Another mass grave discovered in Iraq

[Displaced Flames fan]

Saddam's legacy

Still think that Saddam was not such a bad guy Lanny?

I'll never understand what could cause anyone to want to kill innocent children or the lack of a soul it would take to accomplish such a task.

[BlackArcher101]

I don't get it either. Who does the killing and who orders the killing? And why?

[sjwalter]

Regardless of what our views are on the war and on Bush we should be glad Saddam is out of power only because of what he did to his people as shown here,
i don't understand it either what does he gain from killing them all.

[arsenal]

What he got was an aura of fear that pre-emtively stopped any uprising before it started.

[sjwalter]

I guess as revolutions have shown in the past you cannot keep a people meant to be free as should be their given right bound down for long.

I agree fully with you arsenal he was stopping the revolution before it started.

[BlackArcher101]

Ah yes... fearmongering at it's best. Keep the people afraid so they do not revolt. Forgot about that tidbit I learned sometime in Social 20.

I guess there is one good thing to come out of this war at least.

[calgaryred]

I am Saddam is out but what is too be done with Iraq now. If it's not terrorists groups killing to gain control it's individual groups fighting under the name allah. The US went in with the purpose to out a dictator and in the end bit more than they can chew. Now the people that pay the price are the iraqi people for them it's catch 22.

[kipperfan]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 14 2004, 12:48 AM
Regardless of what our views are on the war and on Bush we should be glad Saddam is out of power only because of what he did to his people as shown here,
i don't understand it either what does he gain from killing them all.

I agree, and I am happy for the multitudes of people who were oppressed and subjecated by Saddam and his regime...................................but...... .


Having Saddam in the middle east, as a moderate muslim leader, created a balance of power which prevented on-going war time. Iran and the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are very extreme Muslim in their views, and have a much more radical slant on Islam(much like al-queda). Iran has been like this for decades making it a hot spot for conflict. Not only that, but in recent years the Iranian army has grown, a land force of over 100,000 troops, a air force and a nuclear powered submarine brigade is a little more scary the the 15 old tanks irag wheeled out.

Sure enough, now that Saddam is gone, and the balanceing force is gone, Iran is becoming more and more unstable, leading to eventual armed conflict.

The americans cant even consider going into iran on the ground, they would suffer mase loses, this military compaign(if it happens) will make the 1000 american military deaths in iraq look lame.

Though Saddam was bad to his people he really was a stablizing force in the region, as he didnt agree, and wouldnt be swayed by muslim exremisit leaders, forcing a stall mate of sorts within the region.

If George and his govt are really so worried about "the people" and liberating tortured citizens of the world maybe he should roll into the Sudan, the mase genocide there is already being documented as worse than anything Hussien created.

[arsenal]

You cannot revolt when you can't hold a meeting with out knowing for sure if everyone in your group is not a snitch. You can make sure of it with small group, but a revolt needs more than a small group.

I guess the problem isn't so much fear, but the ability to organize. You can't organize anything if the people organizing keep getting killed, along with their families and friends.

edited for clarity.

[calgaryred]

Originally posted by kipperfan@Oct 13 2004, 07:32 PM


If George and his govt are really so worried about "the people" and liberating tortured citizens of the world maybe he should roll into the Sudan, the mase genocide there is already being documented as worse than anything Hussien created.

The problem is Sudan doesn't have oil

[arsenal]

Originally posted by kipperfan+Oct 13 2004, 07:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kipperfan @ Oct 13 2004, 07:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 14 2004, 12:48 AM
Regardless of what our views are on the war and on Bush we should be glad Saddam is out of power only because of what he did to his people as shown here,
i don't understand it either what does he gain from killing them all.

I agree, and I am happy for the multitudes of people who were oppressed and subjecated by Saddam and his regime...................................but...... .


Having Saddam in the middle east, as a moderate muslim leader, created a balance of power which prevented on-going war time. Iran and the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are very extreme Muslim in their views, and have a much more radical slant on Islam(much like al-queda). Iran has been like this for decades making it a hot spot for conflict. Not only that, but in recent years the Iranian army has grown, a land force of over 100,000 troops, a air force and a nuclear powered submarine brigade is a little more scary the the 15 old tanks irag wheeled out.

Sure enough, now that Saddam is gone, and the balanceing force is gone, Iran is becoming more and more unstable, leading to eventual armed conflict.

The americans cant even consider going into iran on the ground, they would suffer mase loses, this military compaign(if it happens) will make the 1000 american military deaths in iraq look lame.

Though Saddam was bad to his people he really was a stablizing force in the region, as he didnt agree, and wouldnt be swayed by muslim exremisit leaders, forcing a stall mate of sorts within the region.

If George and his govt are really so worried about "the people" and liberating tortured citizens of the world maybe he should roll into the Sudan, the mase genocide there is already being documented as worse than anything Hussien created. [/b][/quote]
Yes, Saddam was pretty stabalizing. Thats why he invaded Kuwaitt, and had a long war with Iran. That only stopped after the UN and the coalition put a stop to it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 14 2004, 12:50 AM
What he got was an aura of fear that pre-emtively stopped any uprising before it started.

I'll buy that, and given Iraq's history, it is probably likely that it stopped a few. Pre-Saddam Iraq was rife with bloddy revolts and rebellion.

[kipperfan]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 14 2004, 02:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 14 2004, 02:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I agree, and I am happy for the multitudes of people who were oppressed and subjecated by Saddam and his regime...................................but...... .


