And another reason why Iraqi's will continue to suffer if they do..
War against Iran May have already begun
#242
Posted 24 July 2005 - 12:08 AM
-Full political participation at the national level was restricted only to members of the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party, which constituted only 8% of the population. Therefore, it was impossible for Iraqi citizens to change their government.
-In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern and Southern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.
-In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 40,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.
-In June of 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion.
This post has been edited by Renegade: 24 July 2005 - 12:08 AM
#243
Posted 24 July 2005 - 12:08 AM
What a silly idea, wanting a sovereign government run by Iraqis. Clearly they are terrorists.
The argument that most freedom fighters come from outside Iraq is propaganda. The argument that most terrorists coem from outside Iraq is truth.
Your problem is that you don't distinguish one from the other, that you deem anyone who opposes imperialism to be a terrorist.
The Party of Allah is NOT a terrorist organization! They are freedom fighters just like Hamas and I hope for their victory over the Zionist Entity!
And if you agree that government support is needed for widescale terrorism to occur than dosn't that intone that the KKK had to have at least tacit support from a government,? And if so which government would that be? The Taliban perhaps? Yes, I think that's it, it was the Taliban.
Here's a question noone asked:
What the FUCK business does the only nation ever to deploy nuclear weapons against civilian targets have to be telling people who can and can not have unvonventional weapons?
And here's another point: A friggen tube of nerve gas is not a weapon of mass destruction. It's a tube of nerve gas. At the height of Saddam's arsenal he couldnt have killed as many people as the imperialist aggression has. And the US uses conventional weapons (MOAB for instance) that make what Saddam had look like nothing.
I don't think Saddam should have been allowed nuclear weapons.
However I also think that Bush should be disarmed and sent to some secret prison to share his cell with Saddam and be photographed naked as well.
Quote
#244
Posted 24 July 2005 - 12:10 AM
You could say the same thing about people in the US. If you stay in touch with the world via the media, it would seem that Americans don't regret the war in Iraq (though the polls have been slipping). Most people don't have a problem that the US is a unilateral bully and has been steadly encroaching on peoples' liberties to defend its own power But every person in the country would grab a weapon and fight if another country decided to invade to "liberate" it from the corrupt sinkhole it is (or if a faction in this country decided to try the same thing as a civil war). The point is that the masses will put up with a whole lot of shit, but nobody wants you walking into your front yard and telling you what to do, whether it's grass, pavement, or sand.
I'm mad as hell about what's going on, and a whole lot of other people are too, but if you're in another country and the other country believes in information control, you're not going to hear about it.
#245
Posted 24 July 2005 - 12:15 AM
And you're right, Iraq would be much better off under imperialist rule. Just like Chile and Nicaragua and pre-revolution Cuba were.
Quote
#247
Posted 24 July 2005 - 12:23 AM
And you're right, Iraq would be much better off under imperialist rule. Just like Chile and Nicaragua and pre-revolution Cuba were.
LMAO...
Nobody reads my post and ah the glory of liberals. I'm so glad i've disassociated myself from liberal/conservative idealogy bullshit. Liberals STILL don't get why their arguments are bullshit just like conservatives.. in the end of the day they both have no idea what a "definition" of something is and both believe the ends justify the means. First, the US doesn't have a DEATH penalty for deserters but ANYWAY...
My point which you missed out on was that the people are NOT freedom fighters, they are merely fighters fighting for their own idealogy/tyranny to take power. Just because you oppose one dictatorship doesn't make you a freedom fighte when you want to put in YOUR own dictatorship. And the reason Iraqi's couldn't overthrow Saddam was because he WAS a brutal dictator who wouldn't allow it (oh but he had the country at heart in your opinion), and the reason they HAVE a choice now is because of US. And we're GIVING Them a chance at real democracy... they had elections with a higher turnout rate than the US even with terrorist threats all around.
#248
Posted 24 July 2005 - 12:26 AM
Just because a country is run by A iraqi or a group of select Iraqi's doesn't make that cause "freedom fighting" ass. I'm getting sick of this bullshit escapist argument for terrorists and fundementalists. Yes Iraq WOULD be in better condition if America wins there as opposed to if the terrorists settle their own govt.
And I think you still don't know the definiton of terrorism so I'll give it to you:
Act of violence generally against innocents to send a political messege or entice fear to change a opponents policy
This post has been edited by Renegade: 24 July 2005 - 12:27 AM
#249
Posted 24 July 2005 - 12:28 AM
Wonderful. Just throw out some buzz words no one likes in an attempt to belittle someone else's arguments via association. Sounds familiar...
I could probably go into detail with your statement, but I'll make it brief.
1. Hitler had world conquest on his mind, Hussein was perfectly content ruling Iraq.
2. The fact that Hitler was a Nazi (which is what you a surely attempting to force a reader to connect [since what else would you associate with him, that bad mustache?]) has no relevence on the argument that people will react more violently to invasion than political takeover. In fact, you just helped it. Notice how there was no revolution when Hitler took over? Stick to the facts and leave the mud slinging to the politicians.
Edit: Had to throw in the quote because my post got moved down due to more posting while I was typing it.
This post has been edited by Slade: 24 July 2005 - 12:33 AM
#252
Posted 24 July 2005 - 12:30 AM
Not much of a reader on history or Saddam are you? He invaded Iran/Kuwait.. he had in mind to create a "grand" Middle Eastern empire under his own rule. Just because he failed and Hitler was more successful (for atleast a short time) doesn't make them different by principle.
Once you guys admit that the "freedom fighters" are in actuality a brutal radical faction that wants their own will empossed on their people I may give in that America is only in Iraq for economic purposes and selfish gains. Otherwise your argument is just really pissing me off now with sympathy for people who are killers.
This post has been edited by Renegade: 24 July 2005 - 12:32 AM
#253
Posted 24 July 2005 - 12:35 AM
And here's another point: A friggen tube of nerve gas is not a weapon of mass destruction. It's a tube of nerve gas. At the height of Saddam's arsenal he couldnt have killed as many people as the imperialist aggression has. And the US uses conventional weapons (MOAB for instance) that make what Saddam had look like nothing.
Ever heard of UN Resolutions? He was by international law not allowed to have em, assuming he did we were completely justified to go in (and the rest of the world woulda had to been in on it too). For someone who barashes America for violating international law, you seem to care fuck all when others do it.
#254
Posted 24 July 2005 - 12:39 AM
Not really, but when someone says something as insanely ridiculous like "oh saddam did what he did for the benefit of his common man Iraqi" I'll have to slam you with some blunt honestly...
#255
Posted 24 July 2005 - 12:44 AM
And how silly of me to have forgotten the first Gulf War. Oh well. That entire statement was irrelevant because you failed to actually debate anything. And we gave him weapons to invade Iran, in case you've forgotten.
Lets see if this post remains relevant or needs quoting now...