It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:02 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 9:52 am 
Offline
Deal With It!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:57 pm
Posts: 413
Location: Land of Lincoln
buckshot wrote:
i don't know about that i mean hey he did get 2 presidental terms . i hardly call that a failure.


As with everything in his Pampered Silver Spoon life, Dubya had his family friends pull his ass out of the fire.

Do you really think that he'd get anywhere with out them?

Dubya has never done anything of his own intiative. An accident of birth is no way to gauge personal success.

_________________
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 6:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
Quote:
oh how humanitarian is that , the germans didn't have anything to do with pearl harbor but we kicked their ass out of france.


BuckyBoots...what do you know about WHY we began to fight against the Germans at the beginning of World War 2? Not much, obviously. :lol: I shall leave that aspect without further comment, and see if you can figure out my point. Perhaps you will do a little research and thus realize the stupidity of your remark.

Quote:
as far as iraqi's being poor . well now they will have a chance to live like you cathrine with your big screen tv and a suv. so how is that worse ? do you feel like you are better than these people and you should have more than them.ah what the hell they get a piece of bread everyday and just maybe they will live long enough to eat it.


How do you know I have a wide screen TV and/or a SUV? For that matter, what makes you think the Iraqis want to emulate what some (obviously yourself) think is the wonderful American lifestyle? They are a different culture, with different values, different goals in life for themselves, and for their families.

To "amercanize" a country is to make it lose its heritage, and I think the Iraqis realize that. (Look what happened to the Native Americans after the US government decided to take their land and all it contained. ) Iraqis do not wish to be "americanized." You don't know anything about Iraqi culture except what Faux News tells you or what you "learn" at the freeper chatboards where you hang out.

Additionally, you're trying to wax clever by taking words ("wide screen TV and SUV") from one of Seamus's responses in this thread. Are you incapable of articulating your own thoughts and ideas? Of course, you are.

As for the Iraqis getting a piece of bread each day and living long enough to eat it is just about what you and those of your ilk think should be good enough for them.

You don't see them as people, equal to and/or far surpassing you in both intelligence and integrity. They're brown and they live in a dry, desert environment, from which they have created a unique culture.

Because of this, you think they are sub-human and not worthy of being left alone and in peace, being able to choose the type of government they wish to live under.


Quote:
i don't know about that i mean hey he did get 2 presidental terms . i hardly call that a failure.


Your value system is obviously flawed, also. It's right down there in the gutter with the rest of those who continue to support a crook and a thief as your president and as your vice-president. You identify with the Commander-in-Thief because you approve of his stolen first term which was SC appointed. You approve of his second term, regardless of the questions that still hover around the Diebold voting machine irregularities. You approve of the lies Bush told to start an illegal and unnecessary war, and you also approve of the efforts of this president and his cronies to trample on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


Catherine

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2005 7:33 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:43 am
Posts: 1015
Saturday, 22 June, 2002, 11:26 GMT 12:26 UK
Iraq's tortured children


Some witnesses had direct experience of child torture



By John Sweeney
BBC correspondent in Iraq



The star witness against the government of Iraq hobbled into the room, her legs braced with clumsy metal callipers. "Anna" had been tortured two years ago. She is now four years old.

Her father, Ali, is a thick-set Iraqi who used to work for Saddam's psychopathic son, Uday. Some time after the bungled assassination of Uday, Ali fell under suspicion.
Saddam's secret police have been accused of torturing children


He fled north, to the Kurdish safe haven policed by Western fighter planes, but leaving his wife and daughter behind in Baghdad.

So the secret police came for his wife. Where is he? They tortured her. And when she didn't break, they tortured his daughter.

"When did you last see your father? Has he phoned? Has he been in contact?" They half-crushed the toddler's feet.

Now, she doesn't walk, she hobbles, and Ali fears that Saddam's men have crippled his daughter for life. So Ali talked to us.

I have been to Baghdad a number of times. Being in Iraq is like creeping around inside someone else's migraine. The fear is so omnipresent you could almost eat it. No one talks.

