shame on the american soldiers

[Intifada]

a collection of shocking pictures have been released on al jazeera's website showing soldiers tying up iraqi women and children in their own homes. This is more evidence of the terror being inflicted on the iraqi people by foreign invaders.

[Intifada]

more pics

[Intifada]

and another

[General A.A.Vlasov]

Damn yankee, they even searching kids for bombs! :angry:

[RedAnarchist]

They harmed civilians in Vietnam, now they're doing it in Iraq. Just another act of many that will occur whilst America occupies Iraq. Its just another Vietnam War.
I dont know how Bush can sleep at night, when his troops are imprisoning, harming and killing civilians.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

The cruel reality of modern war is that civilians, and particularly children, are going to be primary targets. Cities have more and more become the main battlegrounds. Guerrilla fighters more and more use child soldiers...

This is an argument for the end of war--as if it was not terrible enough to begin with...

But there can be no peace with capitalists setting us upon one another for their profit, and propping up aggressive regimes that enrich the empire...

NO WAR BUT THE CLASS WAR!!!

[SonofRage]

In all fairness, we don't know the context of those pictures. Secondly, that's what happens in war. Every war has injustices and atrocities. War itself is a crime.

[Iepilei]

I agree with SonofRage. We know not what's going on in those pictures, nor the justification behind it.

HOWEVER, there is no justification for the occupation of Iraq anyways, so anything to fuel the fire, right?

[Jesus Christ]

holy shit, they might as well march all Iraqis off cliffs
its totally sick

i feel so sorry for all the children over there

[FatFreeMilk]

Being that yesterday was verterans day, my sub got so pissed off when nobody stood up for the pledge of allegiance. He gave us a big ol&#39; lecture on how we&#39;re selfish nit wits and that US veterans are basically gods and that we should respect them..blah blah blah. He doesn&#39;t give a flying fuck about what our soldiers are doing over there <_<

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 08:30 PM
holy shit, they might as well march all Iraqis off cliffs
its totally sick

i feel so sorry for all the children over there
I feal happy for the thousands of people saved by American intervention... its funny how people forget that Saddam was killing far more in Iraq than the Yanks aver did in Iraq. Selective memory?

[marxstudent]

In all fairness, we don&#39;t know the context of those pictures. Secondly, that&#39;s what happens in war. Every war has injustices and atrocities. War itself is a crime.

Right on the point.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by Enigma+Nov 12 2003, 08:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Enigma @ Nov 12 2003, 08:35 PM)
[email protected] 12 2003, 08:30 PM
holy shit, they might as well march all Iraqis off cliffs
its totally sick

i feel so sorry for all the children over there
I feal happy for the thousands of people saved by American intervention... its funny how people forget that Saddam was killing far more in Iraq than the Yanks aver did in Iraq. Selective memory? [/b]
im sorry, my sarcasm meter is off today
care to elaborate what you really mean?

[flayer2]

Golly , that little girl looks so dangerous :angry:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by liberAL+Nov 13 2003, 02:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (liberAL @ Nov 13 2003, 02:23 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 08:35 PM

[email protected] 12 2003, 08:30 PM
holy shit, they might as well march all Iraqis off cliffs
its totally sick

i feel so sorry for all the children over there
I feal happy for the thousands of people saved by American intervention... its funny how people forget that Saddam was killing far more in Iraq than the Yanks aver did in Iraq. Selective memory?
im sorry, my sarcasm meter is off today
care to elaborate what you really mean? [/b]
Is it particularly difficult, to understand? I dont think I can make it any clearer.

Saddam was killing far, far, far more than the Yanks are in Iraq, and if you want to talk about torture etc, then the Yanks look like they are in play school compaired to Saddam.

I then made sarcastic remarks about how quickly people forget what life under Saddam was like.

[(*]

Shall we add up the amount of dead as a result of Hussein and compare it to the amount of people killed by the US(in the world) since around the time Hussein came to power.

[katie mccready]

i hated the war sins it started but you have a point im agenst dictators and oil mongers so thats both of them in the bad bookes as far as im consernd.
it may not be a laphing mater but have you notesd sins the war ended if you count the american dead to the British Dead more americans have died i thin the British are just there to ceep an eye on the yanks


If this makes no sence to you im sorry

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 06:35 PM

I feal happy for the thousands of people saved by American intervention... its funny how people forget that Saddam was killing far more in Iraq than the Yanks aver did in Iraq. Selective memory?
What about all the Iraquis who died under the economic sanctions? How about the people who were killed by Saddam with weapons he got from the government of the United States?

[Sabocat]

I then made sarcastic remarks about how quickly people forget what life under Saddam was like.

This is an article I read on Aljazeera a month or so ago. It clearly describes life (for women at least) in Saddam Hussein&#39;s Iraq. I think you&#39;ll find that it is contrary to the western media outlet depictions of life there before the wars.


Women of Iraq victims of sanctions
By Sarah al-Ansary

Sunday 10 August 2003, 13:08 Makka Time, 10:08 GMT
Although Saddam Hussein was widely criticised for dictatorial practices women under his administration enjoyed great freedom in their daily lives and secured equal political and economic rights. They also had the same educational opportunities as men.
The rights of Iraqi women, however, seem to have skipped the American radar screen. For a start, there were only three women among the 25 delegates chosen by the United States as a transitional governing council to plan Iraq’s political future.

This clearly indicates an under-representation of women and more focus on the ethnic and political affiliations in the so-called “new Iraq”.
In 1972, the Iraqi government nationalized the oil sector and impressively changed the living standards of the Iraqi people, with women making the greatest social gains. Education and health care were free for both sexes and employment was secured by the government.
However, the destructive wars and the sanctions imposed on Iraqis since 1990 led to the deterioration of health, nutritional and environmental conditions.
Today, more than 90% of pregnant women in Iraq suffer from anemia because of malnutrition, lack of medicine and medical supplies. Basic infrastructure facilities, such as water supply, sanitation and power stations were destroyed, leading to the spread of diseases.
Depleted uranium weapons used by American and British forces were blamed for a dramatic increase in serious health hazards and an immense number of deaths among children and pregnant women.
The skyrocketing inflation that crippled Iraq’s economy due to UN sanctions reduced women’s income tremendously, but they continued to work and maintain their active role in society.
Yet, women in Iraq have proved they are capable of confronting challenges and shouldering additional responsibilities. Women constitute 50.3% of the population in Iraq, and they were competent enough to play multiple roles to support their families and ease family burdens even through the toughest times.

Women supporting their families amounted to 8% of all married women. Even illiterate women in the rural areas undertook tasks that were traditionally carried out by men.

Iraqi women represent 10.3% of the labour force. In fact, female adult literacy rate rose to over 45% and female students represent 34.4% of all registered university students in Iraq.
Women work as doctors, engineers, teachers and lawyers. Thirty-eight percent of doctors in Iraq are women.
Before occupation women held 8% of the seats of the Iraqi National Assembly. Equal pay for equal occupations was guaranteed. Working women were given six months paid maternity leave and an additional six months at half pay.

Life has not improved since the occupation, and there is no reason to believe that it will.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by (*@Nov 13 2003, 08:39 AM
Shall we add up the amount of dead as a result of Hussein and compare it to the amount of people killed by the US(in the world) since around the time Hussein came to power.
Well as thats not the issue in question...

What about all the Iraquis who died under the economic sanctions?

Well maybe if Saddam had actually managed the resources instead of building massive palaces, and used the several billion dollars that he later stole from the people when he got kicked out the country... then maybe no-one would have died... <_<

How about the people who were killed by Saddam with weapons he got from the government of the United States?

As well as GB, France, the USSR, North Korea, the PRC, etc, etc... I see however only the USA gets blamed. Another example of selective memory?

Take a look: -

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/ira-n-q2.gif

See all those countrys who offered military support to Iraq, I see however that we only blame the USA, how impartial of you. :rolleyes:

This is an article I read on Aljazeera a month or so ago. It clearly describes life (for women at least) in Saddam Hussein&#39;s Iraq. I think you&#39;ll find that it is contrary to the western media outlet depictions of life there before the wars.


Maybe the Sunni Muslims have a worse standard of living, but go and tell say a Kurd, or a Shi&#39;a Muslim that Saddam was better for them than the Yanks...




Life has not improved since the occupation, and there is no reason to believe that it will.


Like I said, maybe not for the Sunni muslims, but it has for the Kurds, at least now they dont get executed for simply being kurdish.

You seem to catagorise the entire population under the conditions of the sunni Muslims, and thats not very fair now is it?

[Sabocat]

The Kurds have been screwed by almost everyone in the area. Iraq treated them no worse than any others really. There is still quite a bit of dispute over who actually killed the Kurd&#39;s in the gas attacks too.

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%2...GaseousLies.htm (http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm)

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/middleeas...sed_as_tur.html (http://www.newyouth.com/archives/middleeast/us_nato_hypocrisy_exposed_as_tur.html)


Can you provide any reading supporting that the only groups that enjoyed any liberties in Iraq were the Sunni&#39;s? I would be interested in reading it. It was my understanding that Hussein was the only one that was able to keep a sort of peace between all the factions.

[SonofRage]

First of all, economic sactions always end up hurting regular people on not the government they are supposed to be hurting so don&#39;t give me that bullshit of shifting all the blame away from the UN and all the countries who supported the sactions.

Secondly, I wasn&#39;t only blaming the US for selling Iraq weapons. I mentioned the US government specifically because it was the US who invaded Iraq.

Thirdly, the case for the war was always because Iraq supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps conditions will improve for the average Iraqui, perhaps they will not. Since this was not the case for the war, it is not relevant.

[Intifada]

Well maybe if Saddam had actually managed the resources instead of building massive palaces, and used the several billion dollars that he later stole from the people when he got kicked out the country... then maybe no-one would have died...

the queen builds loadsa palaces from british people&#39;s money, lets invade britain&#33; :D

the kurds have been persecuted by everyone. winston churchill was a great fan of using gas to poison mass groups of "uncivilised" people.

