BEHEADING....WHO'S TO BLAME?

[Ethereal]

You’re twisting my words. I never said those who swiped the sword are not to blame for murder…I simply said “the blood is on america’s hands.” Listen, you poke a dog with a stick enough times eventually the motherfucker is going to bite back. We fucked Iraq; we killed 2 million + civilians; we destroyed their basic infrastructure. We, as in the U.S did this, not Saddam, not the Iraqi’s. What do you expect these people to do? Sit in the ruins and watch as their countrymen get slaughtered?

1. You may not have outright said the terrorists are innocent, but, he asked a question: Who is to blame? And you made absolutely no mention of the people who actually did the killing. What am I supposed to think?

2. We did not fuck Iraq as much as Saddam fucked Iraq. We may have dropped bombs, but they were bullying around a country that actually helped them in the Iran-Iraq conflict. Once they invaded, the gloves came off. Besides there is an entire world of information about Iraq's infastructure that you are neglecting to speak on. Rather then tell you, I want to hear you say it. What is the cause (or causes) for Iraq's economy collapsing with it's basic infastructure being destroyed.

3. What do I expect these people to do? Not sit in the ruins, but to rise up against teir own leader who is driving their country to hell.

LOL. And what do you think the U.S’s role in the United Nations is? Where is the U.N headquarters? What does the U.S do to certain countries who oppose them? Does the US use high-pressure tactics on these countries?

It would take just a handfull of countries from the U.N. to destroy America - 32 countries took part in the invasion of Kuwait. You do the math.

Iran has nothing to do with Kuait, Nitro and I’m sure you are aware we were allies with Saddam/Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. What did the U.S say/do when Iraq threatened to invade Kuait?

You're right, Iran has nothing to do with Kuwait, but it just goes to show of Saddams mental capacity in driving his country to ruins. The Iraq-Iran war is very significant, and should be highlighted, but not at this point because, like you said, it is not relevant to the invasion of Kuwait.

Nitro- we COMPLETEY annihilated Iraq’s infrastructure. No Drinking water, No Sewage system, No Electrical power grid, No National healthcare, NO Telecommunications, etc. WHY WOULD WE NEED TO PLACE SANCTIONS ON IRAQ WHEN THEY VIRTUALLY HAD NO ECONOMY? The U.S Secretary of State James Baker admitted in a testimony on Capitol Hill in 1991 that the US's goals in Iraq exceeded the terms of the UN ceasefire resolution. Baker stated that the US would never permit the UN to lift its sanctions against Iraq as long as Saddam Hussein remained in power. The U.S and Britain maintained that ''for so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power'' they would veto any attempts to lift sanctions against Iraq. It has long been clear that the sanctions aim at removing Saddam Hussein rather than disarming him. But why was the removal of Saddam NEVER a goal in the 1st gulf war? Why didn’t we use our hundreds of thousands of troops and invade Iraq and remove Saddam?

1. Saddam Hussein is to blame for the collapse of Iraq's economy. He lead an invasion in Iran which lasted 8 years. This war by itself completely devastated Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of this war.

2. U.N. proposals of sanctions remaining in tact as long as Saddam remains in office sounds reasonable to me. He has proved to be nothing but a monster leading his own people to death and his country into complete destruction.

3. "Why didn’t we use our hundreds of thousands of troops and invade Iraq and remove Saddam?" I wont answer this for one simple reason. You are asking why we didn't do something that, had we accomplished, you would be questioning the motive and reasoning. The United Nations was very invloved in this war, and assassinating the leader was not a part of the agenda.

Bullshit. You have made it obvious you have little or no intelligence on the motives of the 1st gulf war.

Childs play.

I figured you would respond in the same ignorant ‘blame the terrorists for Iraq’s problems’ mentality. I was correct.

I don't blame the terrorists. So what do you mean? LMAO!

Who gave the green light?

Saddam Hussein

What about the 2 million dead because of America AND the U.N?

You're answering a question with a question...

What about Bush never fighting in Vietnam while his countrymen were being slaughtered?

You're answering a question with a question... (Bush is terrorist himself)

United states/Capitalism/IMF/World Bank etc. = World destruction, war and poverty,

Exactly my point. And everything that happens with the United States, you use that equation as a reference with no regard to reality.

 

[Ethereal]

And yes they did give the green light.

Were you there when they gave the green light?

-OR-

Did you read about it?

@Nitro I have a question for you. Who was supposed to handle the current Iraqi situation?

United Nations.

 

[HERESY]

@NITRO to answer your question yes I was there when they gave the green light.

Were you there or did you read about it?



So you say the U.N. was SUPPOSED TO HANDLE IT? Interesting.....I'll reply later.

 

[ColdBlooded]

what type killing is acceptable?

Self-defense / Self-preservation

 

[Ethereal]

@NITRO to answer your question yes I was there when they gave the green light.

Where was it.. In Langley? D.C.? U.S. Embassy? Interesting, none the less. I would like to know more. Can you explain where this was?

Were you there or did you read about it?

I'm not making the accusation. I don't think there was anywhere to be.

So you say the U.N. was SUPPOSED TO HANDLE IT? Interesting.....I'll reply later.

Okay.

 

[WT SAVAGE]

damn peole act like these middle east fags aint been killin each other N doing senseless shit for years. "god damn bush, making people murder" lmfao acting like innoicent people havnt been being killed for years, by conflicts( heard or unheard of) under left wing and right wing president.

