by lastcall 50 Replies latest social current
Even if Saddam never would have used a nuke against the US or similar target, certainly he has shown that he could have, and would have given them to a terrorist group that would use the bomb, and Saddam would have gotten what he wanted without someone pointing a finger directly at him.
The fact is, that the world is a safer place to live, even if just a little bit.
North Korea is a little bit tougher though aren't they....not so easy.
Let me ask Yeru, being in the military he probably has a better grasp on that one than I do.
About the Army knowing everything Well ... guess who is leading the Army ? A politic or a JI JO ?
Who said the Army knew EVERYTHING? I SAID...Yeru, being the military would PROBABLY have a better GRASP on whether or not North Korea would have been tougher to beat.
Just have to laugh at someone defending Bush policies by argueing that the USA should "not be isolationist".
LOL!!!
The man is turning America into a gigantic political and diplomatic leper. He is the walking embodiment of every "ugly American" joke ever told, and every "ugly American" slur ever spat.
A little bit of literature ... For who wants to know ... not brought out by me ...
Brought out by Will :
Here some information you may find interesting. Since Bush's case for war on the premise of WoMD to date has not being proven, back in January of last year Bush tried to use the moral issue of Saddam using them on his own people. So building a case for war Bush has to "demonize" his enemy as much as possible. The writter is quoting from the The New York Times, Jan. 31, 2003. The writter goes on to say: "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."A War Crime or an Act of War? By Stephen C. Pelletiere The New York Times , Jan. 31, 2003
MECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq'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'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'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'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'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' 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.
http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2434Will
Now ... WHO ? WHAT ? WHY ? TELL ME !!! (just about that)
If you do realise what this mean you already know that SADDAM won't have a fair trial ! LOL (I don't care he is a Bastard too anyway) ... BUT IT IS A JOKE ... How funny the tiniest beast got in jail and will pay for all his "brother of shame" without anyone of them being annoyed ... (and geez most of people are even preaching for them ... terrible ... we are far from peace !!! very ...)
HAPPY you are maybe (SADDAM "we got him" LOL "WE GOT YOU" in fact - election are comming ? hum ...) ... just realised that it doesn't change a Dam thing ... (the ones who made things this way have what they want, and will bring some new bulshit for us to deal with to make monney ... again on all of us heads and death) ...
why aren't we using that as an excuse to invade Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast or Liberia? Is it because they are black or because they are poor?
Oh come on. It doesn't have anything to do with race. Besides, they don't have anything useful to us! Geez!!!
wel actually that is not true Sierra Leone is rich in daimonds - -most African countires have mineral riches and wealth - ver yuseful strategically
North Korea is a little bit tougher though aren't they....not so easy.
Yes they are tougher. I believe the Iraq war was waged in part to send a message to N. Korea. I think the images of Saddam being examined were released partly so that Kim Jong Il would get the idea that this could also be his fate if he doesn't watch his step. Hopefully the Great Leader is thinking "Hey, Im just a tin pot dictator myself, just like saddam. I dont want to end up being pulled out of a hole and prodded on National TV." And then shot. If that is accomplished, good.
IronGland--- I love tha avatar . I don't think the N. Koreans will shake that easily that's why the US is still relying on china to step in and settle the situation . The chineese fer cahhhhhrists sake . What a joke . What are they going to sell them on any way , listen if you do what the US tells you , you can open sweat shops and sell suff to them ??