Ido not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes: winston churchill

the americans have attacked 72 countries since ww2, which is more than the iraqis have and more than any other country or "rogue nation" has. :angry:

USA=#1TERRORIST

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Enigma,

I do not blame only the U.S. for arming Saddam, but they clearly have a key role in building him up. It seems very naive to embrace the American invasion of Iraq when historical precedent suggests that his replacement will be just as bad.

1. There is a tyrant... he kills thousands of people... The U.S. is happy, because they profit off of his bloodlust...

2. Tyrant breaks the American leash and goes nationalistic... U.S. vilifies him... invades his country and kills thousands of people...

3. Replaces him with another tyrant... who proceeds to kill thousands of people

4. Repeat 1-3

How is this good for anyone but the U.S. corporations? Unless you support them, you should not embrace the U.S. invasion with so much enthusiasm...

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 13 2003, 06:13 PM
Enigma,

I do not blame only the U.S. for arming Saddam, but they clearly have a key role in building him up. It seems very naive to embrace the American invasion of Iraq when historical precedent suggests that his replacement will be just as bad.

1. There is a tyrant... he kills thousands of people... The U.S. is happy, because they profit off of his bloodlust...

2. Tyrant breaks the American leash and goes nationalistic... U.S. vilifies him... invades his country and kills thousands of people...

3. Replaces him with another tyrant... who proceeds to kill thousands of people

4. Repeat 1-3

How is this good for anyone but the U.S. corporations? Unless you support them, you should not embrace the U.S. invasion with so much enthusiasm...
For a start America cannot do that cycle this time as there are far to many people looking on. Secondly I do not enthusiastically embrase the war, I mearly tolerate it as a means to an ends. In this case the "ends" is the removal of one of the most cruel and murderous dictators of the last century.

the queen builds loadsa palaces from british people&#39;s money, lets invade britain&#33;

Actually thats not true, the queen doesnt own any palaces, the governemnt does. Also currently Britian hasnt had economic sanctions placed upon her... :rolleyes:

the kurds have been persecuted by everyone.

So have the Jews, but if another Hitler appears and starts another holacaust, should we stand by, just because they have been treated badly in the past? Tell me are you even a leftist?

winston churchill was a great fan of using gas to poison mass groups of "uncivilised" people.

And what has that little quote got to do with anything? Apart from you showing off your meagre historical knowledge? But if you want to play the quotes, game I can tell you that Churchill has both publically advocated Nazism and publically attacked it, both before 1930. Sop what that fat fuck says dont mean shit.

the americans have attacked 72 countries since ww2,

And what does that have to do with anything? Ig I wanted to talk about the crimes of the USA then I would go to the History forum. Now quit evading, and actually answer half the things I put to you guys in my previous post.

First of all, economic sactions always end up hurting regular people on not the government they are supposed to be hurting so don&#39;t give me that bullshit of shifting all the blame away from the UN and all the countries who supported the sactions.

I see we have learned our lesson of not blaming the US soley. Well done, tommorow we will cover Bias and hypocracy. :rolleyes:

Secondly, I wasn&#39;t only blaming the US for selling Iraq weapons. I mentioned the US government specifically because it was the US who invaded Iraq.


No mate you made it quite obvious that you were blaming the USA for selling weapons to a complete phycho, it had nothing to do with the current war: -

"How about the people who were killed by Saddam with weapons he got from the government of the United States?"


Thirdly, the case for the war was always because Iraq supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps conditions will improve for the average Iraqui, perhaps they will not. Since this was not the case for the war, it is not relevant.

The case for any war has always been imaterial, this one was no exception.

Iraq treated them no worse than any others really.

What apart from killing several 100 thousand of them?


There is still quite a bit of dispute over who actually killed the Kurd&#39;s in the gas attacks too.

Thats funny coz, "chemical" ali actually admitted it publically. So kind of disproves that theory, not to mention that operation Anfal has been well documented, and that it occured just after a bloody Kurdish iup rising. You know Nazi&#39;s also deny the holacaust, and call it a "Jewish conspiricy" its quite ironic to see leftists using similar arguments to defend a fascist regime.

Can you provide any reading supporting that the only groups that enjoyed any liberties in Iraq were the Sunni&#39;s?

However, the process is underway and we can see change in the reversal of the Kurdish and Shia suffering in Iraq by empowering them to take part in the domestic, regional and international political process. In the north the Kurds are strategically allied with the U.S. and the UK governments in democratizing Iraq and the Middle East and they will stay the course because there is no other alternative.

http://www.kurdmedia.com/reports.asp?id=1717


http://www.kurdmedia.com/reports.asp?id=1696

This artical gives an insite into the treatment of Ethnic Minorities in Saddam&#39;s Iraq.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 01:04 PM
For a start America cannot do that cycle this time as there are far to many people looking on. Secondly I do not enthusiastically embrase the war, I mearly tolerate it as a means to an ends. In this case the "ends" is the removal of one of the most cruel and murderous dictators of the last century.
There are too many watching for the U.S. to maintain the cynicism of its foreign policy? Was the world watching the latest U.S. war in Afghanistan? Did that stop the U.S. from letting fundamentalist warlords take over most of the country, or from putting a Western oil man in charge of Kabul?

The U.S. will carry out its agenda, and the media will keep most Americans in the dark. The toadies will continue to do what they have always done...

[Intifada]

the queen builds loadsa palaces from british people&#39;s money, lets invade britain&#33;

Actually thats not true, the queen doesnt own any palaces, the governemnt does. Also currently Britian hasnt had economic sanctions placed upon her...

did you know that 1 in 3 children live in poverty in scotland? yet blair goes to war with iraq, and now spend loads to illegally occupy it?


the kurds have been persecuted by everyone.

So have the Jews, but if another Hitler appears and starts another holacaust, should we stand by, just because they have been treated badly in the past? Tell me are you even a leftist?

the muslims have also been persecuted by everyone. yes i am leftist, you should be asking that question to yourself. you are the one that supports the war on the iraqi people.


the americans have attacked 72 countries since ww2,

And what does that have to do with anything? Ig I wanted to talk about the crimes of the USA then I would go to the History forum. Now quit evading, and actually answer half the things I put to you guys in my previous post.

This shows that the usa is the most power abusing nations and that they are war mongering terrorists.

last of all dont solely blame the deaths of thousands and thousands of iraqis on saddam. the americans stopped basic medicines from entering iraq, and thats just one act of terrorism.

[Sabocat]

The second major dose of Saddam Hussein&#39;s chemicals was in the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, from February to September 1988. Up to 186,000 Kurds were killed in these attacks, over 1,200 Kurdish villages were destroyed, and 300,000 Kurds were displaced. The most infamous chemical assault was on the town of Halabja in March 1988, which killed 5,000 people.

During the Anfal campaign, the US escalated its support for Iraq...

The rest of the story... http://middleeastreference.org.uk/llb020916a.html


On this contemporary view, reprised in Hiro, Iraqi Kurds, who were
actively supporting and actively being supported by Iran, were turned on
by Iraq as the war wound down. And that that&#39;s when Halabja happened, in
1988.

http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0204/0355.html


not to mention that operation Anfal has been well documented


No one is saying the gassing of the Kurd&#39;s was right, and no one is denying it happened, but the fault clearly lies with the U&#036; as well as Hussein.


You know Nazi&#39;s also deny the holacaust, and call it a "Jewish conspiricy" its quite ironic to see leftists using similar arguments to defend a fascist regime.

As I never denied that the Kurd&#39;s suffered gas attacks, but rather who was responsible, your statement is irrelevant. You have decided instead, to defend a fascist regime&#39;s occupation of Iraq at any cost, while using the ruse of comparing Hussein to Hitler to mask the illegality of the occupation of Iraq and your non-leftist views of world dominance.

[Intifada]

who is this to?

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 01:04 PM

I see we have learned our lesson of not blaming the US soley. Well done, tommorow we will cover Bias and hypocracy. :rolleyes:

Secondly, I wasn&#39;t only blaming the US for selling Iraq weapons. I mentioned the US government specifically because it was the US who invaded Iraq.


No mate you made it quite obvious that you were blaming the USA for selling weapons to a complete phycho, it had nothing to do with the current war: -

"How about the people who were killed by Saddam with weapons he got from the government of the United States?"


Thirdly, the case for the war was always because Iraq supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps conditions will improve for the average Iraqui, perhaps they will not. Since this was not the case for the war, it is not relevant.

The case for any war has always been imaterial, this one was no exception.

wow, what an idiot. You ignore what I actually said and proceed to play mind-reader and tell me what I meant. God I hate arguing with children.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Marxist in Nebraska+Nov 13 2003, 08:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Marxist in Nebraska @ Nov 13 2003, 08:31 PM)
[email protected] 13 2003, 01:04 PM
For a start America cannot do that cycle this time as there are far to many people looking on. Secondly I do not enthusiastically embrase the war, I mearly tolerate it as a means to an ends. In this case the "ends" is the removal of one of the most cruel and murderous dictators of the last century.
There are too many watching for the U.S. to maintain the cynicism of its foreign policy? Was the world watching the latest U.S. war in Afghanistan? Did that stop the U.S. from letting fundamentalist warlords take over most of the country, or from putting a Western oil man in charge of Kabul?

The U.S. will carry out its agenda, and the media will keep most Americans in the dark. The toadies will continue to do what they have always done... [/b]
Was the world watching the latest U.S. war in Afghanistan? Did that stop the U.S. from letting fundamentalist warlords take over most of the country, or from putting a Western oil man in charge of Kabul?


Yes but there is a most people didn&#39;t disagree with that war, as they thought that Osma Was there. Thats the differance. Very few people agree with this war.

The U.S. will carry out its agenda, and the media will keep most Americans in the dark.

http://www.modernhumanities.org/Finalphotos/execution.jpg

Yep, cenosorship, is so effective.

did you know that 1 in 3 children live in poverty in scotland? yet blair goes to war with iraq, and now spend loads to illegally occupy it?


Thats crap, or how do you define povery, hardly exactly less that 1 doller a day...


the muslims have also been persecuted by everyone.

And what relevance does that have to do with the persicution of the Kurds? Or do you think that because one ethnic group has been persicuted they have the right to commit crimes against another group?

yes i am leftist

Yet you have said that its OK to persicute a people because others already have? You have one fucked ideology mate.