 

[m.w.merlino]

Its obviously kerry's fault for the beheadings, according to micheal medved if kerry didnt seem like such a wimp insurgents wouldnt be making such a mess, theyre just trying to make bush look bad! DAMN THAT SOCIALIST DOG KERRY!

 

[2-0-Sixx]

There is no green light. We are not between those countries, it is a freeway my friend. I'm going to put it like this. Rather then tell you trhat we didn't give the the green light (which is what I believe), and then have you post 10 articles saying we did, I will resolve this matter another way.

So right off the bat your saying you will not accept any links or documents I provide to prove my point? What is the point of talking to you?

BEFORE the gulf war started, the U.N. security council told Iraq they had to withdraw from Iraq. They DID NOT COMPLY. So Operation Desert storm was launched, and they were driven out.

I do not follow comrade. You’re saying we told Iraq to withdraw from Iraq? Please explain yourself.

What is a green light? Our president saying "go ahead", "sure thing", "I don't care"? Do you have anything other then an article to show we gave them a "green light"? Is it an U.S. ambassador telling Saddam we are not interested in their border disagreement with Kuwait?

If not an article, what do you want, a video or a flash animation?

I can probably already make your arguement for you. I'm sure it invloves 100 things about how the U.S. is to blame for Iraq invading Kuwait. But not a thousand articles will convince me.

So now you’re saying you have already made up your mind, regardless of what evidence I can provide. Again, I see no point in talking to you.

2-0-Sixx, you have a tendancy to believe what you read on the internet, so long as it corresponds with your arguement that, the United States is a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad nation.

I read articles and get my news from reliable sources and apply logic and reason to the best of my ability to determine what is factual and what is not. If what you say is true, then you would see me on some ‘Alex Jones Prisonplanet.com’ type shit, which I have occasionally read and even watched most of the videos. If anything Nitro, it is you who is guilty of picking and choosing what articles fit your argument, just like your entire defense of Agent Orange a few months back.

I believe in logic over [conspiracy] theory.

I believe in logic as well comrade, but that does not mean conspiracies are not logical.

I believe that the invasion of Kuwait can be summed up like so:

Kuwait's oil sales were destroying Iraqi revenues.
-They believed it was because they were drilling into feilds that were not theirs.
-They believed some of the oil was theirs (Iraq's).
-While Iraq raised prices to repay debts, Kuwait dropped prices.

Iraq believed Kuwait was using the Iran-Iraq war to profit. They thought Kuwait was in alliance with Western countries waging economic war against Iraq.

Iraq believed Kuwait was it's own land (and it was), which was granted independance by the british in the late 1800's. They felt the British had no right to seperate the country.

These are what I believe are the most significant causes of the war, there are more, some of which I can not possibly know.

Yes, yes most of this is true but we’re not here to discuss the reasons why Iraq invaded Kuwait, we are discussing America’s involvement in sanctions and the 1st/2nd gulf wars.

2. We did not fuck Iraq as much as Saddam fucked Iraq. Besides there is an entire world of information about Iraq's infastructure that you are neglecting to speak on. Rather then tell you, I want to hear you say it. What is the cause (or causes) for Iraq's economy collapsing with it's basic infastructure being destroyed.

I beg to differ. Sure, Saddam may have fucked their conomy during the Iran/Iraq war but let us not forget in 1990 they still had a basic infrastructure- Less than 5% were unemployed, over 90% had clean drinking water, education, free healthcare, sewage, power etc. etc. etc. To say their basic infrastructure was destroyed is completely preposterous.

It would take just a handfull of countries from the U.N. to destroy America - 32 countries took part in the invasion of Kuwait. You do the math.

I see you skipped a crucial point of my argument.

“What does the U.S do to certain countries who oppose them? Does the US use high-pressure tactics on these countries? (Example: Baker warned Yemeni president Saleh that the US would cut off its $70 million aid package if Yemen voted against them LINK)”

You also either forgot to mention or are unaware that the U.S deliberately lied to the world by saying Iraq had a massive military buildup and was planning to invade Saudi Arabia. But when the war came, the massive military buildup was no where to be found.

You're right, Iran has nothing to do with Kuwait, but it just goes to show of Saddams mental capacity in driving his country to ruins. The Iraq-Iran war is very significant, and should be highlighted, but not at this point because, like you said, it is not relevant to the invasion of Kuwait.

I didn’t want us to get side tracked, but if you want to speak on it, go ahead. I’m well aware of the reasons why Saddam wanted Kuwait and the economic devastation Iraq encountered as a result of the Iran/Iraq war; however I don’t see the function in discussing these motives. I thought we were speaking about America (and the U.N’s) purpose for invading Iraq.

1. Saddam Hussein is to blame for the collapse of Iraq's economy. He lead an invasion in Iran which lasted 8 years. This war by itself completely devastated Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of this war.

For the economy, not their basic infrastructure which remained, for the most part, in tact.

2. U.N. proposals of sanctions remaining in tact as long as Saddam remains in office sounds reasonable to me. He has proved to be nothing but a monster leading his own people to death and his country into complete destruction.

That’s a pretty sick and disgusting attitude if you ask me. Sure, let 2 million + innocent civilians die and deny Iraq basic medication. Sure, let’s punish the people of Iraq because we don’t like their leader.

