going back to the pre-war rhetoric it seemed to me that even the german and russian intelligence along with the english and american intelligence and previous inspectors all agreed that sadam had left over (and possibly made more) chemical wmd.
proof seemed to be provided about what they *knew* he had at *some point* and it couldn't be accounted for.. it seems obvious now that sadam did, in fact, destroy it long ago.. my question - why didn't he just prove it to the inspectors?
why not avoid all of this if he could?
He was proving it to the inspectors (Blix) that's why they were hastily yanked out and not allowed to complete their work so that the pretence for the war wouldn't disappear.
complete conjecture.....in fact, blix specifically commented on the curious fact that saddam couldnt or refused to accomplish the very simple task of proving the whereabouts and/or destruction of the unaccounted for mustard gas, stating: "mustard gas isn't marmalade, you're supposed to know what you did with it". aa
u.s. reportedly kills 40 iraqis at party .
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040519/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack_4.
very sad if this turns out to be an accurate report.
heathen-
its on today's yahoo front page, and the report says that the attack happened "early wednesday morning"......that is today. another report:
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Posted: 2:25 PM EDT (1825 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/19/iraq.main/index.html
aa
utterly disgusting.
those responsible should be lined against a wall and shot.
publicly.. i think that would win more hearts and minds than bombing cities and using gunships on civilian areas.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/.
yeru-
thanks for the insight....and for showing me i wasnt even spelling "courts martial" correctly.
aa
u.s. reportedly kills 40 iraqis at party .
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040519/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack_4.
very sad if this turns out to be an accurate report.
U.S. Reportedly Kills 40 Iraqis at Party
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040519/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack_4
very sad if this turns out to be an accurate report. im confused by this:
Al-Ani said people at the wedding fired weapons in the air, and that American troops came to investigate and left. However, al-Ani said, helicopters attacked the area at about 3 a.m. Two houses were destroyed, he said.
why would the area be attacked after soldiers had already checked it and left? obviously some of it is speculation at this point, but thats a very curious account by "al-ani".
aa
utterly disgusting.
those responsible should be lined against a wall and shot.
publicly.. i think that would win more hearts and minds than bombing cities and using gunships on civilian areas.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/.
realist-
one year seems to be the highest possible sentence.
after you posted, i did a bit more reading. its as i suspected, that the man already sentenced wasnt as involved in the abuse as some of the others. you are correct that he got the highest possible sentence for his charges.......
Earlier on Wednesday, Staff Sgt Frederick, Sgt Davis and Spc Graner, who are also implicated in the abuse scandal, appeared in court.
They face more serious charges than Sivits, including physical assaults on prisoners.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3727289.stm
i imagine there would be higher possible sentences for more serious charges...again, im guessing a bit though (im not extremely knowledgeable on courts-martial). i have yet to read about any murder charges stemming from the abuse. you and others have claimed there was murder involved, is there proof of this? the icrc director of operations claims that some of the treatment was "tantamount to torture" (in the above bbc article), but makes no mention of murder........just wondering if there are credible sources behind those claims.
aa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3719905.stm
first gay couples wed in us state
two lesbians were among the first same-sex couples to wed under a new law in the us state of massachusetts.
abaddon-
I had made no sweeping statements about Christians in general in the post you refered to. I had commented on the irony of the two negative comments on the thread coming from Christian posters.If you cannot show me where my sweeping generalisation was in that post
okay, ill break it down for you....here was the comment i was referring to:
Hey everyone, isn't it kind of typical that amongst the messages of goodwill and congratulations the only ones not sending their love to those who can now signify their love for another human being in an official manner are the people who identify themselves as Christians?
now, you start out with, "isnt it kind of typical..."
typical:
exhibiting the qualities, traits, or characteristics that identify a kind, class, group, or category
you went on pointing out that the only posters who hadnt sent "their love" were christians. it implies that its "typical" of christians to act this way.......looking at the defintion of the word, you were pointing out characteristics of a "group", namely christians. its pretty simple really. the comment suggests to the reader that a specific trait (not sending love, unloving) of those identifying themselves as christian is "typical". hopefully this helps.
aa
utterly disgusting.
those responsible should be lined against a wall and shot.
publicly.. i think that would win more hearts and minds than bombing cities and using gunships on civilian areas.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930/.
simon-
Sorry Yeru. "Getting a letter" may mean somethnig to you but it means jack shit to me. My bank send's em to be all the time
But that is not punishment. Lots of people decide to leave the military.
For torturing, raping, abusing and / or murdering people they should face the same things that everyone else faces, ie. prison.
Anything less is a let-off IMO.
looks like they will be getting more than letters:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/19/court.martial.sivits/index.html
hes the first one to get sentenced, and it sounds like he cut a deal (and that he wasnt as involved in the abuse as some of the others....not sure on that point), so he most likely will get the least amount of time.....just a guess on my part though.
aa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3719905.stm
first gay couples wed in us state
two lesbians were among the first same-sex couples to wed under a new law in the us state of massachusetts.
abaddon-
Everyone but one who specifically mentioned his Christianity and another who is known for it sent messages of goodwill.
so thats two, right?
I commented on the behaviour of two specific Christians.
so, is that 2-2 then?
side note to dubla: that's how anti-Chritian I am... oooooo, bad Abaddon
i didnt say you were anti-christian....i have no idea if you are or not. what i implied is that you were making a sweeping (negative) suggestion about christians in general, with a very small number of examples in which to make such a generalization. i stand by that implication.
aa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3719905.stm
first gay couples wed in us state
two lesbians were among the first same-sex couples to wed under a new law in the us state of massachusetts.
logan-
I honestly cannot see how anyone can be a Christian and condone homosexuality.
meaning anyone believing in jesus must wholehartedly believe in the entire bible?
aa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3719905.stm
first gay couples wed in us state
two lesbians were among the first same-sex couples to wed under a new law in the us state of massachusetts.
"first gay couples wed in u.s. state"
good for them.
Hey everyone, isn't it kind of typical that amongst the messages of goodwill and congratulations the only ones not sending their love to those who can now signify their love for another human being in an official manner are the people who identify themselves as Christians?
i guess id still consider myself a christian, if i had to pick a reilgion, but i have nothing against gay marraige whatsoever. i think its ridiculous that bush has made such a huge issue out of it......if they love each other and want to marry, whos it going to hurt? go for it, and be happy.
whats telling is someone who has specifically spoken out against "inciting hate based on religion" attempting to paint an entire religion in a bad light after a few comments scroll by.
aa