This shows that the usa is the most power abusing nations and that they are war mongering terrorists.

But what does the USA&#39;s (highly) sordid past have to do with the topic at hand?

last of all dont solely blame the deaths of thousands and thousands of iraqis on saddam.

Smartist thing you&#39;ve said all thread, quit while your ahead.

but the fault clearly lies with the U&#036; as well as Hussein.

As I have pointed out, the blame lies with a very large number of countries, why the USA is taking the whole international blame, is text book bias.

You have decided instead, to defend a fascist regime&#39;s occupation of Iraq at any cost,

Wait America is fascist now is it? Well if that was the case (you are an american right?) then why are the FBI not breaking down the door to your home and taking you away for bad mouthing the governemnt? Why hasnt the USA not banned all elections... your argument doesnt seem to hold water.

while using the ruse of comparing Hussein to Hitler to mask the illegality of the occupation of Iraq

Hitler and Saddam have several similarities, anyone who denys this fundermental fact needs to hit the history books in a big way. BTW we were talking about the morality of the war a few posts ago now we are on the "illegality of the occupation" (of which I believe that the USA should be long gone BTW), make your mind up.

and your non-leftist views of world dominance.


WOW the USA invades a county (a reletivly small one at that) and we are on to world domination now... (I&#39;m sure that "Pinky and the Brain" are planning all this, you know)... thats odd considering that if the USA wanted world domination suley they would invade the rest of their continent first, then probably Europe, because to be honist the middle east is "small beans", on a world domination scale.

Now we get to the point to say what should leftist policy be... exactly in this situation?

Fascist ruled Iraq VS Capitalist ruled America

Who&#39;s to say what leftist policy should be, both sides are fucked up...

wow, what an idiot. You ignore what I actually said and proceed to play mind-reader and tell me what I meant. God I hate arguing with children.

And I hate to arguing with chimps, however to compair you to a chimp would be an insult to simians, allow me to rephrase, I hate arguing with pond life (and in your case inanimate objects). Why dont you kill your self and halt further contamination of the gene pool, do it for the people. :marx:


What you said and implyed was that the USA shared equil blame with Saddam because they sold him the weapons, however being a completly bias and without a shred of reason, failed to acknoledge that practically half the world is guilty of the same crime.

Now piss off, and stop wasting my time, with your incoherant babble.

[EneME]

-Um they never thought Osama was there, they don&#39;t know where the hell he is....it was all an excuse to invade Iraq. If you think they were taking out Sadaam for the good of the people don&#39;t you think they would have done it more tactfully to actually GET the mother fucker? They have taken out many other leaders without the killing of innocent civilians, but thats not what they wanted......they want to control the OIL.
-And obviously media brain washing has worked on you.
-USA&#39;s soridid past obviously is what is fueling this war and what the eventual outcome will be. You learn from history so it doesn&#39;t repeat...
-I don&#39;t disagree with the fact that Sadam regime should have been taken down on account to his human rights violations, but it shouldn&#39;t be up to the USA to go in, they are not the international police&#33; I dont see how terrible it would have been for them to WAIT for the UN to back em up. The Iraquis should be in control of their nation alone, not some USA puppet....
-And Enigma...just some advice: take a chill pill man..
Oh and these are just my ideas, I&#39;m not saying I&#39;m completely RIGHT and everyone else is wrong because I do believe in learning from other ppl and having discussions not just being an all-knowing-arrogant-bastard *ahem*

[Intifada]

did you know that 1 in 3 children live in poverty in scotland? yet blair goes to war with iraq, and now spend loads to illegally occupy it?


Thats crap, or how do you define povery, hardly exactly less that 1 doller a day...

its not crap, its a sad fact.


Or do you think that because one ethnic group has been persicuted they have the right to commit crimes against another group?

no, when did i say such a thing?


yes i am leftist

Yet you have said that its OK to persicute a people because others already have? You have one fucked ideology mate.

yet again, no i didnt say such crap. stop speaking out of your ass.

the fact is that the bush and his regime are terrorists. i started his thread to show more evidence of the bad things that the american army is doing in iraq. imagine if an arab soldier was seen doing such things? it would have been headline news for the next month or so.

[flayer2]

So have the Jews, but if another Hitler appears and starts another holacaust, should we stand by, just because they have been treated badly in the past? Tell me are you even a leftist?

You can&#39;t compare it to hitler and the holocaust. The Kurds were trying to form a seperate state and were in revolt during the Iran/Iraq war. For certain they were being oppressed but it probably had more to do with loyalty to the regime .

I don&#39;t consider kurdmedia.com to be an objective source on this subject.

[Sabocat]

Wait America is fascist now is it? Well if that was the case (you are an american right?) then why are the FBI not breaking down the door to your home and taking you away for bad mouthing the governemnt? Why hasnt the USA not banned all elections... your argument doesnt seem to hold water.

Yes the U&#036; is quite fascist these days. Have you heard of a little thing called the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II? Why would the U&#036; ban elections? They&#39;ve subverted them so badly that the populace really has no chance of electing anyone of substance anyway. How about GW being elected by the Supreme Court instead of popular vote? Do you call that a free election?

Do you happen to recall Sherman Austin being put in FEDERAL jail for a website? What about Muslim immigrants being locked up and denied visitation by lawyers? What about the CIA, NSA, FBI having full access to what books you take out of the library? What about them having unrestricted access to your bank records? Monitoring phone conversations without warrants from the courts? Inspecting your domicile without warrants from the courts? Sound familiar?

How about 2 million plus dollars being diverted from the 87 billion for the "reconstruction of Iraq" for extra police and temporary jail construction in Miami in preparation of the FTAA protests? The U&#036; basically calling protestors terrorists and using money under the "Homeland Security" umbrella to combat them?

Make no mistake, the U&#036;&#39; involvement in the Middle East is all about strategic control of the Caspian Basin, and up to 1/4 - 1/2 the worlds oil supply.

Call it what you want.. " A rose by any other name...."

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 11:00 AM
-Um they never thought Osama was there, they don&#39;t know where the hell he is....it was all an excuse to invade Iraq. If you think they were taking out Sadaam for the good of the people don&#39;t you think they would have done it more tactfully to actually GET the mother fucker? They have taken out many other leaders without the killing of innocent civilians, but thats not what they wanted......they want to control the OIL.
-And obviously media brain washing has worked on you.
-USA&#39;s soridid past obviously is what is fueling this war and what the eventual outcome will be. You learn from history so it doesn&#39;t repeat...
-I don&#39;t disagree with the fact that Sadam regime should have been taken down on account to his human rights violations, but it shouldn&#39;t be up to the USA to go in, they are not the international police&#33; I dont see how terrible it would have been for them to WAIT for the UN to back em up. The Iraquis should be in control of their nation alone, not some USA puppet....
-And Enigma...just some advice: take a chill pill man..
Oh and these are just my ideas, I&#39;m not saying I&#39;m completely RIGHT and everyone else is wrong because I do believe in learning from other ppl and having discussions not just being an all-knowing-arrogant-bastard *ahem*
-Um they never thought Osama was there, they don&#39;t know where the hell he is....it was all an excuse to invade Iraq.

Are you even in the same discussion as the rest of us? No-body claimed that Bin Laden was used as an excuse to invade Iraq, Afganistan yes, Iraq no...

-And obviously media brain washing has worked on you.

And what media brain washing would that be? That saddam was a genocidal manic, sorry but thats not media brain washing...

but it shouldn&#39;t be up to the USA to go in, they are not the international police&#33;

Ahh the sweet smell of hypocracy, so its OK for other cpuntrys to be "imperialist" but not the USA, OK then :rolleyes: .

USA&#39;s soridid past obviously is what is fueling this war and what the eventual outcome will be.

What that the USA will end up leaving the country due to popular opinion back home, and leave a, at least partly democratic government in it place, or a shoddy dictatorship which will get overthrown within a decade..?

-And Enigma...just some advice: take a chill pill man..

And why would I want to do that, considering that the only person who has put forward a remotly intelegent argument is Disgustipated, this is too easy at the moment. And you havent seen me pissed off yet.


its not crap, its a sad fact.

Like I said before define poverty.

no, when did i say such a thing?

the kurds have been persecuted by everyone.

So have the Jews, but if another Hitler appears and starts another holacaust, should we stand by, just because they have been treated badly in the past? Tell me are you even a leftist?


the muslims have also been persecuted by everyone.

The only reason you would have pointed that out was because of the reason I&#39;ve already stated, unless of course you were just trying to evade the pount (as usual).

the fact is that the bush and his regime are terrorists.

Thats debatable, but I have to say I agree with you.

imagine if an arab soldier was seen doing such things? it would have been headline news for the next month or so.

Arab soldiers did do such stuff, or has the main bulk of this argument passed you by, thats the whole point, is that Saddam hussein and his regime did that, and much much worse.

You can&#39;t compare it to hitler and the holocaust.

Why not, both attempted to wipe out an entire race from their land, both used poison gas, both had cold blooded plans to carry out mass genocide, and both killed a very lage number of people in these plans.

The Kurds were trying to form a seperate state and were in revolt during the Iran/Iraq war.

The IRA were trying to N Ireland in the Faulklands war, does that mean than the Britain should have killed all the catholic civillians in N Ireland?

For certain they were being oppressed but it probably had more to do with loyalty to the regime .

Imaterial, and incorrect, Operation Anfal was the result of an uprising, however the 20 or so years of murder and similar lower scale operations were not all because of uprisings.


I don&#39;t consider kurdmedia.com to be an objective source on this subject.

Read one other the other millions of on-line sources then.

How about GW being elected by the Supreme Court instead of popular vote? Do you call that a free election?

Perhaps... however the real test on whether the US is fascist or not is if Bush has more than two terms in office.

Do you happen to recall Sherman Austin being put in FEDERAL jail for a website?

Actually yes I did, my recolection is hasy, however didnt he post a link to a site which gave information on ileagal expolsives or something? Being illeagal, to post such material, perhaps he should not have had it on a public website... Also that is a relativly isolated icident.

having full access to what books you take out of the library? What about them having unrestricted access to your bank records? Monitoring phone conversations without warrants from the courts? Inspecting your domicile without warrants from the courts? Sound familiar?

