You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).
Not sure about Iraq? (or one of the longest posts ever) [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

PDA

View Full Version : Not sure about Iraq? (or one of the longest posts ever)


erole
03-06-2003, 10:27 PM
Not sure why we are going? Confused if it's worth it? Then read.
Reasons:

Near nuclear capabilities

Terrorist ties

A known secret terrorist training camp called Salman Pak in an area south of Baghdad. Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities ... how to prepare for suicidal operations

Terrorized its own citizens by evading UN weapons' inspections and by diverting oil-for-food funds to the military.

Saddam Hussein has contravened a wide range of international laws, including the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Charter and the 1951 Genocide Convention. His crimes against humanity include the deportation and extermination of Iraqi citizens, scientific experiments on human beings and the elimination of whole village populations in "reprisals".

Attacks against the Iraqi Kurds. The government's notorious attacks on the Iraqi Kurds have come in phases. Between 1977 and 1987, some 4,500-5,000 Kurdish villages were systematically destroyed and their inhabitants forcibly removed and made to live in resettlement camps.

Commencing in the spring of 1987, thousands of Iraqi Kurds were killed during chemical and conventional bombardments.

From February to September 1988, the Iraqi government launched the official Anfal campaign, during which Iraqi troops swept through the highlands of Iraqi Kurdistan rounding up everyone who remained in government-declared "prohibited zones." More than 100,000 Kurds, mostly men and boys, were trucked to remote sites and executed. Use of chemical weapons reached a peak in March 1988; in the town of Halabja alone, where a documented 3,200 people are believed to have died from chemical gas attacks, and the actual number may be more than 5,000. The killings constitute acts of genocide. The killings, forcible and arbitrary transfer of populations, and chemical weapons attacks amount to crimes against humanity.

Forced expulsion of ethnic minorities from Kirkuk. Since 1991, Iraqi authorities have forcibly expelled over 120,000 Kurds, Turcomans and Assyrians from their homes in the oil-rich region of Kirkuk and neighboring towns and villages. The systematic forcible transfer of the population, a process referred to by the authorities as Arabization, has been accompanied by the resettling of Arab families brought from southern Iraq to replace those evicted. This policy continues to be implemented.

Repression of the Marsh Arabs and other Shi`a. During the early years of the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi government arrested thousands of Shi`a Muslims on the charge of supporting the 1979 revolution in Iran. Many have disappeared or remain unaccounted for; others died under torture or were executed. This campaign was followed by the forced expulsion of over half a million Shi`a during the 1980s to Iran, after the separation out of many male family members. These men and boys, estimated to number between 50,000-70,000, were arrested and imprisoned indefinitely without charge; most remain unaccounted for.

After the Gulf War, in southern Iraq, members of the Shi`a majority rose up in revolt against the Iraqi leadership. In response, thousands of Shi`a including hundreds of clerics and their students, were imprisoned without charge or disappeared in state custody. Hundreds were summarily executed. Many Shi`a shrines and institutions were demolished by government forces. In the southeast, after tens of thousands of Shi`a Muslim civilians, army deserters, and rebels, primarily from the cities of Basra, al-Amara, and al-Nasiriyya, sought precarious shelter in remote areas of the marshes that straddle the Iranian border, Iraq's military and security forces shelled and launched military raids against them. The raids caused thousands of so-called Marsh Arabs to flee to Iran and many others to become internally displaced within Iraq. Many of these attacks against the Shi`a amount to crimes against humanity.

Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein have suffered a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally re

Death Metal Moe
03-06-2003, 11:00 PM
<IMG SRC=http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpolitics/0209/quote.gallery2/02.tom.daschle.jpg>

"That's still not enough to send in troops. We need a smoking gun. We need UN approval. We need more inspections. Iraq didn't attack us. We're not winning the war on terror."