So listening to Ali speak freely was a revelation. He is not exactly a contender to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

He has the heft of an enforcer. He told me that he had tortured for the regime. But I don't think he was lying to us.

'Faked funerals'

Ali talked about the paranoid frenzy that rules Baghdad - the tortures, the killings, the corruption, the crazy gangster violence of Saddam and his two sons.

And the faking of the mass baby funerals.

You may have seen them on TV. Small white coffins parading through the streets of Baghdad on the roofs of taxis, an angry crowd of mourners, condemning Western sanctions for killing the children of Iraq.



They used to collect children's bodies and put them in freezers for two, three or even six or seven months

Usefully, the ages of the dead babies - "three days old", "four days old" - are written in English on the coffins. I wonder who did that.

Ali gave us the inside track on the racket. There aren't enough dead babies around. So the regime stores them for a mass funeral.

He said that he was friends with a taxi driver - he gave his name - whose son had a position in the regime.

Ali continued, he told me that he had to go to Najaf - a town 160km (100 miles) from Baghdad - in order to bring children's bodies from various freezers there, and that the smell was unbearable.

They used to collect children's bodies and put them in freezers for two, three or even six or seven months - God knows - until the smell got unbearable.

Then, they arrange the mass funerals. The logic being, the more dead babies, the better for Saddam. That way, he can weaken public support in the West for sanctions.

That means that parents who have lost a baby can't bury it until the regime says so.

So how could it be that people would put up with this sickening exploitation of grief?

A murder story

Ali told another story. He had seen Uday kill with his own eyes. This was some years ago, before the assassination attempt left Saddam's oldest son half-paralysed and impotent.

Uday's lust is famous in Baghdad. He wanted a woman who played tennis at Baghdad's Sports Club and he and Ali went round to the club.


A witness saw Saddam Hussein's son, Uday, murder another man

As Uday was turning into the car park, a tennis ball came over the fence and bounced against the car of the woman he desired.

The tennis player came into the car park to retrieve the ball, apologised to the woman. Maybe there was a bit of flirting - that does happen at tennis courts, even in England.

From his car Uday watched the two of them. Enraged, he took out a wooden cosh and beat the tennis player's brains out.

And then - get this - a few days later, the dead man's relatives apologised to Uday for the distress their son had caused him.

Incredible? I don't think so.

In northern Iraq - the only part of the country where people can speak freely - we met six other witnesses who had direct experience of child torture, including another of Saddam's enforcers - now in a Kurdish prison - who told us that an interrogator could do anything:

"We could make a kebab out of the child if we wanted to." And then he chuckled.


Angry crowds of mourners condemn the West's sanctions

In that environment, with that background noise of fear, it is not impossible to imagine that the government of Iraq could have conned the world, inventing numbers of dead babies that the gullible - and that includes the United Nations - accept as reliable.

While we were in the north of Iraq, the chairman of the Great Britain Iraq Society, Labour MP George Galloway, was in Baghdad.

He popped up on Iraqi TV and bared his soul. "When I hear the word Iraq," he said, "I hear someone calling my name."

I don't. When I hear the word Iraq, I hear a tortured child, screaming.

_________________
I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.
George W. Bush
DESTROY THE QURAN OR BE DESTROYED BY IT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2005 3:42 pm 
Offline
Deal With It!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:57 pm
Posts: 413
Location: Land of Lincoln
buckshot wrote:
Saturday, 22 June, 2002, 11:26 GMT 12:26 UK
Iraq's tortured children

Some witnesses had direct experience of child torture

By John Sweeney
BBC correspondent in Iraq


Sheesh... Why do I have to do your work for you?

Is this the article by Mr. Sweeny of the BBC, Mr. Buckshot?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/f ... 058253.stm

If Saddam was so bad Mr. Buckshot, why didn't we finish off Saddam in 1991? Bill Clinton? Or was it because Rumsfeld and his Neo-Con cronies made a little deal on the side with their Good Buddy Saddam?

Better yet, tell me, why aren't we invading Uzbekistan? Hell, why don't we take out all of the damn brutal right wing dictators we prop up? Why does the US support dictators that violate the human rights US Policy claims to support? Can you clear that up for us? Why are we so picky about the Corporate Friendly Buddies that we take out?