So do the MI5, MI6 yet I dont here many people calling the UK fascist.

Make no mistake, the U&#036;&#39; involvement in the Middle East is all about strategic control of the Caspian Basin, and up to 1/4 - 1/2 the worlds oil supply.

Which is the same reason as practically every invading country has for invading, sinse the stone age. So isnt all war arguably terrorism?

[redstar2000]

Up to your old tricks again, Enema&#33;

Your passionate support of U.S. imperialism and the fact that your "arguments" are even more incoherent and your spelling is even worse than those of Bush himself should almost guarantee you a job in the American government when you graduate...or, more likely, get "sent down".

You can use all your posts at Che-Lives on your resume.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[profound]

(off the topic)

i like your site Red Star 2000, especially the random quotes

[EneME]

Enigma ur just regurgitating what CNN says....I have to deal with that everywhere, I come to this forum to speak to like minded individuals...so now I&#39;m aware of ur stance...u&#39;ll be happy to know u&#39;ll be ignored lol

[Intifada]

Yet you have said that its OK to persicute a people because others already have?

i did not say that. ill tell you again, your speaking out of your ass.

poverty is the shortage of necessary resources.

ill say it again, 1 in 3 children live in poverty in scotland, yet blair spends loads of money to got to war with iraq. you say your leftist, yet you support this fucked up war. ;)


Arab soldiers did do such stuff, or has the main bulk of this argument passed you by, thats the whole point, is that Saddam hussein and his regime did that, and much much worse.

just because saddam did it, doesnt mean the americans should be allowed do it aswell&#33;

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 10:05 AM
Enigma ur just regurgitating what CNN says....I have to deal with that everywhere, I come to this forum to speak to like minded individuals...so now I&#39;m aware of ur stance...u&#39;ll be happy to know u&#39;ll be ignored lol
Really? As I&#39;ve never seen CNN in my life I would not know.

But what do they say? That Saddam Hussein is a deranged genocidal madman who has commited acts of ethnic clensing against his own people?

Sorry but thats all true.

I come to this forum to speak to like minded individuals...so now I&#39;m aware of ur stance...u&#39;ll be happy to know u&#39;ll be ignored lol

Good I hate arguing with people, havent got a clue. I have also been here for over a year and I survived all that time without talking to you, so really why wouldI be bothered about a whining Noob avoiding me?

i did not say that. ill tell you again, your speaking out of your ass. [

no you just implyed it.

poverty is the shortage of necessary resources.

Yes but compaired to what, the people of Bangladeshe or maybe a person on the streets?

you say your leftist, yet you support this fucked up war.

To remove a genocidal fascist dictator yes. Currently only 7000 or so civillians are dead, compaired to the million or so killed by Saddam. Is that so unreasonable?

just because saddam did it, doesnt mean the americans should be allowed do it aswell&#33;

No they shouldnt, but your point about if an arab had done it, it would be in the news for a month was incorrect and obviously.

Your passionate support of U.S. imperialism

"passionate", hardly, but then again I would not expect a senile old fart like you to be able to recognise anything, nevermind the emotions a complete stranger holds for a war, thousands of miles away.

should almost guarantee you a job in the American government when you graduate...

I&#39;m British you fuck wit.

or, more likely, get "sent down".


LOL, I can visit you in the Old folks home if smoking hasn&#39;t killed you by then... oh but thats right according to you smoking&#39;s harm is a capitalist conspiricy.

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers
The best anti-Redstar site Online.

[Bastardo]

I really wouldn&#39;t worry too much about Enigmas ranting. Most of his views do indeed come out of newspaper cuttings and WP or SWP texts. He makes a habit of being rude coz he&#39;s an inadequate teenager nodoubt not able to come to terms with having no mates. He posts constant contradictions and abuse at people who don&#39;t share his &#39;ludicrass&#39; idiotic drivel and will nodoubt end up working for mi5 :rolleyes:

This person has nothing to give the revolutionary left other than "vanguardist/cultist" toss. ;)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 05:43 PM
I really wouldn&#39;t worry too much about Enigmas ranting. Most of his views do indeed come out of newspaper cuttings and WP or SWP texts. He makes a habit of being rude coz he&#39;s an inadequate teenager nodoubt not able to come to terms with having no mates. He posts constant contradictions and abuse at people who don&#39;t share his &#39;ludicrass&#39; idiotic drivel and will nodoubt end up working for mi5 :rolleyes:

This person has nothing to give the revolutionary left other than "vanguardist/cultist" toss. ;)
I think you will find thats your attitude.

Well after all as you have succeeded in nothing in all your 15 years of Workers struggle, pissing off a bunch of teenager online must seem like a victory.

Now kindly piss off back to you little dream world.

[Intifada]

no you just implyed it.

no i didnt. :rolleyes:


Yes but compaired to what, the people of Bangladeshe or maybe a person on the streets?

it doesnt matter, the point is tony blair could have used the money on stamping out poverty and fixing the nhs. but instead he goes and uses the money to kill more iraqis.


To remove a genocidal fascist dictator yes. Currently only 7000 or so civillians are dead, compaired to the million or so killed by Saddam. Is that so unreasonable?

are you saying that the innocent people who have been killed in this war were worth it?&#33; :angry:

ENIGMA YOU MAKE ME SICK&#33;

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 08:35 PM

no you just implyed it.

no i didnt. :rolleyes:


Yes but compaired to what, the people of Bangladeshe or maybe a person on the streets?

it doesnt matter, the point is tony blair could have used the money on stamping out poverty and fixing the nhs. but instead he goes and uses the money to kill more iraqis.


To remove a genocidal fascist dictator yes. Currently only 7000 or so civillians are dead, compaired to the million or so killed by Saddam. Is that so unreasonable?

are you saying that the innocent people who have been killed in this war were worth it?&#33; :angry:

ENIGMA YOU MAKE ME SICK&#33;
Dont get me wrong I would rather 0 people died, but if Saddam Hussein was left in power you can be sure that more than 7000 would be dead. Maye be if you added another zero on to that 7,000 figure it would be a more realistic figure.

And what you said was stupid, and my responce is: -

are you saying that the innocent people who have been saved by this war are not worth it?&#33; :angry:

YOU MAKE ME SICK&#33;

[Intifada]

are you saying that the innocent people who have been saved in this war are not worth it?&#33;

the innocent people of iraq are now being terrorised and occupied by foreign invaders. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SAVED :angry:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 09:05 PM

are you saying that the innocent people who have been saved in this war are not worth it?&#33;

the innocent people of iraq are now being terrorised and occupied by foreign invaders. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SAVED :angry:
Ahh now you are onto a completely different topic, now Hussein is gone (and good ridance to the bastard) the US should be gone, im in agreement with you on that one.

But as to the terrorised bit, (of course not being there I dont know for sure 100%, only what I read) the US is still getting tip off&#39;s from civillians about the where abouts of "freedom fighters/terrorists" so it seams that the discontentment portrayed by some organisations is inflated beyond reality.

But yeah USA out. they have no buisness in Iraq at all. It seams you confuse support (well tolerance is probably a better word) for the war, with support for the occupation.

Ohh and they have been saved from a tyranny that the USA can never hope to equil...

[Urban Rubble]

The only people putting forth valid arguments are Enigma and Disgustapated.

EnemE, if you&#39;re going to "ignore" him all of the sudden, next time try and make a point before you bow out of the argument, that way you won&#39;t look such a fucking moron next time.

RedStar, what ever happened to debating ? These days it seems that you come in, call someone Enema, and then leave. I think there should be a rule, if you&#39;re going to talk shit, you first must contribute to the discussion. That doesn&#39;t go for this post though =).

I&#39;m not about to enter the debate, this is about as fresh as the Stalin vs Trotsky threads.

[redstar2000]

RedStar, what ever happened to debating ? These days it seems that you come in, call someone Enema, and then leave. I think there should be a rule, if you&#39;re going to talk shit, you first must contribute to the discussion.

UR, I did refute all of Enema&#39;s idiotic arguments. There was a thread on Iraq in Opposing Ideologies followed by another long thread in Commie Club.

Here is what I said...

"Leftist" Lackeys of U.S. Imperialism (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1062465912&archive=1067850372&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


...this is about as fresh as the Stalin vs Trotsky threads.

Precisely&#33;

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 03:19 AM

RedStar, what ever happened to debating ? These days it seems that you come in, call someone Enema, and then leave. I think there should be a rule, if you&#39;re going to talk shit, you first must contribute to the discussion.

UR, I did refute all of Enema&#39;s idiotic arguments. There was a thread on Iraq in Opposing Ideologies followed by another long thread in Commie Club.

Here is what I said...

"Leftist" Lackeys of U.S. Imperialism (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1062465912&archive=1067850372&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


...this is about as fresh as the Stalin vs Trotsky threads.

Precisely&#33;

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Everyone knows thatc your own personal edits of the thread in question are as about as objective as Fox News. If he really wants to see what happened i suggest you give him the origional link, instead of that abomination of poor web design you call a page.

[EneME]

Good I hate arguing with people, havent got a clue. I have also been here for over a year and I survived all that time without talking to you, so really why wouldI be bothered about a whining Noob avoiding me?
I&#39;m not arguing with you ass, u aren&#39;t that important for me to even waste my energy on. You don&#39;t know me as I dont know you, so I have never attacked you personally. To me, that makes you look so feeble and really pathetic. I&#39;m not here to ARGUE with anyone, so I don&#39;t really care about HOW long you&#39;ve been here for, I&#39;ve been a leftist since the day I was born, so what? Doesn&#39;t mean you have the right to disrespect me or think you are all superior because I&#39;ve never said I was better or smarter than anyone else here, I&#39;m here to learn from everyone righties or lefties as long as they can carry a respectful adult conversation. I dont care if it bothers you or not that im ignoring u, its called a COMMENT, take it how u want it...