Having Saddam in the middle east, as a moderate muslim leader, created a balance of power which prevented on-going war time. Iran and the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are very extreme Muslim in their views, and have a much more radical slant on Islam(much like al-queda). Iran has been like this for decades making it a hot spot for conflict. Not only that, but in recent years the Iranian army has grown, a land force of over 100,000 troops, a air force and a nuclear powered submarine brigade is a little more scary the the 15 old tanks irag wheeled out.

Sure enough, now that Saddam is gone, and the balanceing force is gone, Iran is becoming more and more unstable, leading to eventual armed conflict.

The americans cant even consider going into iran on the ground, they would suffer mase loses, this military compaign(if it happens) will make the 1000 american military deaths in iraq look lame.

Though Saddam was bad to his people he really was a stablizing force in the region, as he didnt agree, and wouldnt be swayed by muslim exremisit leaders, forcing a stall mate of sorts within the region.

If George and his govt are really so worried about "the people" and liberating tortured citizens of the world maybe he should roll into the Sudan, the mase genocide there is already being documented as worse than anything Hussien created.

Yes, Saddam was pretty stabalizing. Thats why he invaded Kuwaitt, and had a long war with Iran. That only stopped after the UN and the coalition put a stop to it. [/b][/quote]
If it werent for him, Iran would have run over every counrty in the middle east by now, only after the all out war with Isreal.

That Kuwait thing was scary ehh?

[arsenal]

Originally posted by calgaryred+Oct 13 2004, 07:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calgaryred @ Oct 13 2004, 07:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kipperfan@Oct 13 2004, 07:32 PM


If George and his govt are really so worried about "the people" and liberating tortured citizens of the world maybe he should roll into the Sudan, the mase genocide there is already being documented as worse than anything Hussien created.

The problem is Sudan doesn't have oil [/b][/quote]
Huh?
Taken from the website linked below:
With the completion of a major oil export pipeline in July 1999, Sudanese crude oil production and exports have risen rapidly over the past few years. Sudan's estimated oil reserves have doubled since 2001, with crude production reaching an estimated 345,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in June 2004. Energy Minister Awad al-Jaz said in May 2004 that he expected crude production to reach 500,000 bbl/d in 2005.
Sudan Oil Estimates

The war in Iraq is not about oil. Get it out of your head.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by kipperfan+Oct 13 2004, 07:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kipperfan @ Oct 13 2004, 07:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Yes, Saddam was pretty stabalizing. Thats why he invaded Kuwaitt, and had a long war with Iran. That only stopped after the UN and the coalition put a stop to it.

If it werent for him, Iran would have run over every counrty in the middle east by now, only after the all out war with Isreal.

That Kuwait thing was scary ehh? [/b][/quote]
No, not particularly, becuase the UN actually stepped up and did something. If they hadn't done anything, Saddam would have gotten alot of money from Kuwaitts oil reserves. More a build of a military, possibly moving on to Saudi Arabia. Going back against Iran. Who knows.

[CaptainCrunch]

And to think we had Saddam contained, he could only slaughter his own people.

But at least he was contained within his own border.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by calgaryred+Oct 14 2004, 02:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calgaryred @ Oct 14 2004, 02:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kipperfan@Oct 13 2004, 07:32 PM


If George and his govt are really so worried about "the people" and liberating tortured citizens of the world maybe he should roll into the Sudan, the mase genocide there is already being documented as worse than anything Hussien created.

The problem is Sudan doesn't have oil [/b][/quote]
They don't? That's news to me. I'm pretty sure they have a LOT of oil.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 14 2004, 03:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 14 2004, 03:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

The problem is Sudan doesn't have oil

They don't? That's news to me. I'm pretty sure they have a LOT of oil. [/b][/quote]
So talisman was just there to drill holes in the ground for no reason and then sucked the Chinese into buying these holes

cool

[FlamesAllTheWay]

It is estimated that between 13 000 and 15 000 Iraqi civilians have died in Iraq since the war started. Add to that the 1000 American casualties and that is alot of dead people in Iraq in less than 2 years. Dead people Saddam was not responsible for. Not defending the guy by any means, i'm glad he's gone, but it goes to show that the system Bush has in place in Iraq isn't doing a great job of preserving human life either.Really makes it easier to understand the statement we sometimes hear out of Iraq that life was better under Saddam.

I do realize, though, that Saddam's killings were done on purpose (however, many were done when he was friends with the West) and that these civilian deaths at the hands of the American army are mostly due to 'collateral damage' (...), but the end result is still the same...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Oct 14 2004, 03:21 AM
It is estimated that between 13 000 and 15 000 Iraqi civilians have died in Iraq since the war started. Add to that the 1000 American casualties and that is alot of dead people in Iraq in less than 2 years. Dead people Saddam was not responsible for. Not defending the guy by any means, i'm glad he's gone, but it goes to show that the system Bush has in place in Iraq isn't doing a great job of preserving human life either.Really makes it easier to understand the statement we sometimes hear out of Iraq that life was better under Saddam.

I do realize, though, that Saddam's killings were done on purpose (however, many were done when he was friends with the West) and that these civilian deaths at the hands of the American army are mostly due to 'collateral damage' (...), but the end result is still the same...

And on the casualty web site how many of those casualties were caused by car bombings and attacks by insurectionists.

Are those to be blamed on American's as well?

Just curious