Shut the fuck up Dashle, you little fucking maggot.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<b>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!</b>
<A HREF="http://www.pub21.ezboard.com/bonaarmy">JOIN THE O&A ARMY!!!</A>

TheMojoPin
03-06-2003, 11:04 PM
Site your sources or else you'll have to repeat third period health class.

You brought up Salman Pak, which is relatively well documented. See the following for an example. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm I have no problem taking these guys out. Unfortunately, our government has yet to see fit to even bother to declare them as even a possible reason as to why we may need to insert our millitary into Iraq. Oh my, NO, it's either all Al-Queda all the time or NO DICE, PONCHO.

And the Khurds. Those poor, poor Khurds. A group of people who have been nothing but abused and massacred for basically just wanting a better life for themselves. Seems like a good reason to take out Saddam, right? Would have been a LOT stronger if we had actually acted when the gassings had occured. This "wait for it...wait for it...WAIT FOR IT" idea of retribution is just GAY, plain and simple. And the Khurds are never used as a direct reason for invasion...no, it's always, "well, look what he did to the Khurds! He might try and do it to US next!" Bullshit.

Go in and kick Saddam's ass eight times 'til next Tuesday. I'm all for that. Just quit giving me pussy, half-true, smoke and mirrors reasons for doing it. Instead of using the REAL reasons for why we should be going in, the government decides to use those reasons as reasons why Iraq might possibly could be maybe doing something else that just might maybe some day if we have the time kill us all. CALL HIM ON THE PROVEN BULLSHIT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ONLY ABOUT US TO DO THE RIGHT THING. Saddam's got until Monday to do whatever the hell Bush is pretending he wants Hussein to do. After that, it's fair game. It's just too bad it's under horseshit reasoning.

Damn fine post, erole. Maybe you should try forwarding it to the White House.


<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."



This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-7-03 @ 3:19 AM

Death Metal Moe
03-06-2003, 11:07 PM
He did at the end of his post Mojo.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<b>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!</b>
<A HREF="http://www.pub21.ezboard.com/bonaarmy">JOIN THE O&A ARMY!!!</A>

TheMojoPin
03-06-2003, 11:25 PM
And so he did. Good eye.

But Bush is still a soft bitch.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

Gvac
03-07-2003, 02:19 AM
No one will ever convince me Hussein's NOT tied to terrorism. I've been sure about this all along.

http://gvac.50megs.com/images/what_price_glory_1.jpg

afterganger
03-07-2003, 03:50 AM
There's an interesting investigation that was done by Jayna Davis in Oklahoma City. Take a look at her website. A warning, the governtment obviously hasn't acknowldged pubically anything she or Laurie Mylroie claims to have discovered years ago or they'd be drumming it up for the impending war. Whether that makes it false or a coverup of some sort, I don't know. but several newspapers have reported on the stories and a Penn. Senator has brought it up recently in Congress. So if you believe it, you can always contact your Senator.

www.jayna davis.com

I forgot the right way to set up the html tag that someone told me once already, sorry.

tom

jratt
03-07-2003, 04:09 AM
I can't wait to read the responses from all the people that say we are wrong to attack sadam
even thow this should have been done 10 years ago under clintons admin.that is the only thing i see wrong with this.thanx for the info....make love not war?????no no no no
kill sadam then make love

jratt AKA johnbravo
Don't talk about unity ever again...
my ears are closed talk to the fist!!
NJBLOOBLINE
FBP 4 LIFE

stickyfingers
03-07-2003, 05:36 AM
erole...i just printed out your post and intend to use its contents in an attempt to make myself look more informed....thanks budday





"lemme tell ya sumpin" -CW

A.J.
03-07-2003, 05:47 AM
This worries me:

Iraq Giving Own Forces Western Uniforms in Ploy
Thu Mar 6, 5:06 PM ET

By Charles Aldinger and Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has ordered uniforms replicating those worn by U.S. and British troops and will issue them to paramilitary fighters who would attack Iraqi civilians and blame it on Western forces, the U.S. Central Command charged on Thursday.