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 10:21 AM
Good I hate arguing with people, havent got a clue. I have also been here for over a year and I survived all that time without talking to you, so really why wouldI be bothered about a whining Noob avoiding me?
I&#39;m not arguing with you ass, u aren&#39;t that important for me to even waste my energy on. You don&#39;t know me as I dont know you, so I have never attacked you personally. To me, that makes you look so feeble and really pathetic. I&#39;m not here to ARGUE with anyone, so I don&#39;t really care about HOW long you&#39;ve been here for, I&#39;ve been a leftist since the day I was born, so what? Doesn&#39;t mean you have the right to disrespect me or think you are all superior because I&#39;ve never said I was better or smarter than anyone else here, I&#39;m here to learn from everyone righties or lefties as long as they can carry a respectful adult conversation. I dont care if it bothers you or not that im ignoring u, its called a COMMENT, take it how u want it...
I&#39;m not arguing with you ass,

Like I said: - Good, I cant be bothered talking to a person who doesn&#39;t put forward any kind of argument.

u aren&#39;t that important for me to even waste my energy on.

Then why did you just write a 9 lines long post to tell me that?

so I have never attacked you personally.

Err... actually you did, when you claimed that I had been brain washed by CNN and other capitalist media.

To me, that makes you look so feeble and really pathetic.

Judging from above that makes you equily "feeble" and "pathetic", but a hypocrit as well.

I&#39;m not here to ARGUE with anyone,

Then why join a discussion forum? :rolleyes:

so I don&#39;t really care about HOW long you&#39;ve been here for, I&#39;ve been a leftist since the day I was born, so what?

I was pointing out that I survived a year without your input so why should I be bothered about not getting it now? Is that a complex consept to grasp?

Doesn&#39;t mean you have the right to disrespect me or think you are all superior because I&#39;ve never said I was better or smarter than anyone else here,

No you just attempted to patronise me and insult me, and when I respond in a hostile manner you get all defensive, well sorry, take your goddamn high and mighty self rightiousness to someone who cares.

I dont care if it bothers you or not that im ignoring u,

Not doing that very well are you.

its called a COMMENT

Being patronising again...

, take it how u want it...

I did and you got in a right stress.

Sorry, but I havent got the time for your bullshit, if you want to ignore me then fine, go ahead, like I said I dont give a damn what you say or think.

[redstar2000]

Back on topic...

The speaker on the tape, aired on Al-Arabiya television, said the only way to end the chaos in Iraq was for Saddam and his now-outlawed Baath Party to return to power.

The CIA said it would review the tape for its authenticity. President Bush dismissed the recording.

"The evil ones now find themselves in crisis and this is God&#39;s will for them," he said.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n...0507EST0460.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2003/11/17/international0507EST0460.DTL)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 03:51 PM
Back on topic...

The speaker on the tape, aired on Al-Arabiya television, said the only way to end the chaos in Iraq was for Saddam and his now-outlawed Baath Party to return to power.

The CIA said it would review the tape for its authenticity. President Bush dismissed the recording.

"The evil ones now find themselves in crisis and this is God&#39;s will for them," he said.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n...0507EST0460.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2003/11/17/international0507EST0460.DTL)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Leaving behind the usual insults etc, but do you seriously consider Saddam Hussein to be viable candidate for power in Iraq considering his past record?

[acg4_9]

fact 1 : iraq was the only arab country that believed that oil is for all arabs so before the us satanic sanctions iraq was a country that supplied the poor arab countries with oil or money despite the war with iran and it continued to help some of those countries even during sanctions.
fact 2: water, electricity, medical service, schools, universities and basic food was all free to all the iraqies.
fact 3 : iraq under the leadership of president saddam was the supporter of the palestinien crisis and the funder to a lot of palestinien organization. Pr. saddam gave salaries to families of palestinien fighters that were killed, injured or captured who will support those poor families now.
fact 4 : more than 30 thousand student from thirld world nations studied lived for free.
fact 5 : iraq takes the first place in education in the arab world.
fact 6: iraq has more than 30 thousand scientist in all kinds of science and are extremely wanted by the emperialist companies these scientists were raised funded and taught by the help of the iraqi goverments
fact 7 : there is nothing called i am sunni or sheya&#39;a or kurds before 9 april the ba&#39;ath party that believes that all arabs must be united and the arabs here are not a race they are a culture so any one that supports the arabian rights is an arabian. so how can an iragi ba&#39;ath goverment support a group upon a group when all of them are equal in it&#39;s believes. the iraqi that were attacked by pr. saddam were people supported by usa iran turkey kuwait and others ( in the 80s if an american group supported by the ussr started a revolution in the US, what will be the US goverment response) if any leadership was in his shoe they&#39;ll do the same thing... i guess) .
fact 8 : more than 2 million iraqies died from the U.S sanction and bombing since 1991.
there are thousand of facts but i&#39;ll start with those and the rest will be later.
[I]god help our freedom fighters.
viva palestine viva iraq. [/I[B]]

[redstar2000]

The post that is just ahead of this one may well reflect a lot more Iraqi opinion that anyone (in the west) would have imagined possible...just a few months ago.

What I have suggested is that Saddam Hussein may become a "folk hero"...a symbol of resistance to U.S. imperialism. I&#39;ve also said that I don&#39;t expect Hussein to enjoy a victory parade on the back of a tank entering Baghdad...but that I do expect his famous statue to be re-erected within the next 50 years.

Meanwhile, I thought this was interesting...


An Italian member of Iraq&#39;s US-led Coalition Provisional Authority has resigned in protest at its policies.

Marco Calamai said few reconstruction projects had been implemented and warned that Iraqis were becoming angry.

Mr Calamai also told Italian newspapers the United Nations had to intervene in the country to improve a situation he described as "seriously compromised".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3279019.stm

Also see...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1535EST0664.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/11/17/international1535EST0664.DTL)

The U.S. has already said that it intends to remain in Iraq after a new "government" has been established...so we know what to expect.

Every day that passes, Enema, makes your pro-U.S. position look worse and worse. I know that you&#39;re saying now that the U.S. should leave...but that&#39;s a little bit late, isn&#39;t it?

Maybe too late.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Bolshevika]

Iraqi freedom fighters are really "bringing it on" eh George W. ?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 11:11 PM
fact 1 : iraq was the only arab country that believed that oil is for all arabs so before the us satanic sanctions iraq was a country that supplied the poor arab countries with oil or money despite the war with iran and it continued to help some of those countries even during sanctions.
fact 2: water, electricity, medical service, schools, universities and basic food was all free to all the iraqies.
fact 3 : iraq under the leadership of president saddam was the supporter of the palestinien crisis and the funder to a lot of palestinien organization. Pr. saddam gave salaries to families of palestinien fighters that were killed, injured or captured who will support those poor families now.
fact 4 : more than 30 thousand student from thirld world nations studied lived for free.
fact 5 : iraq takes the first place in education in the arab world.
fact 6: iraq has more than 30 thousand scientist in all kinds of science and are extremely wanted by the emperialist companies these scientists were raised funded and taught by the help of the iraqi goverments
fact 7 : there is nothing called i am sunni or sheya&#39;a or kurds before 9 april the ba&#39;ath party that believes that all arabs must be united and the arabs here are not a race they are a culture so any one that supports the arabian rights is an arabian. so how can an iragi ba&#39;ath goverment support a group upon a group when all of them are equal in it&#39;s believes. the iraqi that were attacked by pr. saddam were people supported by usa iran turkey kuwait and others ( in the 80s if an american group supported by the ussr started a revolution in the US, what will be the US goverment response) if any leadership was in his shoe they&#39;ll do the same thing... i guess) .
fact 8 : more than 2 million iraqies died from the U.S sanction and bombing since 1991.
there are thousand of facts but i&#39;ll start with those and the rest will be later.
[I]god help our freedom fighters.
viva palestine viva iraq. [/I[b]]
Ahh joy another long post to dismantle.

fact 1 : iraq was the only arab country that believed that oil is for all arabs so before the us satanic sanctions iraq was a country that supplied the poor arab countries with oil or money despite the war with iran and it continued to help some of those countries even during sanctions.

Except it invaded other Arab countries to steal their OIL...

fact 2: water, electricity, medical service, schools, universities and basic food was all free to all the iraqies.

With the exception of the Kurds, the Shi&#39;a Muslims, political opponentents, any one who just happened to have pissed him off at the time etc..

fact 3 : iraq under the leadership of president saddam was the supporter of the palestinien crisis and the funder to a lot of palestinien organization. Pr. saddam gave salaries to families of palestinien fighters that were killed, injured or captured who will support those poor families now.


President Saddam now is it? How many free and fair elections has Saddam had? I doubt any, and if he did I very much doubt that the Kurds and Shi&#39;a (a sizeable junk of the pop.) voted him in.

With the exception of Kurds and Shi&#39;a, whome he feed poison gas.

fact 4 : more than 30 thousand student from thirld world nations studied lived for free.


When Saddam could not even feed his own people... Genius&#33;

fact 5 : iraq takes the first place in education in the arab world.

Hardly an achievement to sing about.

fact 7 : there is nothing called i am sunni or sheya&#39;a or kurds before 9 april the ba&#39;ath party that believes that all arabs must be united and the arabs here are not a race they are a culture so any one that supports the arabian rights is an arabian. so how can an iragi ba&#39;ath goverment support a group upon a group when all of them are equal in it&#39;s believes. the iraqi that were attacked by pr. saddam were people supported by usa iran turkey kuwait and others ( in the 80s if an american group supported by the ussr started a revolution in the US, what will be the US goverment response) if any leadership was in his shoe they&#39;ll do the same thing... i guess) .

Well I cant actually make out most of that incohernat post (but I cant talk, my grammar is terrible), what are you saying? But if I&#39;m right your saying that the Kurds never existed... and then said that they should have been masscred because of their involvment with rebel groups. Sorry mate but we call that Fascism, and if you support it then you will probably get banned or caged.

fact 8 : more than 2 million iraqies died from the U.S sanction and bombing since 1991.
there are thousand of facts but i&#39;ll start with those and the rest will be later.

And how much is that due to Saddam living in palaces not feeding his people, because of not distributing the wealth properly?