And please notice Mr. Buckshot, Mr. Kassim has his sources listed at the end of his article.


From: Counterpunch
January 17 / 18, 2004
http://www.counterpunch.org/kassim01172004.html

Meet Our New Saddam
Introducing Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan
By SADIK H. KASSIM

Introducing Islam Karimov, one of Washington's most recent allies in the War on Terror. The neo-Stalinist autocrat presides over Uzbekistan, a vast mineral and oil rich country strategically located in central Asia. A country where dissidents are boiled alive (1); where having an Islamically sanctioned beard can get you arrested (2); where torture is widespread. In short, a country where human rights abuses are occurring on "a massive scale," (3) financed in part by the American taxpayer.

Slightly larger than the state of California and home to the fabled Silk Road cities of Samarqand and Bukhara, Uzbekistan today is a prime theater in the "War on Terror". After the September 11 attacks, Uzbekistan granted American troops permission to use its Khanbad military base located just north of Afghanistan.

The establishment of Khanbad, along with other bases in neighboring Kyrgyzstan, enabled the American government to achieve three major strategic goals. In addition to providing a center from which the American military could pursue the Taliban in Afghanistan, the bases more importantly, improved "American access to Kazakh and Turkmen oil and gas," and extended "US influence to a region hitherto dominated by Russia and of constant concern to China (4)." The bases in essence paved the way for America to gain a foothold in a globally strategic region thereby putting it in a better position to compete with Russia and China for the great oil treasures of the Caspian Sea.

In addition to being the world's largest lake, the Caspian sea is believed to hold vast oil reserves comparable to those of the Middle East. Yet, unlike the Middle East, transport of the extracted black gold from the landlocked lake to the open sea is a major hurdle. Therefore, the primary issue guiding the politics of the region revolve around not ownership of oil, rather control of the proposed pipelines by which the oil is transported5. It is within this context that Uzbekistan has emerged as "the key strategic state in the area (5)."

Uzbekistan's cooperation with Washington has not gone unrewarded. In March 2002, Messrs Bush and Karimov formally met for 45 minutes in the White House. The meeting produced a five point strategic partnership between the two countries. Among other things, in exchange for continued use of Khanbad, the agreement granted Uzbekistan $500 million in aid and credit guarantees (6), $25 million for military assistance, $18 million for "border security assistance", and $1 million in policing assistance (7). These concessions were made to one of America's "foremost partners in the fight against terrorism ( 8 )" despite the State Department's own declaration that, "Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with a very poor human rights record (9)."

According to the Human Rights Watch (HRW) 2003 World Report3, the Karimov led government violates, on a systematic level, basic rights "to freedom of religion, expression, association and assembly." HRW notes that Karimov has used the pretext of the "War on Terror", to pursue a campaign whose aim is to squelch opposition. Specifically, the government has arrested and tortured thousands of independent Muslims, including minors. HRW and other human rights organizations estimate that there are between 7,000 and 10,000 prisoners held on religious and political charges. Most recently, forensic evidence has been revealed suggesting that Karimov's government boiled to death two Muslim prisoners after they refused to stop praying.

The only major critique of Karimov's government by a western government official has come from Britain's Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray (10). "Uzbekistan is not a functioning democracy, nor does it appear to be moving in the direction of democracy," said Murray at the opening of the Freedom House human rights center in Tashkent, Uzbekistan in October 2002. Murray continued by exclaiming that, "The major political parties are banned; parliament is not subject to democratic election; and checks and balances on the authority of the electorate are lacking." Murray concluded by noting that, "no government has the right to use the war against terrorism as an excuse for the persecution of those with a deep personal commitment to the Islamic religion, and who pursue their views by peaceful means."

Murray's speech did not sit well with either the American or the Uzbek governments, the latter calling on Murray to apologize for his remarks. Murray did not relent and continued his critiques. In May 2003 he decried, "the intense repression here [in Uzbekistan] combined with the inequality of wealth and absence of reform." While in August 2003 he restated that there was, "no freedom of speech, mass media, movement and so forth." Furthermore, he called on the Uzbek interior and national security ministries to publicly criticize themselves for using torture.