3. "Why didn’t we use our hundreds of thousands of troops and invade Iraq and remove Saddam?" I wont answer this for one simple reason. You are asking why we didn't do something that, had we accomplished, you would be questioning the motive and reasoning. The United Nations was very invloved in this war, and assassinating the leader was not a part of the agenda.

lol, ok comrade. Let me ask you, Nitro, what the war was about? We’re we just the good and noble country that stepped up for the little guy and protected them? Sure, let us save the little guy who happens to be oil rich, and while were at it, we will use depleted uranium and infect thousands of our own troops (not to mention Iraqi’s and Saudi Arabians) with poisons and deny them basic medical treatment when the return home just to show the world we care. It’s not about strategic military operations, money, or natural resources, it’s because the U.S stands up for what is good and righteous.

“What about the 2 million dead because of America AND the U.N?”
“You're answering a question with a question...”
Yes, I did to prove a point. You call Saddam (Iraq) the bad guy because of something that is not any different from what America has done.

“What about Saddam living in a palace with a zoo while civilians had no driking water?”
“What about Bush never fighting in Vietnam while his countrymen were being slaughtered?”
“You're answering a question with a question... (Bush is terrorist himself)”
Yes, again to prove a point. What is the difference between Saddam living in a palace while his people fight and Bush dodging a war not to fight, or also in bush’s case, living in a palace while his people fight?

Exactly my point. And everything that happens with the United States, you use that equation as a reference with no regard to reality.

How is this reference without regards to reality? What is the purpose of the IMF, World Banks, WTO etc? Has America not been a country of War and bloodshed? Is capitalism not responsible for the exploitation of third world or developing nations, thus leading them to brutal poverty?

 

[Ethereal]

So right off the bat your saying you will not accept any links or documents I provide to prove my point? What is the point of talking to you?

I didn't mean to demand that you not post any, I just want you to understand my position on articles posted online. Go ahead and post them, I might read up.

I do not follow comrade. You’re saying we told Iraq to withdraw from Iraq? Please explain yourself.

I think you do follow. But I guess I just gave you that one.

Iraq was ordered by the U.N. Security Council to evacuate and to stay out of Kuwait. Iraq proceeded to seek and destroy.

I read articles and get my news from reliable sources and apply logic and reason to the best of my ability to determine what is factual and what is not. If what you say is true, then you would see me on some ‘Alex Jones Prisonplanet.com’ type shit, which I have occasionally read and even watched most of the videos. If anything Nitro, it is you who is guilty of picking and choosing what articles fit your argument, just like your entire defense of Agent Orange a few months back.

1. I hardley use articles in my discussions. The only time I spent a significant amount of time collecting articles from the internet was when I made a post entitled "The truth about Iraq" where I layed out testimonies of Iraqi's speaking of the horror under his dictatorship. I used an online article once in this thread, to find out the name of the Ambassador to Iraq because I know that a big misconception came about with what was said during a conversation with the Iraqi president.

2. Why is it that you can talk day and night about Bush and America, but speak nothing of Saddam and Iraq. I just want to know your reasoning. It can not be that "everyone else is talking about that" because there are just a few of us who bring these issues to light. If someone knew nothing of Iraq, and had a conversation with you on the first and second gulf war, they would probably leave thinking Saddam was an innocent guy with best interests for his people - this is just my opinion.

I beg to differ. Sure, Saddam may have fucked their conomy during the Iran/Iraq war but let us not forget in 1990 they still had a basic infrastructure- Less than 5% were unemployed, over 90% had clean drinking water, education, free healthcare, sewage, power etc. etc. etc. To say their basic infrastructure was destroyed is completely preposterous.

How could we possibly know what parts--and to what extent--were destroyed in both the Iran-Iraq war, and the sanctions placed by the United Nations. They were at war for eight long years, how can we expect to know how much damage was caused during that time? Do you understand that bombs were exploding over the duration of these eight long years?

Do you have any information as to the results of the U.N. vote that was responsible for placing sanctions on Iraq?

What does the U.S do to certain countries who oppose them? Does the US use high-pressure tactics on these countries? (Example: Baker warned Yemeni president Saleh that the US would cut off its $70 million aid package if Yemen voted against them LINK)

How the hell would I know, I have yet to attend any U.N. meeting.

Can you also provide information on the reactions of bigger countries (China & Russia) to these supposed threats, seeing as how they are out in the open and available to anyone. I highly doubt these super-power nations just let these things slide.

You also either forgot to mention or are unaware that the U.S deliberately lied to the world by saying Iraq had a massive military buildup and was planning to invade Saudi Arabia. But when the war came, the massive military buildup was no where to be found.

I believe without that, there is still cause for intervention.

That’s a pretty sick and disgusting attitude if you ask me. Sure, let 2 million + innocent civilians die and deny Iraq basic medication. Sure, let’s punish the people of Iraq because we don’t like their leader.

This is a very crucial part of the debate, in deciding if these sanctions were justified.

A few things must be brought to attention:

Did Saddam do anything that would justify the U.N. proposing these sanctions?

-He invaded Iran in 1980 for territory which included oilfields. Once Iran started winning the war, Iranian president stated that he would not stop until Saddam's regime was destroyed (Sounds familiar.. doesn't it?). Saddam then used gas on Iran (A WMD) killing thousands. Was this in violation of anything signed by Iraq in the early 1900's? An estimated 1.5 million died as a result of this war, Saddam's war.

