Since there is an obvious lack of attention to Saddam Hussein's crimes in both peacetime and at war, from the war protesters, I will post the US State Dept's page on Iraq here:

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99.htm

There are good reasons for why the action againt Saddam H's Iraq should have been carried through, regardless of WMD or not.

You'll love it, El_Sparks. Lots of pictures of massacred kids. (You know, the ones you love to post in this forum).

Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions DJ.


You should look back further into history. Primarily when G H Bush was president.

http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html

If anything, WE AMERICANS, created Saddam. Correction, rich white men who wanted to get richer created Saddam....

President Bush said "He's used poison gas on his own people." Bush deceives because he hides the fact that US officials, including his father, had no qualms about helping Saddam gas Iranians.

Warning un-healthy doses of propoganda!

If you want the real deal go to a good and neutral source:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-irq/index

And yet again humanitarian reasons are no reason for war. If so we should be in Sudan (10x worse than Iraq), Uganda, Congo, We should have went in the 70's to stop the Khmer Rouge, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Palestine, Sierra Leone, Liberia, omg can i go on? This argument is basless, what are Iraqi lives more important that a congolese? That's what you essentially saying.

Originally posted by DJSupreme23
There are good reasons for why the action againt Saddam H's Iraq should have been carried through, regardless of WMD or not.If that were the case, then the President should have presented it as such and allowed the American public to make their decision based on this. As it happens, it appears more and more that those who supported the war did so based on inconclusive, if not falsified, information.

:m: Peace.

You'll love it, El_Sparks. Lots of pictures of massacred kids. (You know, the ones you love to post in this forum).
If you ever read my posts, you'd know that that's false.

BTW, just two points.
1) Hussein owed his position as leader of Iraq to the US, who paid for the weapons he used to do the damage that he did - and who protected him in '59 when they smuggled him out of Iraq after he failed to successfully assassinate the prime minister of Iraq.

2) In most legal systems, if person A murders person B, and this act is witnessed by person C; and C then hunts down A and murders him at a later date: then C is charged with premeditated murder.
In other words, the fact that Hussein murdered Iraqis is not a licence for other people to murder Iraqis.

DJ, you seem to be having trouble seeing passed the smokescreen, with regards to the whole Iraq affair.
YES Saddam was an egotistical stalinist dictator, with delusions of grandeur, and an un-healthy obsession in hand made Italian shoes. Furthermore he was probably the most "media friendly" arch enemy since hitler, I mean the stalinist facial hair, Military garb, the stogie...the perfect "rent-a-villain" which made it so much more easier for Bush-pnac alliance to convince joe American the validity in going to war. All they had to do was stick a pcture of hm on Foxnews, bingo..."look at this crazy son-of-a-bitch...aint he just begging to be ass-whooped???"

"hell yeah" came the response from Joe American, and off to war they went:

"Hi-Ho , Hi-HO, it's off to work we go...with a shovel and spade and a hand grenade......"

The true historical relationship between Uncle sam and Saddie not withstanding, the real reason for going to war was not the attrocities commited by Saddam, hence the real reasons were insidious, and clandestine, thus the whole premise was FALSE as presented to the People.

yeah yeah he was evil...noone is denying that, but they say:

the safest place to hide a lie ...is inbetween two truths

...u go figure:bugeye:

BTW, I think that is a quote from Hitler....nico will probably set me straight...my history is shit;)

Lets face the facts here

There are people who are supportive of the crimes USA commits , and on an intellectual level they are not able to argue for these points . There are no WMD . There is no Al Qaida . So whats left ?

Saddam is a bad man . So was Hitler , but did HE genocide 10 M peoples of Yiddish & Roma origin ? No he didnt , others did that for him & others helped his to do it . And so did Saddam , launchid from his Tikrit clan of thugs he had the help of thousands of mostly Sunni Arabs who were in his militias , armies , police-forces & bureaucracy . Thousands have helped him commit crimes against the peoples of Iraq , but apparently it doesnt matter .

Yes we can start a whole bunch of new threads , since threads catch attention quicker than posts . Very nice , but very very bigoted and lacking reality : I think we should deal with the fact that Saddam Hussain's inhumane "regime" has absolutely nothing to do with invading Iraq .

* British anger Basrans by bringing back Ba'athists (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/18/wbaath18.xml)
* Ba'athists slip quietly back into control (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/18/wbaath18.xml)
* Same uniforms, different loyalties (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/21/1050777213104.html)
* New Iraq will have to rely on old regime (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,932642,00.html)
* British recruit Ba'ath party spies to work in Basra (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/03/wmart103.xml)

There are 2 MILLION Ba'ath party members . How many have been active ? Where are they ? Why are they instead of arresting Ba'athist (and not letting them go like Sahaf) arresting kids for cursing ?

The Iraqi people are being lied to , Iraq will not become a democracy but a puppet regime with the same villains . Iraq did not have 1 Saddam Hussain , but THOUSANDS of little evil Saddams who abused their power to kil , torture & oppress and now all of them are re-installed into the conventional rebuild of Iraq .

Millions of Kurds , Shiaa & Sunni have been oppressed by thousands of Ba'athists , not by Sadam Husain alone .

But hey , who cares ? Not the "liberators" anyways .....

So there goes the 3rd FAKE argument . I wonder whats next . Probabaly a : hey the USA has wrong motives but that doesnt mean it was good to invade-argument . By the same reasoning lots of countries should be invaded for their regimes : Israel,Sudan,Saudi,Liberia,etc .

And tha is just for INTERNAL brutallity . We also know something called foreign policy , and then Id say USA is #1 . They ravashed 2 countries in 2 years , who's next ? Syria ? Iran ?

:(

so ahh dj, perhaps changing your optometrist....?

They ravashed 2 countries in 2 years , who's next ? Syria ? Iran ?

both.:m:

DJ's post and his link are a whole lot less insane and propaganda based than what a lot of the anti-american nutters post here on sciforums. You guys get upset over this stuff because it dosn't support your point of view.

I dont make a fuss when some nut puts up aljezeera links or some wierd "americans are the scum of the earth" sites. And there have been a fair number.

DJ's post and his link are a whole lot less insane and propaganda based than what a lot of the anti-american nutters post here on

...your subjective opinion.


You guys get upset over this stuff because it dosn't support your point of view.

same is true for you,....so we're back to zero.

I dont make a fuss when some nut puts up aljezeera links or

please do in future..aren't you supposed to be "combating anti-amerikaan sentiment"??

And there have been a fair number.

..not nearly enough:rolleyes:

I have my own personal set of ethics to uphold. Anyway please remember that your opinions are at least as subjective and worth not one iota more than mine.

Yeah but he wasn't the one attacking those very same ideals, it was you,so....?