[Invader Zim]

Every day that passes, Enema, makes your pro-U.S. position look worse and worse. I know that you&#39;re saying now that the U.S. should leave...but that&#39;s a little bit late, isn&#39;t it?

Maybe too late.

Dude, I&#39;ve been saying that sinse April... At least try to keep up. ;)

:redstar2000:

PS: - BTW RS in responce to yiour belief that Hussein will be heralded as a hero, you weren&#39;t to sure back in August, when you said and I quote: -

"Hussein was a minor tinpot dictator who would almost certainly been deposed in due time by the Iraqis themselves."

Didn&#39;t think they loved him back then did you? ;)

[Exploited Class]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/cx/uc/20031117/tr/tr031117.gif

[Sabocat]

Enigma:


Except it invaded other Arab countries to steal their OIL...

This has been covered over and over. I don&#39;t understand why you keep going back to the farcical line of Hussein stealing oil. The facts really support that it was the other way around.


Hussein had three problems with Kuwait:

A border dispute dating back to Great Britain&#39;s artificial drawing of the lines after World War I.


Kuwait was allegedly slant drilling into Iraq&#39;s oil fields and stealing its oil.


Kuwait was violating its OPEC production agreements in order to drive down the price of oil and bankrupt Iraq.

This last point is interesting because it was essentially a strong-arm tactic Kuwait was using to win concessions from Iraq. Iraq was vulnerable to this tactic because it had borrowed money from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to wage war against Iran in the 1980s. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had loaned this money because they too were afraid of the revolutionary regime in Iran. The U.S., Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, were all complicit in the war against Iran, and all of them hoped to benefit from it. But now Kuwait was using the loans it had made to Iraq as leverage to win profitable concessions from Hussein with regard to the border dispute and their slant drilling. And Kuwait was turning up the heat by also violating its production agreement. This reduced oil prices generally, and Iraq&#39;s oil income in particular.

I implore you to read through this site provided below. It provides a neat chronological order of events leading up to the wars.

http://www.truthaboutwar.org/claim4.shtml



When Saddam could not even feed his own people... Genius&#33;

Saddam had no problems feeding his population until the first war in &#39;91 and the associated sanctions thereafter.


And how much is that due to Saddam living in palaces not feeding his people, because of not distributing the wealth properly?

I know you&#39;d like to wash your hands clean of the deaths and suffering caused by the sanctions and the never ending bombings from &#39;91 to present, but distributing wealth wasn&#39;t the issue. Distributing chlorine to purify the water (which was a banned substance under the sanctions) was the real issue. You can&#39;t purify water with money. Or eat money, or use money in place of medicines.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by D[email protected] 18 2003, 12:23 PM
Enigma:


Except it invaded other Arab countries to steal their OIL...

This has been covered over and over. I don&#39;t understand why you keep going back to the farcical line of Hussein stealing oil. The facts really support that it was the other way around.


Hussein had three problems with Kuwait:

A border dispute dating back to Great Britain&#39;s artificial drawing of the lines after World War I.


Kuwait was allegedly slant drilling into Iraq&#39;s oil fields and stealing its oil.


Kuwait was violating its OPEC production agreements in order to drive down the price of oil and bankrupt Iraq.

This last point is interesting because it was essentially a strong-arm tactic Kuwait was using to win concessions from Iraq. Iraq was vulnerable to this tactic because it had borrowed money from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to wage war against Iran in the 1980s. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had loaned this money because they too were afraid of the revolutionary regime in Iran. The U.S., Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, were all complicit in the war against Iran, and all of them hoped to benefit from it. But now Kuwait was using the loans it had made to Iraq as leverage to win profitable concessions from Hussein with regard to the border dispute and their slant drilling. And Kuwait was turning up the heat by also violating its production agreement. This reduced oil prices generally, and Iraq&#39;s oil income in particular.

I implore you to read through this site provided below. It provides a neat chronological order of events leading up to the wars.

http://www.truthaboutwar.org/claim4.shtml



When Saddam could not even feed his own people... Genius&#33;

Saddam had no problems feeding his population until the first war in &#39;91 and the associated sanctions thereafter.


And how much is that due to Saddam living in palaces not feeding his people, because of not distributing the wealth properly?

I know you&#39;d like to wash your hands clean of the deaths and suffering caused by the sanctions and the never ending bombings from &#39;91 to present, but distributing wealth wasn&#39;t the issue. Distributing chlorine to purify the water (which was a banned substance under the sanctions) was the real issue. You can&#39;t purify water with money. Or eat money, or use money in place of medicines.
Thats interesting considering that Saddam actually annexed Kuwait and called it Iraq&#39;s 19th province... I very seriously doubt given the grievences you have outlined that he would take such an action. Even if he did invade he most certainly could not have needed to occupy all the Oil fields, and certainly not the entire county, and then call it a province of Iraq.

Your argument is flawed.

Saddam had no problems feeding his population until the first war in &#39;91 and the associated sanctions thereafter.

Do you recall that just after the war Saddam hussein stole several billion dollers from Iraq, I think you will find that he would more than have been able to feed his people...

Distributing chlorine to purify the water (which was a banned substance under the sanctions) was the real issue.

You dont use chlorine gas to purify water, you use chlorine releasing compounds which do not release cholrine gas quickly enough to be a weapon. Chlorine releasing compounds such as chlorine dioxcide release chlorine at a slow rate similar to leaving boiled water standing overnight, the chlorine released is at a low rate which is of low toxicity because the air concentration does not reach the LC50, or even TC50. The same applys for chlorine bleach, Chlorine releasing compounds can be accelerated by the addition of acids, however the amounts of water purification compunds needed for a viable chemical weapons program would be huge, more than any foreign government (who would be watching the sale of compunds to a sanctioned government carefully) would allow. A ban on water purification compounds is similar to a ban on bleach for domestic users, you can buy bleach with no license, not chlorine. Water purification compounds are unlikely to be banned to sanctioned governments under the same principle.

Of course I may be wrong but I doubt it...

[Sabocat]

Enigma:


A ban on water purification compounds is similar to a ban on bleach for domestic users, you can buy bleach with no license, not chlorine. Water purification compounds are unlikely to be banned to sanctioned governments under the same principle.

Of course I may be wrong but I doubt it...


Items Banned in Iraq by the US/UN Economic Sanctions


Agricultural pesticides Nylon cloth for filtering flour
All electrical equipment Notebooks
All other building materials Other adult clothes
Ambulances Oxygen tents
Baby food Paper
Badminton rackets Pencil sharpeners
Bandages Pencils
Blankets Ping-pong balls
Boots Polyester and acrylic yarn
Cannulas for intravenous drips Rice rubber tubes
Catheters for babies Schoolbooks
Children’s bicycles School handicraft equipment
Children’s clothes Shampoo
Chlorine and other water purification Shoelaces
chemicals Shirts
Cleaning agents Shroud material machines
Cobalt sources of X-ray Soap
Deodorants Sanitary towels
Dialysis equipment Specific granite shipments
Disposable surgical gloves Specific umbilical catheters
Drugs for angina Steel plate stethoscopes
ECG monitors Suction catheters for blockages
Erasers Surgical instruments
Glue for textbooks Textile plant equipment
Incubators Thread for children’s clothes
Leather material for shoes Tissues
Lipsticks Toilet paper
Medical gauze Toothbrushes
Medical journals Toothpaste
Medical swabs Various other foodstuffs
Medication for epilepsy Wool felt for thermal insulation
Nail polish X-ray equipment
Nasogastric tubes X-ray file

http://www.centersofcompassion.org/childrenofiraq.htm

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 02:26 PM
Enigma:


A ban on water purification compounds is similar to a ban on bleach for domestic users, you can buy bleach with no license, not chlorine. Water purification compounds are unlikely to be banned to sanctioned governments under the same principle.

Of course I may be wrong but I doubt it...


Items Banned in Iraq by the US/UN Economic Sanctions


Agricultural pesticides Nylon cloth for filtering flour
All electrical equipment Notebooks
All other building materials Other adult clothes
Ambulances Oxygen tents
Baby food Paper
Badminton rackets Pencil sharpeners
Bandages Pencils
Blankets Ping-pong balls
Boots Polyester and acrylic yarn
Cannulas for intravenous drips Rice rubber tubes
Catheters for babies Schoolbooks
Children’s bicycles School handicraft equipment
Children’s clothes Shampoo
Chlorine and other water purification Shoelaces
chemicals Shirts
Cleaning agents Shroud material machines
Cobalt sources of X-ray Soap
Deodorants Sanitary towels
Dialysis equipment Specific granite shipments
Disposable surgical gloves Specific umbilical catheters
Drugs for angina Steel plate stethoscopes
ECG monitors Suction catheters for blockages
Erasers Surgical instruments
Glue for textbooks Textile plant equipment
Incubators Thread for children’s clothes
Leather material for shoes Tissues
Lipsticks Toilet paper
Medical gauze Toothbrushes
Medical journals Toothpaste
Medical swabs Various other foodstuffs
Medication for epilepsy Wool felt for thermal insulation
Nail polish X-ray equipment
Nasogastric tubes X-ray file

http://www.centersofcompassion.org/childrenofiraq.htm
That is most unusual, however I appologise for doubting you.

[acg4_9]

[b]fact 1 : iraq was the only arab country that believed that oil is for all arabs so before the us satanic sanctions iraq was a country that supplied the poor arab countries with oil or money despite the war with iran and it continued to help some of those countries even during sanctions.

Except it invaded other Arab countries to steal their OIL...

fact 2: water, electricity, medical service, schools, universities and basic food was all free to all the iraqies.

With the exception of the Kurds, the Shi&#39;a Muslims, political opponentents, any one who just happened to have pissed him off at the time etc..

fact 3 : iraq under the leadership of president saddam was the supporter of the palestinien crisis and the funder to a lot of palestinien organization. Pr. saddam gave salaries to families of palestinien fighters that were killed, injured or captured who will support those poor families now.


President Saddam now is it? How many free and fair elections has Saddam had? I doubt any, and if he did I very much doubt that the Kurds and Shi&#39;a (a sizeable junk of the pop.) voted him in.

With the exception of Kurds and Shi&#39;a, whome he feed poison gas.

fact 4 : more than 30 thousand student from thirld world nations studied lived for free.


