of Iraq, for example. was the US justified in allying itself to a brutal dictator who murdered and massacred his own people (nothing new in US foeign policy norms) because this supposedly served US interests (again, the question arises, "whose" interests?)? if you think that the this liason and the countless other ones with brutal dictatorships and miltary junta thugs is justifiable, then you really have no right to whine and cry foul when other oppressed and downtrodden people claim that they "hate" the US or act upon this hate and actually do something to threaten those US "interests", now do you? do you honestly think that a common peasant in the some country in Latin America or the Middle East should feel grateful or send God's blessings on the US of A when the US government has armed his own government to the teeth to suppress him and the millions like him? think about it a little.

3) again, the long-forgotten question, if the #1 primary reason and justification behind US foreign policies is to secure and maximize its own "national interests" (regardless of who really benefits from those interests), then why the diversions and the roundabouts about "defending democracy" or acting as the world's police in order to implement "freedom and democracy" and other such shallow slogans that bear hardly any ground in reality?

as for those genocides that the US has actively assisted in, in reality they are numerous and one therefore is perplexed as to where to start. maybe in Indonesia, in the 60's and 70's, with the US government (and you may want to beam the lime-light on Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and Carter) providing undeniable assistance and aid (in monetary terms and in military weaponry) to the Indonesian generals in their genocide of the East Timorese (an oppressed people who simply wanted their own independence). and there were high-level meetings going on between officials of both nations and so fall back on the "ignorance" or "good intentions" premise is simply foolish. Christopher Hitchens has laid out the raw and bare facts of exactly what went on in his book "On Trial", and he specifically indicts Kissinger of war crimes in this book. again this is no secret, for all of those NSC and other official documents that were placed in the secret archives for some 30 years since the 70's are now available for all to read and glimpse through. that's just one example, but there are many others as well.

Edited July 13, 2003 by Frodo

[The Malang]

"the memory of saddam's brutalities are alive and well in the minds of the Iraqi people. they are not forgotten and your presumption otherwise shows your ignroance, and arrogance, the same kind of hubris that will bring this Empire to its fated end. it is only a matter of what more it will do before the American Empire is consigned to the dust bin of history."

The U.S. will still be standing and strong, centuries after Islam has faded from the minds of men!

"oh if a soldier is not trained to kill, what is he trained to do? peacekeeping?"

Only 40% of any armed force is relagated to being combat troops, of course you being ignorant to military matters wouldn't know that, would you?

"yes, the White Man's burden. civilize the uncivilized. bravo. only, these Civilized americans can't implement their plan because of the terrorists. good excuse. what is the plan that can't be implemented. pray tell ...."

How about just letting the electricity and water flow for a few days in a row for starters! Your terrorist pals seem to blow up those utilities on a daily basis, hurting whom, I might add?

Did rome outlast christianity, the religion it persecuted? No. Has any nationsate outlived a majoe world religion? No. Reginald barnabus is in a dream world.

So why should a new rich nation founded in the late 18th century and not properly united till the late nineteenth (just over 100 years ago) think it can outlast a 1,400 year old phenomenon in islam, the world's fastest growing religion and its most resurgent. Especially since the usa has engaged in more war than any nation in its brief history and seems to have a death wish. Dream on you american suckers. You will be noted as history's last nasty blip of delusional evil thinking it was good on the face of the earth, before it met its end at the hands of religion.

Edited July 13, 2003 by The Malang

[US Patriot]

posted by The Malang

Dream on you american suckers. You will be noted as history's last nasty blip of delusional evil thinking it was good on the face of the earth, before it met its end at the hands of religion.

Why hey there Sparky - you're quite the spokesman for religion. Lets think through your post, rather, I will think through it on your behalf as you are incapable of rational thought.

Let's see now - we have a wannabe terrorist who claims that the U.S. will meet it's end at the hands of religion. Why that actually sounds like a threat. I suppose you meant to say - not that you are capable of stringing together a few words to form a complete sentence - that somehow, your religion with it's utter lack of morals and compassion will somehow destroy the U.S. Yet another shining example of the religion of peace and it's corrupt, violent adherents.

How about you sit down and shut up sonny boy or your threats get forwarded to the FBI's website. What? "they won't do anything"? maybe, maybe not. But your IP address gets on their list.

Sleep tight.

Edited July 13, 2003 by US Patriot