Murray's blunt manner "was causing alarm in London and Washington, where he was regarded as too undiplomaticsome influential figures in the diplomatic service felt he had gone too far10." For his troubles, Murray was subject to a spurious internal British Foreign Office investigation for alleged misconduct. The pressures got to Murray, who eventually returned to London in October of this year for "medical reasons".

According to James McGrory, a British development consultant based in Tashkent, "The common belief is that Mr. Murray is being sacrificed to the AmericansThey certainly loathed him...the US Embassy makes no effort to conceal its dislike of the way he repeatedly and unequivocally slams (the country's) human rights record."

Clare Short, former International Development Secretary who resigned from the Blair cabinet over the war in Iraq, is a purported supporter of Murray's critiques. Of Murray, Short said the following (11), "He is an individual who was taking a stand on human rights issues where there is terrible, terrible repressionif he has been smeared and belittled for standing up for fundamental human rights--this is not just a few honorable political dissidents but really horrible repression--that would be outrageous."

The case of Uzbekistan and Craig Murray prove that once again political expediency takes priority over human rights issues in a globally strategic region. The final word belongs to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the only major American periodical to significantly condemn American policy in Uzbekistan. In an editorial dated November 8, 2003, it was noted that, "If U.S. policy is to have any credibility in the Muslim world--indeed in the world at large--it must be based not on convenience, but on principle. It will be recalled that in the 1980s, the United States made a similar deal of convenience with another Central Asian tyrant. His name was Saddam Hussein."

Sadik Kassim is a graduate student. He may be reached at shkassim81@yahoo.com.

Notes:

1. Fielding, F. and Nick Meo. "Mystery Grows Over Recall of 'ill' Ambassador." Sunday Times 12 October 2003, 4.

2. Barry, E. "Fighting Terror/ UZBEKISTAN; Religious Fervor Sparks a Fearful Leader's Crackdown." The Boston Globe 2 November 2001, third ed.: sec. A: 32.

3. Human Rights Watch World Report 2003. Uzbekistan. 2003.

4. "Not Just an Airbase: The US Must Tread Carefully in Central Asia." The Financial Times [London] 25 August 2003, first ed.: pg. 16.

5. Glenny, M. "To Hell and Baku: The Vast Scale and Bloody Price of the Rush for Oil in the Caspian has Been Little Noticed. Now a Powerful New Study Reveals All." The Observer 2 November 2003.: Observer Review Pages, 16.

6. "Dealing With the Devil." St. Louis Post-Dispatch [St. Louis] 8 November 2003, Editorial.

7. Amnesty International. A Catalogue of Failures: G8 Arms Exports and Human Rights Violations. 2003.

8. United States Government, "Uzbekistan Military Assistance" and "Uzbekistan Exchanges and Law Enforcement Assistance"--US Government, undated, 2002.

9. "UZBEKISTAN: Leader to Meet Bush." The New York Times [New York] 12 March 2002, final ed.: sec. A pg. 10.

10. Beeston R., and James Kilner. "Outspoken Envoy to Uzbekistan Comes Home." The Times 1 October 2003, pg. 18.

11. Bright, M. "Short Backs Envoy Who Criticized US: Repression in Uzbekistan is 'Terrible' ". The Observer 19 October 2003, pg. 12.

_________________
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2005 6:08 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:43 am
Posts: 1015
Saddam's Crimes

The repressive violence of Saddam's regime is the norm and not something used by the authorities in exceptional circumstances as it is in many countries. The repression, imprisonment, torture, deportation, assassination, and execution are strategies followed by Saddam's regime in dealing with Iraqi people. The strategy of Saddam's regime in dealing with neighbouring countries are arrogance and aggression.
These strategies results from the fair that Saddam's regime is a dictatorship which lacks constitutional legitimacy and real popular base inside the country.
Observers have noticed since the 17-30 July 1968 coup of Bath Party the increase in numbers of the prisons and the oppressive and intelligence apparatus. They have noticed also hundreds of decrees issued by Saddam or the Revolutionary Command Council which sentence to death these who carry on against the regime such writing slogans or delivering speeches or even criticizing the regime or the president.
Saddam's regime crimes are countless and endless. However the following are few examples of these crimes:

The killing of Sunni religious leaders such as Abdul Aziz Al Badri the Imam of Dragh district mosque in Baghdad in 1969, Al Shaikh Nadhum Al Asi from Ubaid tribe in Northern Iraq, Al Shiakh Al Shahrazori, Al Shaikh Umar Shaqlawa, Al Shiakh Rami Al Kirkukly, Al Shiakh Mohamad Shafeeq Al Badri, Abdul Ghani Shindala.
The arrest of hundreds of Iraqi Islamic activists and the execution of five religious leaders in 1974.
The arrest of thousand of religious people who rose up against the regime and the killing of hundreds of them in the popular uprising of 1977 in which Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim the leader of SCIRI was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The arrest, torture and executions of tens of religious scholars and Islamic activists in such as Qasim Shubbar, Qasim Al Mubarqaa in 1979.
The arrest, torture and execution of Ayatollah Mohamad baqir Al Sadr and his sistre Amina Al Sadr (Bint Al Huda) in 1980.
The war against Iran in 1980 in which hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed, and many doubles of that number were handicapped or missed.
The arrest of 90 members of Al Hakim family and the execution of 16 members of that family in 1983 to put pressure on Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim to stop his struggle against Saddam's regime.
Using chemical weapons in the North and the South the details of which are below.
The occupation of Kuwait which resulted in killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and injuring many doubles of that number in addition to the destruction of Iraq.
The assassination of many opposition figures outside Iraq such Haj Sahal Al Salman in UAE in 1981, Sami Mahdi and Ni'ma Mohamad in Pakistan in 1987, Sayed Mahdi Al Hakim in Sudan in 1988, and Shaikh Talib Al Suhail in Lebanon in 1994.
The execution of 21 Bath Party leaders in 1979 in Iraq , the assassination of Hardan Al Tikriti former defence Minister in Kuwait in 1973, and the former Prime- Minister Abdul Razzaq Al naef in London 1978.

_________________
I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.
George W. Bush
DESTROY THE QURAN OR BE DESTROYED BY IT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2005 6:09 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:43 am
Posts: 1015
Chemical Weapons

It is well documented that Saddam's regime has produced and used Chemical weapons against the Iraqi people and against neighbouring countries. The following are some examples of the occasions in which he used such weapons:

It is world wide known that Saddam's regime dropped chemical bombs by air fighter on Halabja in Northern Iraq in 1988. The UN, other international organisations and Western Governments' reports confirmed that more than 5000 thousands civilians were killed in few hours. Eye witnesses accounts , photos and films show the horrifying facts of the most heinous crime in modern time.
There are many cites in Northern Iraq in which Saddam used chemical weapons. These cites are known to the UN and other international organisations.
Saddam's regime used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers during Iraq Iran war. Many of them were sent to Europe to receive medical treatment and the whole world saw them on the TV.
General Wafiq Al Samarae the former director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service admitted in his book (Eastern Gate Ruins) that Saddam's regime used light chemical weapons against Iraqi people in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala to crush the popular uprising of March 1991 which followed the defeat of Saddam in invading Kuwait.
After the crushing of the uprising, large number of people took sanctuary in the Marshes of Southern Iraq. In 1993 Saddam's regime used chemical weapons against the people of the Marshes in orders to crush the resistance forces which took the Marshes as bases to attack Saddam's regime.
The following Press Release was issued by SCIRI office in London.


VAN DER STOEL INFORMED OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACKS


The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq wrote to Mr. Van der Stoel, U.N. Special Rapporteur of Human Rights in Iraq detailing Saddam's recent use of chemical weapons against the people of Iraq. Following is a synopsis of that letter:

"Dear Sir,

We regret to inform you that troops of the Baghdad regime have re-launched chemical weapons in its latest attack on many civilian areas of southern Iraq marshes. Reliable sources have reported the following which we now forward to yourself for your immediate attention:
Date of the chemical attack: 28th September, 1993.
Troops participating in the attack: "Autbah Ben Gazwan" troops of Division 51 and Brigade 32.,
Aim of the Attack: To clear the area of all inhabitants.
Areas directly affected: Villages of AI-Hayadir, AI-Ewajy west AI-Medainah, Abu AI-Sanadiech south AI Medainah, AI-Moniesfia, AI-Mhayyat, Um Al-Hawaly, AI-Fatrah south AI-Dair.
Number of Killed or injured: Approximately two thousand people are estimated
killed or injured from both sides.
Additional Information: On September 28th, 1993, troops deployed in the AIDeer and AI-Rumailah area gave all the residents orders to leave the area. On 29th September, 1993 the local tribes people fled the area after it had been contaminated with chemical materials.

_________________
I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.
George W. Bush
DESTROY THE QURAN OR BE DESTROYED BY IT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: x
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2005 6:15 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:43 am
Posts: 1015
x :roll:

_________________
I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.
George W. Bush
DESTROY THE QURAN OR BE DESTROYED BY IT


Last edited by buckshot on Wed May 11, 2005 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2005 4:09 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:31 pm
Posts: 222
Location: San Diego, Ca
Are you in the armed forces buckshot?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2005 1:22 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:43 am
Posts: 1015
May 10, 1940
By Mark Noonan at 09:20 PM


Tom Elia of The New Editor reminds us that on this date in 1940, Winston Churchill became Prime Minister if Great Britain. Coincidentally on this date, Hitler launched his invasion of France, Belgium, Luxemburg and Holland...within five days the French were completely beaten and shortly thereafter, Britain stood alone against Hitler's empire. While we honor the magnificent leadership that Churchill showed in World War Two, the plain fact of the matter is that he was handed a lost game and the final result (for Britain) was merely his being able to prevent the utter destruction of Britain.

For 7 years prior to this date in 1940, Winston Churchill had clearly and concisely and with unanswerable argument showed that Hitler was a threat who needed to be opposed, up to and including a pre-emptive attack. With the information available at the time, there was no way to contest Churchill's views; everyone who opposed his suggested policies vis a vis Nazi Germany was not just in error or mistaken in view, but flat and criminally wrong. Tens of millions of people paid the ultimate price for Britain and the world not paying heed to the man (sometimes completely alone) who identified the problem and proposed the only correct solution.

The lesson of World War Two is that when evil rears it's head, it must be opposed; not got along with, not worked with, not given forebearance and understanding...opposed, even as far as full-scale war if that proves necessary. No conceivable cost of war when evil is first identified can be greater than the cost of the war you'll get when evil is strong enough to strike directly at you. President Bush is a man who understands the lesson of World War Two; his political opponents are an example of the unteachability of mankind. With the example of the 20th century fresh before our minds and with the stark reminder of 9/11 to concentrate our thinking, President Bush's opponents go about as if Hitler never happened.

_________________
I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.
George W. Bush
DESTROY THE QURAN OR BE DESTROYED BY IT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2005 4:04 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:43 am
Posts: 1015
Kuwait Draws Up Charges Against Saddam
NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, May 12, 2005
KUWAIT CITY -- Kuwaiti prosecutors have drawn up a list of charges against ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and hundreds of his officials for alleged war crimes committed during Iraq's occupation of the Gulf nation, the prosecutor general said Wednesday.

The list will be delivered to the Iraqi court that will try Saddam and other former regime members and the new charges will be added to the existing allegations, prosecutor general Hamed al-Othman said, according to the state-owned Kuwait News Agency.
Story Continues Below



Saddam, who was captured in December 2003, already faces charges in Iraq that include killing rival politicians during his 30-year rule, gassing Kurds, invading Kuwait and suppressing Kurdish and Shiite uprisings in 1991 after the U.S.-led Gulf War that liberated Kuwait.
The Kuwaiti charges include allegations that Saddam's regime kidnapped 605 Kuwaitis and nationals of other countries who lived in the oil-rich state at the time of the 1990-91 occupation, al-Othman said. The remains of 147 of them were found in mass graves in Iraq after Saddam was toppled in April 2003.

Another 5,733 were tortured by electric shock, beaten, starved and sexually abused, and 139 were seriously injured by shooting or by land mines planted by Iraqis, he added.

The Kuwaiti charges are against Saddam and nine other senior regime figures - including Ali Hassan al-Majid, who ruled Kuwait during the seven-month occupation; Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister; and Taha Yassin Ramadan, who served as vice president. The three men are in U.S. custody awaiting trial.

The names of 293 other lower officials and their alleged crimes also were included, according to the prosecutor general. It was not clear how many of these officials are in custody in Iraq.

Among the other charges were murder, torture, theft and damaging the environment, the prosecutor general said. Senior Iraqi officials ordered in writing the theft and destruction of the country's archives, and the Iraqis sabotaged some 700 oil wells before their troops withdrew from the country.

Kuwait was the launch pad for the invasion of 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and it was the only Arab country that supported it openly. Ties with Baghdad resumed after Saddam's regime was overthrown.


© 2005 The Associated Press

_________________
I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.
George W. Bush
DESTROY THE QURAN OR BE DESTROYED BY IT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 13, 2005 8:13 pm 
Offline
Deal With It!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:57 pm
Posts: 413
Location: Land of Lincoln
buckshot wrote:
Kuwait Draws Up Charges Against Saddam
NewsMax.com Wires


Hmmm...

Rummy's making deals with your buddy and favorite scapegoat as we scribble here Mr. Buckshot.

Odds are Saddam will never stand trail.

I wonder, do you think he'll move in with Luis Posada Carriles in Miami?

Maybe he'd could move in with Pinochet in Chile... Oops... Wait a minute... Pinochet may stand trail...

Now here's something to think about. How is Kuwait going to sue Saddam? Well, you know, seeing as we're not too keen on the international court and all. How can you have it both ways? The US won't stand for the possiblility of the US answering to an International Court and yet is quick to trumpet Kuwait seeking justice from Saddam. How is Kuwait going to try Saddam? What is the venue of choice? Are you going to try Saddam in John Bolton's boxer shorts?

_________________
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2005 10:44 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:43 am
Posts: 1015
it's called a politically correct system. you being a big liberal and everything , you should understand.

_________________
I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.
George W. Bush
DESTROY THE QURAN OR BE DESTROYED BY IT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2005 12:52 am 
Offline
Deal With It!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:57 pm
Posts: 413
Location: Land of Lincoln
buckshot wrote:
it's called a politically correct system. you being a big liberal and everything , you should understand.


So you do support the International Court.

That's certainly big of you.

_________________
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2005 3:13 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:43 am
Posts: 1015
Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance

President Clinton addressed the nation from the Oval Office
Clinton spells out Iraq's non-compliance
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites.


Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.


Iraq tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.


Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all documents requested by the inspectors.

US Forces:
There are 15 U.S. warships and 97 U.S. aircraft in the Persian Gulf region, including about 70 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. More than 12,000 sailors and Marines are in the region.

U.S. sources said eight of the warships, equipped with cruise missiles, have been moved into the northern part of the Gulf, within easy striking distance of Baghdad. More troops and jets have been ordered to the region.

More than 300 cruise missiles are available for use against Iraq, and there are air-launched cruise missiles aboard 14 B-52 bombers on the British island of Diego Garcia, sources said.

Britain has 22 strike aircraft in the region.

ALSO:
Pentagon unveils details of Operation Desert Fox
Transcript:Text of Blair's remarks on Iraq attack
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike




In this story:
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Related stories and sites
December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.


'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.


Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.


•Timeline
•Maps
•Where They Stand
•Flashback 1991
•Forces in the Gulf
•Bioweapons Explainer
•Message Boards
•UNSCOM Documents
•Related Links



"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

_________________
I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.
George W. Bush
DESTROY THE QURAN OR BE DESTROYED BY IT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2005 3:16 am 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:43 am
Posts: 1015
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.

For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness.

Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_e ... 12-16.html

_________________
I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom.
George W. Bush
DESTROY THE QURAN OR BE DESTROYED BY IT


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group