When Saddam could not even feed his own people... Genius&#33;

fact 5 : iraq takes the first place in education in the arab world.

Hardly an achievement to sing about.

fact 7 : there is nothing called i am sunni or sheya&#39;a or kurds before 9 april the ba&#39;ath party that believes that all arabs must be united and the arabs here are not a race they are a culture so any one that supports the arabian rights is an arabian. so how can an iragi ba&#39;ath goverment support a group upon a group when all of them are equal in it&#39;s believes. the iraqi that were attacked by pr. saddam were people supported by usa iran turkey kuwait and others ( in the 80s if an american group supported by the ussr started a revolution in the US, what will be the US goverment response) if any leadership was in his shoe they&#39;ll do the same thing... i guess) .

Well I cant actually make out most of that incohernat post (but I cant talk, my grammar is terrible), what are you saying? But if I&#39;m right your saying that the Kurds never existed... and then said that they should have been masscred because of their involvment with rebel groups. Sorry mate but we call that Fascism, and if you support it then you will probably get banned or caged.

fact 8 : more than 2 million iraqies died from the U.S sanction and bombing since 1991.
there are thousand of facts but i&#39;ll start with those and the rest will be later.

And how much is that due to Saddam living in palaces not feeding his people, because of not distributing the wealth properly?

first of all i am not an iraqi, am just an arabic person from jordan.
second thing about enigma&#39;s reply:
most of arabs - people not goverments- supported the attack on kuwait becuase it was an attack on capatilism and an attack on goverments and american emperialic companies not forgetting that abdel kareem qasem the bolshevic president of iraq tried attacking kuwait in 1962 and believe me when iraq returns independent again under any goverment it will think on attacking kuwait cause it&#39; an iraqi land from hundred of years.
the free services were for all iraqies anyone telling you something else is saying a big fat lie.
president saddam didn&#39;t come by democratic elections but america and her puppets came by democracy&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;.
saddam faught the kurds but he faught armies not people all the crap you see on the media are emperialic lies the gas attack on halabja was done by iran in the iraq-iran war.
before the satanic sanctions there was no poverty in iraq (almost). in the eighties with a 250 iraqi dinars you could have a tour in europe and i heard that from some iraqies so iraq was destroyed by the emperialic west not by saddam.
again the iraqi people were not poor ignorant or selfish but your democratic policies sanctions and wars killed the iraqies.
iraq had a huge devolopment in the seventies and eighties and it helped other thirld world countries in developing themselves but your democratic goverments screwd that up.
how could a small country like iraq face a super power like america and not lose it&#39;s the price of protecting our independence the price that cuba is paying right now the price that was payed by the previous freedom fighters.
so this is now democracy enegma ?&#33;&#33; am now a fascist?&#33;&#33; how democratic&#33; judge yourselves for judgin others when i want that all people in iraq must work out without saying that this is a sunni or a kurdi or any thing am called a fascist if every race or religion or tribe had it&#39;s own country there will thousands of countries and we&#39;ll be still riding horses so the ba&#39;ath came with the idea that all arab speakers must be united in one countries and the iraqi kurds are muslims that speak arabic so they are considered like the arabs.
read more about things before making your thoughts about them.
god bless our freedom fighters
viva palestine viva iraq

[redstar2000]

PS: - BTW RS in response to your belief that Hussein will be heralded as a hero, you weren&#39;t to sure back in August, when you said and I quote: -

"Hussein was a minor tinpot dictator who would almost certainly been deposed in due time by the Iraqis themselves."

Didn&#39;t think they loved him back then did you?

No, I sure didn&#39;t.

But thanks to U.S. & British imperialism and its supporters like yourself, you have made him into a "folk hero".

Indeed, every day&#39;s atrocity that the forces you supported commit increases Saddam&#39;s stature, makes him look more "heroic".

In the end, of course, even the Shi&#39;as and Kurds will turn against you...it will have become obvious that as bad as Hussein was, you are worse&#33;

But don&#39;t take my word for it. In a few years you will be old enough to serve in the British army yourself...occupation duty in Basra will teach you more about imperialism than anyone on this board can.

Of course, I can&#39;t rule out the possibility that you&#39;ll enjoy it.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[flayer2]

"Shortly before the invasion, Saddam called a meeting with then US ambassador April Gillespie, who told Saddam: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She went on to say: "James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction." (San Francisco Examiner, 11/18/02) "

After the invasion George bush sr went on to say:

"This Aggression wuwuwill not stand"

I&#39;ve got a sharp memory for these details boys....

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 02:23 AM

PS: - BTW RS in response to your belief that Hussein will be heralded as a hero, you weren&#39;t to sure back in August, when you said and I quote: -

"Hussein was a minor tinpot dictator who would almost certainly been deposed in due time by the Iraqis themselves."

Didn&#39;t think they loved him back then did you?

No, I sure didn&#39;t.

But thanks to U.S. & British imperialism and its supporters like yourself, you have made him into a "folk hero".

Indeed, every day&#39;s atrocity that the forces you supported commit increases Saddam&#39;s stature, makes him look more "heroic".

In the end, of course, even the Shi&#39;as and Kurds will turn against you...it will have become obvious that as bad as Hussein was, you are worse&#33;

But don&#39;t take my word for it. In a few years you will be old enough to serve in the British army yourself...occupation duty in Basra will teach you more about imperialism than anyone on this board can.

Of course, I can&#39;t rule out the possibility that you&#39;ll enjoy it.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
In the end, of course, even the Shi&#39;as and Kurds will turn against you...it will have become obvious that as bad as Hussein was, you are worse&#33;

No, they wont turn against me, specifically, as I have never been to Iraq or to the middle east even, they will no more turn against me than they will you. They may turn against our troops, but aren&#39;t you always saying that troops are differnt from people?

In a few years you will be old enough to serve in the British army yourself...

I already am old enough to serve in the British armed forces, I choose not to however... I dont like the idea of being part of a "Bloody Sunday".

acg4_9: - the fact that you like Saddam Hussein shows that you are a FASCIST, AND YOU DENY HIS CRIMES PROVES IT. I have nothing to say to you further.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In thus world of bastards, always choose the smaller bastard, especially if he&#39;s fighting the bigger bastard.
The smaller bastard does less damage.


acg4_9: - the fact that you like Saddam Hussein shows that you are a FASCIST, AND YOU DENY HIS CRIMES PROVES IT. I have nothing to say to you further.

I don&#39;t think he likes addam as such; I think he actually takes grim satisfaction in seeing a much-trumpeted &#39;enemy of freedom&#39; being hailed as a saviour.

[redstar2000]

They may turn against our troops...

"Our troops"?

Yours, perhaps. Certainly not mine.

I like how you reveal your sense of identification though.

I suspect that&#39;s how you ended up in the situation you find yourself. Having once described the British Empire as "nasty but necessary", you are now continually tempted by Bush&#39;s "New World Order".

Imperialism is a lot more addicting than heroin.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 05:56 PM

They may turn against our troops...

"Our troops"?

Yours, perhaps. Certainly not mine.

I like how you reveal your sense of identification though.

I suspect that&#39;s how you ended up in the situation you find yourself. Having once described the British Empire as "nasty but necessary", you are now continually tempted by Bush&#39;s "New World Order".

Imperialism is a lot more addicting than heroin.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Yours, perhaps. Certainly not mine.

are you not a citizen of the united states?

Having once described the British Empire as "nasty but necessary"

thats a deliberate misinterpretation of what i said. I was talking from a technological point of view, you now deliberately spun what I said... I&#39;m sure Kennedy benefited from your ability to spin words.

Imperialism is a lot more addicting than heroin.

They tell me paedophilia is as well...

I don&#39;t think he likes addam as such; I think he actually takes grim satisfaction in seeing a much-trumpeted &#39;enemy of freedom&#39; being hailed as a saviour.

The fact he denys the mini holacaust commited by Saddam Hussein and the baath party is proof enough... The Nazi&#39;s deny the genocide Hitler commited and call it a Jewish plot, he denys the genocide Hussein commited and calls it an "imperialist plot". Its interesting how all fascists think alike.

[acg4_9]

i didn&#39;t deni that president saddam did some wrong things but not as the empire of evil ( the new name of the U.S in the arab and islamic countries) and i am calling him president saddam because at least he&#39;s from iraq and not an emperialic thief from the republican party.

to camarade enigma: i am not going to defend myself and i am not going to say that i am not a fascist am just going to say that i know myself and i know what i am defending and i don&#39;t care what strange ideas might come to your mind cause from the media around you i am not surprised that some of us might think like president bush.

believe me the ones who love saddam are more in iraq than the media tells you i was in iraq upon the war and believe that i was shocked to know that nobody showed you the people crying in iraq and demonstrating against the occupation. there are thousands and thousands of iraqies arabs muslims that are ancious to die fighting the emperialists for me i went back home to jordan to complete my studying and then i&#39;ll go back but as a doctor that will help more than a fighter -cause iraq is full of freedom fighters- and thousands are thinking the same.
we lost a battle but we won&#39;t lose the war and we&#39;ll die for that and evey anti-emperialic is indirectly helping us from the western protestors to the columbian fighters.

here is an article that prooves that not everything that is told in the media is right.
god bless our freedom fighters
viva palestine viva iraq

The Big Lie about Saddam Gassing the Kurds
"A War Crime or an Act of War?"
Stephen C. Pelletiere, New York Times, 31 January 2003

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq&#39;s weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world&#39;s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq&#39;s "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency&#39;s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq&#39;s main target.

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

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds&#39; bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

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

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.