-Two short years later, with the economy of his country devastated, he decides to invade Kuwait for - yet again - territory that was extremely rich in oil fields (that is not once, but twice now that he invaded a country for oil). The United Nations asked him to stand down (1st chance). He did not, and proceeded to wage war on Kuwait.

-He terrorized uncountable men, women, and children, through horrific methods of torture and murder. Thousands and thousands dead at the helm of this monster.

2-0-Sixx, how was Kuwait's infastructure after Saddam's troops ran through the country?

Do you see a consistant problem here? Should the sanctions simply include therapy for Saddam Hussein?

It's not like the U.N. was eyeing Saddam's oil fields and unjustly placed sanctions on Iraq to take away from the revenues. Saddam had an extremely destructive pattern and did a lot of destruction in this world. I feel like I'm watering it all down by saying it so much, but I do not think you are even close to comprehending how many people died because of him.

Now to resolve the matter of my "sickening" comment. To say that I am a sick person for those comments is not right. It's basically like asking me:

1. Would you rather have 2million dead as a result of sanctions (that could be resolved if Saddam quits).

2. Have 2million dead as a result of his war on other countries, including his own people (with no possible way out).

I'm a suck fucking puppy either way if I chose an option. I would rather Saddam did not invade Iran; I would rather he not invade Kuwait; I would rather he face his punishment (of leaving office - wow) but he couldn't. What the fuck could anyone do about it? So the U.N. thought of the worst possible thing (aside from burning the entire country) by placing sanctions. There is no way Saddam would let the children of his land die by the thousands. Wrong. He stayed in his palace, feasted with his golden spoon and watched them all die. If it helps any, yes I would rather Saddam keep killing grown men and women, some children, as opposed to mostly children, some women and men (by way of sanctions).

Did the U.N./U.S. have the right to demand Saddam out of office? What do you think?

The United States did this? I'm sorry comrade, I can not rightly side with you. The U.S. has done a lot of things I don't agree with, but invading Iraq in the first war is not one of them.

Right now America headed down the same path as Saddam was with Iraq, there is no doubt about that. But it's more subliminal and secretive. I do not support America in it's attempts to combat terrorism. This is not about me backing up America, it is about bringing down one of the worst dictators since Hitler.

lol, ok comrade. Let me ask you, Nitro, what the war was about? We’re we just the good and noble country that stepped up for the little guy and protected them? Sure, let us save the little guy who happens to be oil rich, and while were at it, we will use depleted uranium and infect thousands of our own troops (not to mention Iraqi’s and Saudi Arabians) with poisons and deny them basic medical treatment when the return home just to show the world we care. It’s not about strategic military operations, money, or natural resources, it’s because the U.S stands up for what is good and righteous.

I don't know about all that. But honestly, I don't have the patience to weed through your sarcasm.

Yes, I did to prove a point. You call Saddam (Iraq) the bad guy because of something that is not any different from what America has done.

No you didn't prove a point because I never said anything to the liking of America as a good and honest country.

Yes, again to prove a point. What is the difference between Saddam living in a palace while his people fight and Bush dodging a war not to fight, or also in bush’s case, living in a palace while his people fight?

I'm talking about living in a palace while thousands of children are dying each month, not "fighting". Again, no point.

How is this reference without regards to reality? What is the purpose of the IMF, World Banks, WTO etc? Has America not been a country of War and bloodshed? Is capitalism not responsible for the exploitation of third world or developing nations, thus leading them to brutal poverty?

Who is denying any of this? Really, you keep on saying "what about America", "What about Bush?"... what about them? When did I say Bush is an angel and America is a sweetheart?

Excuse the typos.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

As long as Saddam Hussein acted in the interests of the west, repressing his own people and confining his aggression to its enemies, he could be assured of support. Once he developed ambitions that threatened those interests, such as the invasion of Kuwait, he was branded a “new Hitler” who had to be stopped at all costs.

I stumbled across this quote and thought it was funny that you also labeled Saddam as being the new Hitler or worst since.

I’m only going to reply to the parts I feel are important. If you feel I should have commented on something, please let me know.

First off, you stated:

Do you have any information as to the results of the U.N. vote that was responsible for placing sanctions on Iraq?

How the hell would I know, I have yet to attend any U.N. meeting.

Can you also provide information on the reactions of bigger countries (China & Russia) to these supposed threats, seeing as how they are out in the open and available to anyone. I highly doubt these super-power nations just let these things slide.

Yes, comrade, I’m glad you asked. The point I was getting at is that the U.S used threats, bribery and intimidation to achieve their “coalition” of states opposing Iraq. To minimize protest throughout the Arabic world, the U.S.made absolutely certain other Arabic countries would join this coalition. This included the “pardon” of Egypt’s $14 billion debt to the World Bank, and support for Syria to install a puppet government in Lebanon and squash the opposition to its military there. Iran was simply bought off with a US promise to drop its opposition to a series of World Bank loans. The Bank approved the first loan of $250m on the day before the ground attack on Iraq. To get USSR and prevent them from usingg there veto, the US convinced Saudi Arabia to make a $1 billion “gift” to Moscow. Soon after there was another $3 billion from other Gulf States. The US also stayed silent when the Soviet military went into Lithuania to crush revolutionaries or the opposition. To get China, the U.S. offered loans and helped bring the Chinese government back from the international exile status it had earned with its 1989 repression of the Tiananmen Square democracy movement. Zaire was given an undisclosed “debt forgiveness” and military supplies, in return for minimizing any protests.

After all of that was in place, when the final voting occurred on resolution 687 (Jan 1991) only two Security Council members voted against, one was Yemen (which I linked previously) and the other Cuba. Yemen’s ambassador to the UN was told by the US “That was the most expensive ‘no’ vote you ever cast.” Just a few days later, the US cut off millions of dollars in aid to Yemen. Then Saudi Arabia expelled over 800,000 Yemini “guest” workers from their country.

Iraq was ordered by the U.N. Security Council to evacuate and to stay out of Kuwait. Iraq proceeded to seek and destroy.

Hardly the case, but let’s back up just a little. I’m going to state the obvious, but I feel it is necessary to do so. I should have went over this in the beginning, but I didn’t think this thread would get this deep. So, for many years the strategy for controlling oil resources and “preserving the status quo” in the Middle East was essentially based on support for a number of key states in the area. Originally it was always Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turky and Iran under the Shaw. In 1979 when the Shaw was overthrown, this was a huge blow to the U.S and the other imperialist nations. The US quickly reacted by shifting all their support to Saddam.

You’re right, Iraq did invade Iran in 1980, but remember Nitro they did so with the encouragement of the U.S. This war was brutal, I completely agree, however the US deliberately prolonged the war by selling arms to both sides. When in looked like Iran was winning the war in ’87, the U.S shifted decisively towards Iraq. "While we want no victor, we can’t stand to see Iraq defeated," - Assistant U.S. Defence Secretary Richard Armitage. “the U.S. intervention had little to do with defending ‘freedom of the seas’ or neutrality. - Reagan National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane.

After the IRAN]/IRAQ war, the US sought to build Saddam as its new strongman in the gulf. (remember just two years before the gulf war). Iraq received major amounts of weapons, technical assistance and economic aid. “In April 1990, four moths before the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein received a delegation of senators who reaffirmed US support for his regime. Bob Dole assured Saddam that President Bush would veto any threatened UN sanctions on Iraq, while Alan Simpson lamented the unfair press the regime was receiving.”

And yes Nitro, I will comment on the Ambassador in Iraq, Glaspie, who told Iraq "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait." So the US appeared to be giving a “green light” to Iraq taking over a few oil fields along its border with Kuwait. What else was Saddam to think- the U.S was providing him with weapons, money and aid (just months prior) and apparently had no concern about Kuwait.

How could we possibly know what parts--and to what extent--were destroyed in both the Iran-Iraq war, and the sanctions placed by the United Nations. They were at war for eight long years, how can we expect to know how much damage was caused during that time? Do you understand that bombs were exploding over the duration of these eight long years?

Because of the reports that came out during the time. I made a thread not to long ago, I believe it’s on the 2nd or 3rd page titled “What have we done to Iraq.” Those are facts about Iraq’s infrastructure during the current war, during the time of sanctions and in 1990. According to these reports Water, Power, Sewage, Education, Health Care etc. were all in tact and available for the majority of the people of Iraq. We completey annihilated their infrastructure during the 1st gulf war, and that’s a fact. We dropped 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq and Kuwait--the most concentrated aerial bombardment in the history of warfare.( 70 percent of all U.S. bombs missed their targets.) Destroying Iraq’s infrastructure was no accident, it was an plain strategy. "Amid mounting evidence of Iraq’s ruined infrastructure and the painful consequences for ordinary Iraqis, Pentagon officials more readily acknowledge the severe impact of the 43-day air bombardment on Iraq’s economic future and civilian population," Barton Gellman of the Washington Post wrote a few months after the war.

Did Saddam do anything that would justify the U.N. proposing these sanctions?

Whether you agree if Saddam was a bad guy or not, no country, I don’t care if you were Hitler reincarnated, deserves the sanctions that were set on Iraq. Were not talking about just Saddam and his troops, were talking about THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ. Innocent civilians: men, women, children, the elderly and the sick- all were denied basic medication, food, clean drinking water, and in many places- electricity, etc. As you stated, Saddam is up ‘chillin in his palace’, than why kill the people? Why? You have already admitted- Iraq’s Economy was doomed, their basic infrastructure destroyed. What possibly could Saddam achieve?

It is sick Nitro, and I’m not going to discuss it any further. You are simply supporting the death of 2 million plus simply because you disagree with Saddam or “the new Hitler” as your government once called him.

2-0-Sixx, how was Kuwait's infastructure after Saddam's troops ran through the country?

Not entirely sure about their infrastructure but I know the Gulf War was supposed to bring in a “New World Order” of peace and democracy in Kuwait. After “Saddam’s troops ran through the country” and they were quickly kicked out, the US restored power to the “al-Sabah dynasty.” Under them only 3% of Kuwaitis had political rights. Women were denied the right to vote. Al-Sabah had a pretty crazy campaign of terror against Palenstinian immigrants. Thousands of Palestinians were imprisons and executed. Around 400,000 Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait and other gulf states. Not that pretty.

I would also like to add that over 1 million rounds of depleted uranium shells were used by the U.S. in Kuwait and Iraq.

2. Why is it that you can talk day and night about Bush and America, but speak nothing of Saddam and Iraq. I just want to know your reasoning. It can not be that "everyone else is talking about that" because there are just a few of us who bring these issues to light. If someone knew nothing of Iraq, and had a conversation with you on the first and second gulf war, they would probably leave thinking Saddam was an innocent guy with best interests for his people - this is just my opinion.

I’ve stated numerous times that Saddam is a piece of shit. I’ve even stated that I prefer him dead. However, knowing what I know about the 1st & 2nd gulf wars and the US sanctions, you’re damn right I’m talking day and night about Bush and Amerikkka. “We fucked the Middle East and gave birth to a demon.” – Immortal Technique

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Who is denying any of this? Really, you keep on saying "what about America", "What about Bush?"... what about them? When did I say Bush is an angel and America is a sweetheart?

Spin, spin spin. Nitro, you stated “Exactly my point. And everything that happens with the United States, you use that equation as a reference with no regard to reality.” I replied “How is this reference without regards to reality? What is the purpose of the IMF, World Banks, WTO etc? Has America not been a country of War and bloodshed? Is capitalism not responsible for the exploitation of third world or developing nations, thus leading them to brutal poverty?” And you agree? Lol. Please don’t respond to this portion. It really is pointless.

 

[GUILLOTINE]

GREED is to blame bottom line. Self defense is not an act of violence. So i blame greedy foriegners who made a bad situation in Iraq even worse.

 

[Vince V.]

I support America.

If you can't stand behind your own country and president , then get the fuck outta here. Fuck sadaam and Osama- Thery're ALL terrorists in one form or another. Not everything works out as planned. They've all been plottin on the U.S. for years, we gotta defend ourselves. If that means getting them before they get us. I can live with that.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

If you can't stand behind your own country and president , then get the fuck outta here.

lol, you're right comrade. You are UNamerikan if you disagree or criticize your country. You are unamerikan if you think for yourself or have an opinion that differs from our leaders. True amerikans blindly follow their unelected presidents and support them undoubtedly. This great country of ours was built on ‘freedom to shut the hell up’ and ‘do as we’re told.’

 

[Vince V.]

^^^^^^^^^

NObody said anything about being UnAmerican.?? Sorry you feel that way.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

You stated that any American living in this country that does not support our current president should "get the fuck out of here." You still stand by that statement? Should all Americans shut the fuck up and not express their opinions?

 

[Ethereal]

I stumbled across this quote and thought it was funny that you also labeled Saddam as being the new Hitler or worst since.

Do you think another countries support for Saddam or Iraq make his dictatorship any less evil? Do you think that if the U.S. supported him 100% of the way, that Saddam is any better of a person? I said he is one of the worst dictators since Hitler because of the number of people he killed, for what reasons, and in what manner, not because your government told me.

After all of that was in place, when the final voting occurred on resolution 687 (Jan 1991) only two Security Council members voted against, one was Yemen (which I linked previously) and the other Cuba. Yemen’s ambassador to the UN was told by the US “That was the most expensive ‘no’ vote you ever cast.” Just a few days later, the US cut off millions of dollars in aid to Yemen. Then Saudi Arabia expelled over 800,000 Yemini “guest” workers from their country.

Did the U.S. bribe these countries to change their vote or to assure their vote. Not that it makes much difference. A bribe is a bribe, but if they were all voting the same way anyhow, it might mean something.

Exactly how many countries did the U.S. allegedly bribe, and how many countries voted. And again, do you have the results of the vote?

Hardly the case, but let’s back up just a little. I’m going to state the obvious, but I feel it is necessary to do so. I should have went over this in the beginning, but I didn’t think this thread would get this deep. So, for many years the strategy for controlling oil resources and “preserving the status quo” in the Middle East was essentially based on support for a number of key states in the area. Originally it was always Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turky and Iran under the Shaw. In 1979 when the Shaw was overthrown, this was a huge blow to the U.S and the other imperialist nations. The US quickly reacted by shifting all their support to Saddam.

All their support to Iraq.. and not Israel or Saudi Arabia? Doesn't sound right.

You’re right, Iraq did invade Iran in 1980, but remember Nitro they did so with the encouragement of the U.S. This war was brutal, I completely agree, however the US deliberately prolonged the war by selling arms to both sides. When in looked like Iran was winning the war in ’87, the U.S shifted decisively towards Iraq. "While we want no victor, we can’t stand to see Iraq defeated," - Assistant U.S. Defence Secretary Richard Armitage. “the U.S. intervention had little to do with defending ‘freedom of the seas’ or neutrality. - Reagan National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane.

1. I am not going to blame the U.S. for Iran-Iran deaths. There were a shitload of countries arming the two sides including Russia, why didn't you mention any of them? You are reaching to far now.

2. I am not going to deny that the U.S. supported both sides, but they weren't the only ones, and they weren't pulling the triggers. Support is nothing compared to the elements of war.

After the IRAN]/IRAQ war, the US sought to build Saddam as its new strongman in the gulf. (remember just two years before the gulf war). Iraq received major amounts of weapons, technical assistance and economic aid. “In April 1990, four moths before the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein received a delegation of senators who reaffirmed US support for his regime. Bob Dole assured Saddam that President Bush would veto any threatened UN sanctions on Iraq, while Alan Simpson lamented the unfair press the regime was receiving.”

Listen to yourself, your trying to shift blame of the war from Saddam to the U.S.

And yes Nitro, I will comment on the Ambassador in Iraq, Glaspie, who told Iraq "we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait." So the US appeared to be giving a “green light” to Iraq taking over a few oil fields along its border with Kuwait. What else was Saddam to think- the U.S was providing him with weapons, money and aid (just months prior) and apparently had no concern about Kuwait.

That is not even close to a green light, and it honestly goes to show how some of you people take things and twist them in your favor. Then you teach them as if they are concrete, solid facts of life. Who is the United States to give the green light? We do not control the stoplight between the two countries. If I told you, 2-0-Sixx, this punk I know keeps trying to hit on my girlfriend, using my name, talking shit about me, and I told you I was going to beat his ass, you told me you didn't care either way, do I have the "green light" to mop his ass? The United States does not have the authority to give the green light. We can literally, go on the border, and hold up a huge green light, and it would mean absolutely nothing in terms of justified war.

Let me put it this way to simplify things. When Saddam faces trial, and they question him on the invasion of Kuwait, and he tells the judge that "The United States gave me the green light" do you think that judge is not going to laugh in his high chair?

Because of the reports that came out during the time. I made a thread not to long ago, I believe it’s on the 2nd or 3rd page titled “What have we done to Iraq.” Those are facts about Iraq’s infrastructure during the current war, during the time of sanctions and in 1990. According to these reports Water, Power, Sewage, Education, Health Care etc. were all in tact and available for the majority of the people of Iraq. We completey annihilated their infrastructure during the 1st gulf war, and that’s a fact. We dropped 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq and Kuwait--the most concentrated aerial bombardment in the history of warfare.( 70 percent of all U.S. bombs missed their targets.) Destroying Iraq’s infrastructure was no accident, it was an plain strategy. "Amid mounting evidence of Iraq’s ruined infrastructure and the painful consequences for ordinary Iraqis, Pentagon officials more readily acknowledge the severe impact of the 43-day air bombardment on Iraq’s economic future and civilian population," Barton Gellman of the Washington Post wrote a few months after the war.

Sad, very sad. I'm not going to argue any further that some of the damage came during the Iran war, because whats done is done.

Whether you agree if Saddam was a bad guy or not, no country, I don’t care if you were Hitler reincarnated, deserves the sanctions that were set on Iraq. Were not talking about just Saddam and his troops, were talking about THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ. Innocent civilians: men, women, children, the elderly and the sick- all were denied basic medication, food, clean drinking water, and in many places- electricity, etc. As you stated, Saddam is up ‘chillin in his palace’, than why kill the people? Why? You have already admitted- Iraq’s Economy was doomed, their basic infrastructure destroyed. What possibly could Saddam achieve?

What could he achieve? He could have the sanctions lifted by leaving office. Why do you neglect to place any of the blame on Saddam for bringing the sanctions on?

It is sick Nitro, and I’m not going to discuss it any further. You are simply supporting the death of 2 million plus simply because you disagree with Saddam or “the new Hitler” as your government once called him.

Well I will leave this part, and I will assert that contrary to the dead children as a result of U.N. sanctions, you support the bloody death of 2million in Kuwait, Iran, and Iraq; and that my friend, is very sick. Like I said before I'm a sick puppy either way, so I choose neither.

Not entirely sure about their infrastructure but I know the Gulf War was supposed to bring in a “New World Order” of peace and democracy in Kuwait. After “Saddam’s troops ran through the country” and they were quickly kicked out, the US restored power to the “al-Sabah dynasty.” Under them only 3% of Kuwaitis had political rights. Women were denied the right to vote. Al-Sabah had a pretty crazy campaign of terror against Palenstinian immigrants. Thousands of Palestinians were imprisons and executed. Around 400,000 Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait and other gulf states. Not that pretty.

So the U.S. is to blame for Iraq invading Iran; the war lasting so long; Iraq invading Kuwait (the ole' green light); Corrupt Kuwait government; Sanctions in Iraq killing 2 million; Saddam being an evil dictator in the first place; Saddam using WMD (we gave them to him). Well, I guess I am outwitted in this debate. But I am laughing whole heartidly at your assertions.

I’ve stated numerous times that Saddam is a piece of shit. I’ve even stated that I prefer him dead. However, knowing what I know about the 1st & 2nd gulf wars and the US sanctions, you’re damn right I’m talking day and night about Bush and Amerikkka. “We fucked the Middle East and gave birth to a demon.” – Immortal Technique

And the things I know about Saddam are what allows me to speak day and night of his tyranny, while negelecting to speak on the evils within America, just as it does for you but only the opposite. Are you any more justified in your discussions than I am of mine? If not then would I be any less justified in saying you support Saddam (because you neglect to speak of his tyranny) just as you say I support Bush (for neglecting to speak on his tyranny)?

Something to think about. And one you understand what it all means, then you will understand me a lot more, and how I do not support Bush one bit.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Do you think another countries support for Saddam or Iraq make his dictatorship any less evil? Do you think that if the U.S. supported him 100% of the way, that Saddam is any better of a person? I said he is one of the worst dictators since Hitler because of the number of people he killed, for what reasons, and in what manner, not because your government told me.

Pointless

Did the U.S. bribe these countries to change their vote or to assure their vote. Not that it makes much difference. A bribe is a bribe, but if they were all voting the same way anyhow, it might mean something.

Most countries don’t vote for war unless they benefit from it somehow.

Exactly how many countries did the U.S. allegedly bribe, and how many countries voted. And again, do you have the results of the vote?

When I get home I can post the exact numbers.

All their support to Iraq.. and not Israel or Saudi Arabia? Doesn't sound right.

I didn’t mean literally all of their support and none towards anyone else.

1. I am not going to blame the U.S. for Iran-Iran deaths. There were a shitload of countries arming the two sides including Russia, why didn't you mention any of them? You are reaching to far now.

And those other countries are to blame as well. Remember NITRO, this thread is regarding the U.S (and U.N) involvement in Iraq. Not Russia and Iraq. If you want to discuss the fucked up shit in Russia, make a thread. I bet I’ll be one of the first to point out many of their problems.

Listen to yourself, your trying to shift blame of the war from Saddam to the U.S.

No I am not. I simply stated what happened.

That is not even close to a green light, and it honestly goes to show how some of you people take things and twist them in your favor.

Ok, sure. We give Iraq money, weapons and aid just months before Kuwait and when Saddam (Iraq) basically stated they were planning an attack the U.S shrugged their shoulders as if they did not care.

Comrade, I think you are missing my entire point. My argument was never about if we should have attacked Iraq or “saved Kuwait”, I was stating that what we did was COMPLETELY unnecessary. The insane bombings of the 1st gulfwar and the inhumane sanctions placed after were completely barbaric.

The United States does not have the authority to give the green light.

They shouldn’t have the right, but is that reality???

Let me put it this way to simplify things. When Saddam faces trial, and they question him on the invasion of Kuwait, and he tells the judge that "The United States gave me the green light" do you think that judge is not going to laugh in his high chair?

The entire trial will be a joke.

Sad, very sad. I'm not going to argue any further that some of the damage came during the Iran war, because whats done is done.

Well, that’s my whole fucking point of this conversation. At least comment comrade, give me that much. At least admit that the sanctions were inhumane and immoral.

Well I will leave this part, and I will assert that contrary to the dead children as a result of U.N. sanctions, you support the bloody death of 2million in Kuwait, Iran, and Iraq; and that my friend, is very sick. Like I said before I'm a sick puppy either way, so I choose neither.

lol, please point out when I ever supported the invasion of Kuwait and the Iran/Iraq war? Please, point to just one little tiny hint that I supported these wars. Remember comrade, the U.S supported these wars, not me. Don’t get it twisted.

So the U.S. is to blame for Iraq invading Iran; the war lasting so long; Iraq invading Kuwait (the ole' green light); Corrupt Kuwait government; Sanctions in Iraq killing 2 million; Saddam being an evil dictator in the first place; Saddam using WMD (we gave them to him). Well, I guess I am outwitted in this debate. But I am laughing whole heartidly at your assertions.

You see, there you again. Keep twisting my words. I never solely placed the blame on the U.S, I stated exactly and precisely what happened. I commented on the U.S strategic and deliberate manipulation of the Mid-East. Take it how you want to.

I do not support Bush one bit.

Good. But I remember a time when you did and when you criticized the anti-war members of the sicc. You were “fooled” or “deceived” or however you want to put it; you believed the WMD’s stories and lies and ignored intelligence and sources that said otherwise. Just remember that every time you think you know for certain about American history. Basically the same Administration we have now was in power during the 1st gulf war.

 

[Ethereal]

Good. But I remember a time when you did and when you criticized the anti-war members of the sicc. You were “fooled” or “deceived” or however you want to put it; you believed the WMD’s stories and lies and ignored intelligence and sources that said otherwise. Just remember that every time you think you know for certain about American history. Basically the same Administration we have now was in power during the 1st gulf war.

I know what your trying to do, which is point out that under no circumstances can I ever claim that everything I say concerning politics is correct, because of this "flaw" in my beliefs. But let me tell you why it won't work. I was not fooled or deceived into believing anything. I never really gave a fuck about WMD (and I said this on more then one occasion that it was a method of gaining entry), but I believe now, just as I did then, that they were present in Iraq. What I was more concerned with was Saddam and his 23 years of dictatorship, and that has not changed.

I did and still do support an effort to combat Saddam and his regime. The only thing that has changed is my support for Bush. I was never given a chance to see what type of person he was until he invaded Iraq. I still criticize the antiwar members of the sicc because like you, they are nothing but critics.

So with that I am going to stop in this discussion because it is impossible for me to win or pursuade you in your beliefs because:

1. There are still dead children because of both of these wars.
2. You are just a critic, with absolutely no opinion on how things could have, or should have been handeled.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

lol@ just being a critic. So, in your eyes Nitro, all 2-0-Sixx does is criticize bush on the siccness. Yes, Nitro that is soley my purpose in life. Forget about what I do outside of the Internet. Forget about all the shit I do on the streets, the people I talk to, the political party I'm activity involved in, the meetings/protests/marches/rallies etc. Forget about all that- I am simply a critic.

You're right Nitro. I have absolutely no opinion on how things should have been handled. I never once said we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Nope, never. I never once said we shouldn't have placed such strict sanctions. I never once said we could have handled certain situations differently. I am simply a critic, with no opinion.

You're truly unbelievable Nitro. Thanks for wasting my time...again.