A command spokesman said in a statement that U.S. intelligence had obtained the information, but refused to say how such intelligence was gathered or provide any details.

The accusation was another in a series of allegations that have been made by Washington in a war of words with Saddam as tension grows ahead of a possible U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to rid that country of alleged chemical and biological weapons.

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has ordered the procurement of military uniforms identical down to the last detail to those of the United States and United Kingdom forces" now gathered in the Gulf, said James Wilkinson, a senior spokesman for Central Command.

"Saddam intends to issue these uniforms to 'Fedayeen Saddam' troops who would wear them when conducting reprisals against the Iraqi people so that they could pass the atrocities off as the work of the United States and the United Kingdom."

A "fact sheet" provided by Central Command, which is headquartered in Tampa, Florida, and has responsibility for any war in Iraq, said that Fedayeen Saddam, or "Men of Sacrifice," has a strength of more than 15,000 and was founded by Saddam's son, Uday, in 1994.

Many members of the organization are in their teens and recruited in areas noted for loyalty to Iraq's president, according to Central Command.

"Though not an elite force, the group does deal with unrest during an emergency," it added. "The force carries out patrols and anti-smuggling duties and is separate from the army command, reporting directly to the presidential palace."

The Pentagon has also charged that Saddam is putting military targets near civilian sites and may be planning a "scorched earth" policy of setting fire to oil fields and destroying power plants and food stocks in any conflict, then blaming that on any attackers.

"This campaign of fear and misinformation would represent the latest chapter in Saddam Hussein's long history of brutal crimes against the innocent people of Iraq," Wilkinson said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20030306/ts_nm/iraq_usa_uniforms_dc

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

Patches
03-07-2003, 05:51 AM
you had me at hello. You had me at hello.

<IMG SRC=http://www.imahosting.com/sigs/sigpic4.jpg>

<b>Osama Bin Laden, you can kiss my royal Irish ass! And I live in Rockaway. And this is my face, bitch!
-FF Mike Moran</b>

Se7en
03-07-2003, 05:57 AM
But I thought......I thought inspections worked......

Oh fuck that, let's just kill the son of a bitch already.

"That's still not enough to send in troops. We need a smoking gun. We need UN approval. We need more inspections. Iraq didn't attack us. We're not winning the war on terror."

I so hope we capture Osama this weekend, if for no other reason that to give this ass the middle finger.

The thing that pisses me off about the "we're not winning the war on terror" argument - destroying Iraq is PART OF the war on terror.

<img border="0" src="http://Se7enRFNet.homestead.com/files/se7en.jpg" width="300" height="100">

I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.

"I was here before the oceans turned black with life, and when the deserts are white with death I will remain."
---Saint Iago

TooCute
03-07-2003, 06:40 AM
The thing that pisses me off about the "we're not winning the war on terror" argument - destroying Iraq is PART OF the war on terror

You mean taking out Saddamm Hussein is (or may be, at least in the Al-Queda context that George W. seems to want to put it in) part of the war on terror. Not taking out Iraq. Saddam has done a pretty good job of 'taking out Iraq' on his own.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

TheMojoPin
03-07-2003, 07:54 AM
Again, take out Saddam. I'm all for it.

BUT DO IT FOR REAL REASONS.

Quit lying to my fucking face. I don't like it.

It's really that simple.

I have NO doubt that Saddam directly supports certain Palestinian and pro-Palestinian terror groups. Go with it. Quit giving me this Al-Queda crap. It's insulting. Quit saying Iraq is a threat to US. It's insulting.

Again, I want Saddam Hussein out. I just also want at the same time for our government to step up and stop trying to dress up the issue.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-7-03 @ 11:59 AM

HBox
03-07-2003, 09:01 AM
I can't wait to read the responses from all the people that say we are wrong to attack sadam
even thow this should have been done 10 years ago under clintons admin.that is the only thing i see wrong with this.thanx for the info....make love not war?????no no no no
kill sadam then make love



Hey douchebag, I assume you are reffering to the gulf war. The president back then was BUSH, not Clinton, so fuck you.

The only reason we are attacking Saddam is because we can do it easily. Why are we doing nothing on North Korea? THEY HAVE NUKES THAT CAN REACH US RIGHT NOW! And we are doing NOTHING! We don't even have diplomatic relations right now with them so how are we supposed to use diplomacy? We are basically letting Japan and South Korea negotiate, but its pretty obvious they want our attention. How about Iran? They are developing nukes as well. They are a bigger supporter of terrorism. And speaking of supporters of terror, how about Saudi Arabia? Or how about Syria? Or how about Pakistan?

And if we are concerned with human rights, how about we free China? You can find plenty on their stellar record at hrw.org. There are many brutal regimes in Africa that could use liberation. Where does this all stop?

We want to attack Iraq because of it is a danger to us, but there are bigger dangers. We want to attack Iraq because of its ties to terror, but there a much bigger supporters of terror. We want to attack Iraq because Hussein is a brutal dictator, but there are other dictators just as bad. If taking over Iraq would be as difficult as taking over North Korea, we sure as hell wouldn't even be thinking about it.

A.J.
03-07-2003, 09:14 AM
even thow this should have been done 10 years ago under clintons admin.


Hey douchebag, I assume you are reffering to the gulf war. The president back then was BUSH, not Clinton, so fuck you.


Clinton was inaugurated as President on 20 January 1993 -- so 10 years ago he was President.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

CaptClown
03-07-2003, 09:29 AM
I have no problem with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein ending up dead at the end of all this sad, sordid business.

Excellent posts and good references.

This is how you post links afterganger
[ u r l] h t t p : / / w w w . y o u r l i n k h e r e . c o m [ / u r l ] no spaces.

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

FiveB247
03-07-2003, 10:08 AM
I agree that we should be invading for the right reasons, but it should be the last step in diplomacy. If we aren't invaded for the right reasons ..the US is simply deciding who should and shouldn't be in power in the nations across the world. Blix said today in his report that Iraq has and needs to take more initiative, but he also said that Iraq hasn't caused serious problems or differences with regards to the actual inspectors doing their jobs. It is beginning to look as well as if Britain is backing down slightly due to the people's influence in the nation and parliament. (Imagine that..governement listening to its constiuents...hmm...must be nice). Britain apparently wants to set a deadline to give some more time for inspections as well as give Iraq a deadline to comply with. On a side note, this is the popular opinion in America due to recent surverys by the Concil on Foreign Relations and CNN.

Ps...For the record, I wouldn't put a timeline or set a date for Bin Laden's capture. I highly doubt the information from their recent capture will go spilling his guts to America. We've been chasing him for 2 or so years now and ain't got diddly on him....chances are one day they'll just announce they killed him or he was found dead.



This message was edited by FiveB247 on 3-7-03 @ 3:13 PM

HBox
03-07-2003, 10:28 AM
Clinton was inaugurated as President on 20 January 1993 -- so 10 years ago he was President.



Yes, but he probably meant the Gulf War. It would make no sense at all to say that Clinton should have taken out Saddam. Our best opportunity was at the Gulf War, and Bush senior didn't do it, flat out.

A.J.
03-07-2003, 10:43 AM
Our best opportunity was at the Gulf War, and Bush senior didn't do it, flat out.


Because he was not authorized by the Congress or the UN to do so.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

TooCute
03-07-2003, 10:55 AM
[quote]I agree that we should be invaded for the right reasons, but it should be the last step in diplomacy. /[quote]

Huh?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

FiveB247
03-07-2003, 11:13 AM
Sorry bout that TooCute....I meant to write that we should be invading for the correct reasons. Not simply because 10 or more years ago, Iraq invaded another country and we failed to remove the regime then. Not too mention the "alleged" terror connections.