In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America&#39;s impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world&#39;s largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990&#39;s there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq&#39;s oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn&#39;t occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein&#39;s Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq&#39;s conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein&#39;s supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 12:27 AM
i didn&#39;t deni that president saddam did some wrong things but not as the empire of evil ( the new name of the U.S in the arab and islamic countries) and i am calling him president saddam because at least he&#39;s from iraq and not an emperialic thief from the republican party.

to camarade enigma: i am not going to defend myself and i am not going to say that i am not a fascist am just going to say that i know myself and i know what i am defending and i don&#39;t care what strange ideas might come to your mind cause from the media around you i am not surprised that some of us might think like president bush.

believe me the ones who love saddam are more in iraq than the media tells you i was in iraq upon the war and believe that i was shocked to know that nobody showed you the people crying in iraq and demonstrating against the occupation. there are thousands and thousands of iraqies arabs muslims that are ancious to die fighting the emperialists for me i went back home to jordan to complete my studying and then i&#39;ll go back but as a doctor that will help more than a fighter -cause iraq is full of freedom fighters- and thousands are thinking the same.
we lost a battle but we won&#39;t lose the war and we&#39;ll die for that and evey anti-emperialic is indirectly helping us from the western protestors to the columbian fighters.

here is an article that prooves that not everything that is told in the media is right.
god bless our freedom fighters
viva palestine viva iraq

The Big Lie about Saddam Gassing the Kurds
"A War Crime or an Act of War?"
Stephen C. Pelletiere, New York Times, 31 January 2003

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq&#39;s weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world&#39;s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq&#39;s "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency&#39;s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq&#39;s main target.

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

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds&#39; bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

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

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.


In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America&#39;s impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world&#39;s largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990&#39;s there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq&#39;s oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn&#39;t occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein&#39;s Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq&#39;s conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein&#39;s supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf.
That artical proves nothing, except that it COULD have been Iran, and that Iraq "didnt mean to hit them". It only throws doubt upon the Anfal genocide, it ignores the rest of the campain to wipe out the Kurds. Not to mention that "Chemical" Ali openly stated Iraq&#39;s stated aims towards the Kurds, not to mention the discovery of many mass graves...

sorry but that is kind of conclusive in my mind.


PS it may shock you to know that im not a yank.

[Bolshevika]

Saddam is loved by the majority of the Iraqi people (only the Kurds are troublesome). Bush and imperialism certainly are not popular in Iraq (if that hasn&#39;t been evident by now). They are not my soldiers because I do not support imperialism. They are more like a group of expensive hitmen for George W. Bush to do business with.

[acg4_9]

it&#39;s not a must to be a yankee to have bushs ideas.
my last post was to tell you that you are being tricked by the media.
what happened to president saddam will happen to everyone that says no to the U.S power so get ready for another exciting episode of bushs war. what is making him late is the courageous freedom fighters in iraq.
enigma, it&#39;s politics, there is nothing called black or white but more darker or less darker. it&#39;s good to want everything to be 100% right but you know what happened to che, and that&#39;s what presidents castro saddam stalin and other left-wing presidents and leaders realized some of them succeeded most of them failed but at least they tried they worked they fighted not as much as fighters like che or carlos or others but at least they didn&#39;t sit down and surrender.
god bless our freedom fighters
viva palestine viva iraq

[Monty Cantsin]

I read in Howard zinn’s book war on terrorism that 90% of people killed are civilian in modern day wars.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 04:43 AM
I read in Howard zinn’s book war on terrorism that 90% of people killed are civilian in modern day wars.
Is that because the yanks do most of the fighting, and that they prefer inaccurate &#39;push-button&#39; warfare, as opposed to actually facing your enemy and gutting them like a clam?

[(*]

This young Iraqi would like to personally thank America for "liberating" her brain from her head.

[Intifada]

liberation my fucking ass&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Intifada]

:angry: motherfuckers&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry:

[Intifada]

here are a few quotes from the brave american soldiers who have "liberated" and "saved" many iraqis:

"We had a great day. We killed a lot of people. We dropped a few civilians, but what do you do? I’m sorry but the chick was in the way."

— Sgt. Eric Schrumpf
cowardly sniper
with the Fifth Marine Regiment
March 29, 2003

"I think they [Iraqi people] thought we wouldn’t shoot kids. But we showed them we don’t care. We are going to do what we have to do to stay alive and keep ourselves safe. I did what I had to do. I don’t have a big problem with it but anyone who shoots a little kid has to feel something."

— Private Nick Boggs
U.S. Army psychopath, war criminal

"The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy. I am starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a fuckin’ Iraqi. No, I won’t get hold of one. I’ll just kill him."

— Corporal Ryan Dupre
U.S. Army psychopath, war criminal

[redstar2000]

More of your usual irrelevancies...


are you not a citizen of the united states?

What does that have to do with the matter? I would never use the phrase "our troops" to describe a mercenary imperialist army.

You obviously have no problem with that at all.


They tell me paedophilia is as well...

Was this comment meant for the Michael Jackson thread in the Music Forum?

What does it have to do with U.S. and British imperialism in Iraq?

Or do you wish to suggest that Saddam Hussein was not only the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler but, in addition, a paedophile? Did he like little boys or little girls?


It&#39;s interesting how all fascists think alike.

What&#39;s really interesting is how you fail to think before you post at all. You never open your mouth without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[blakangel]

Was this movement on Iraq supposed to be part &#39;on the war on terrorism&#39; - yes this war has helped so much :rolleyes:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 03:02 PM
here are a few quotes from the brave american soldiers who have "liberated" and "saved" many iraqis:

"We had a great day. We killed a lot of people. We dropped a few civilians, but what do you do? I’m sorry but the chick was in the way."

— Sgt. Eric Schrumpf
cowardly sniper
with the Fifth Marine Regiment
March 29, 2003

"I think they [Iraqi people] thought we wouldn’t shoot kids. But we showed them we don’t care. We are going to do what we have to do to stay alive and keep ourselves safe. I did what I had to do. I don’t have a big problem with it but anyone who shoots a little kid has to feel something."

— Private Nick Boggs
U.S. Army psychopath, war criminal

"The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy. I am starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a fuckin’ Iraqi. No, I won’t get hold of one. I’ll just kill him."

— Corporal Ryan Dupre
U.S. Army psychopath, war criminal
Really, gotta link? Not that I doubt you, but I would like to read the artical which inevitably goes with it.

RS2K: having just looked through this thread (and several older one) I see you have not actually put any argument forward, until you do I have nothing to say to you other than, I feal very very sorry for you. Really I do.

BTW: -You know as well as I do what the Paedo remark relates to, and know that as long as you make false attacks on me I will respond with ones about you, but one that I can back up... unlike you.

[redstar2000]

You know as well as I do what the Paedo remark relates to, and know that as long as you make false attacks on me I will respond with ones about you, but one that I can back up... unlike you.

Why don&#39;t you spell it out, you sleazy little shit?

Back up what, exactly?

And "false attacks"? Haven&#39;t you made dozens of posts in support of U.S. and British imperialism in Iraq? Haven&#39;t you done so in this thread?

I repeat: "our" troops?

Yours, perhaps, but not mine.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 12:50 AM

You know as well as I do what the Paedo remark relates to, and know that as long as you make false attacks on me I will respond with ones about you, but one that I can back up... unlike you.

Why don&#39;t you spell it out, you sleazy little shit?

Back up what, exactly?

And "false attacks"? Haven&#39;t you made dozens of posts in support of U.S. and British imperialism in Iraq? Haven&#39;t you done so in this thread?

I repeat: "our" troops?

Yours, perhaps, but not mine.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Why don&#39;t you spell it out, you sleazy little shit?

whoo&#33;&#33; Big words, losing your cool redstar? Going to have a massive rant in the CC to get me banned or caged.

Your such a loser...

spell it out

For once in your miserable existance, work it out your self, its hardly rocket science... considering your past comments.

Haven&#39;t you made dozens of posts in support of U.S. and British imperialism in Iraq?

Not one, in the support of imperialism, many however in support for ending fascism... which may well explain why you have such a vendetta against me, something to fear redstar?

:redstar2000:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Of course he&#39;s losing his cool, you idiot. So would you if you were acused of paedophilia.

[redstar2000]

What I can "work out" here, Enema, is that you have adopted the tactics of the best-selling tabloids of your country.

You "drop hints" and then, when challenged, back off.

Your courage is in direct proportion to your intellect.

Both so close to zero as makes no difference.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 05:24 PM
What I can "work out" here, Enema, is that you have adopted the tactics of the best-selling tabloids of your country.

You "drop hints" and then, when challenged, back off.

Your courage is in direct proportion to your intellect.

Both so close to zero as makes no difference.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

What dont like the taste of your own medicen? Well maybe you wont go round laying hints to get me restricted now...


Of course he&#39;s losing his cool, you idiot. So would you if you were acused of paedophilia.

You do not understand, what we are talking about. Until you do I suggest you go away.

But before you do, I will say that it is very amuzing to see him get angery when someone uses his own tactics to hit back... I&#39;ve been here for over a year now, and am constantly dogged by him with false accusation such as him telling everyone I think of Asian people as Wogs, I just did the same thing back to him but with a differnt subject, its quite Ironic how pissed off he&#39;s become.

Its to easy...

[Intifada]

the link that you wanted enigma (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/Genocide2.html)

its gruesome to say the least. :angry:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 07:19 PM
the link that you wanted enigma (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/Genocide2.html)

its gruesome to say the least. :angry:
Did it occur to you the site may be not 100% true, considering that they offer no actual source for their material... They also claim that the 9/11 was a US plot, which in my mind damages their credibility...

[Intifada]

look at the bibliography, thats their sources

here (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/bibliographies/Main.html)

[Intifada]

They also claim that the 9/11 was a US plot, which in my mind damages their credibility...

there is no solid proof that the planes were hijacked by terrorists. the attacks could have easily been planned by the bush administration. rumsfeld and wolfowitz even said that they started plans to invade iraq 2 days after 9-11 2001.

9-11 was always going to be an excuse for the usa to wage an endless war on their enemies.

[redstar2000]

American Mercenaries Cheer Their Fuhrer


US President George W Bush has made a surprise visit to Baghdad to mark America&#39;s Thanksgiving holiday.

He told cheering troops he brought a message on behalf of America...

He said the US would not give up in the face of ongoing guerrilla attacks.

The remark brought one of several standing ovations he received from soldiers of the 1st Armoured Division and the 82nd Airborne Division.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/3244620.stm

Perhaps this will lay to rest the mythology concerning American troops "not wanting to be there" and "just doing their job".

Then again, probably not. :(

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas