More evidence to convict Saddam

[Cowperson]

Hold your barf bags up for this:

They say nine trenches in a dry, dusty riverbed at the Hatra site in northern Iraq contain at least 300 bodies, and possibly thousands, including unborn babies and toddlers still clutching toys.

Kehoe said the women and children had been taken from their villages with their belongings, including pots and pans, shot -- often in the back of the head -- then bulldozed into the trench.

Some of the mothers died still holding their children. One young boy still held a ball in his tiny arms. A thick stench hangs over the site, as well as at a makeshift morgue nearby.

"The youngest foetus we have was 18 to 20 foetal weeks. Tiny bones, femurs, thighbones the size of a matchstick," says investigating anthropologist P. Willey, of California.

The bas**rd

Cowperson

[Flame On]

I'm pleased you didn't title this "More evidence to invade Iraq". I don't think anyone has any doubt whether Saddam free, or behind bars was a debate. He certainly was a murderous madman!
I wonder if we'll be finding these headlines in N.Korea, Iran, S.Arabia, etc.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 12 2004, 08:26 PM
Hold your barf bags up for this:

They say nine trenches in a dry, dusty riverbed at the Hatra site in northern Iraq contain at least 300 bodies, and possibly thousands, including unborn babies and toddlers still clutching toys.

Kehoe said the women and children had been taken from their villages with their belongings, including pots and pans, shot -- often in the back of the head -- then bulldozed into the trench.

Some of the mothers died still holding their children. One young boy still held a ball in his tiny arms. A thick stench hangs over the site, as well as at a makeshift morgue nearby.

"The youngest foetus we have was 18 to 20 foetal weeks. Tiny bones, femurs, thighbones the size of a matchstick," says investigating anthropologist P. Willey, of California.

The bas**rd

Cowperson

This is happening in Sudan also. Why isn't Bush invading there? i guess not enough oil!

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Oct 12 2004, 08:40 PM
This is happening in Sudan also. Why isn't Bush invading there? i guess not enough oil!

I think Sudan does have oil, a good deal of it. You know very well that you can't invade another country this quickly, especially when the Iraq 'mission' isn't exactly 'accomplished'. Good point though, sounds like this same type of stuff is happening (happened) in Darfur.

[FlamesAddiction]

I'm shocked.

How could a guy supported by the west for so many years be such a creep.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Oct 12 2004, 01:40 PM
This is happening in Sudan also. Why isn't Bush invading there? i guess not enough oil!

The world already hates Bush and the US for invading Iraq. Lets make everyone hate them even more by invading Sudan.

The US tried basically the same thing in Somalia. I can't remember if the went alone or not.

On that note, why doesn't another country step up to the plate? Why doesn't Canada go in. The UN is too busy trying to decide if it is geoncide, meanwhile thousands are being killed.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 12 2004, 08:47 PM
I'm shocked.

How could a guy supported by the west for so many years be such a creep.

Yeah i agree. The US sure loved him whey they gave him all those weapons to attackIran and their Islamic fundamentlist back in the 80's.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 12 2004, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 12 2004, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bertuzzied@Oct 12 2004, 01:40 PM
This is happening in Sudan also. Why isn't Bush invading there? i guess not enough oil!

The world already hates Bush and the US for invading Iraq. Lets make everyone hate them even more by invading Sudan.

The US tried basically the same thing in Somalia. I can't remember if the went alone or not.

On that note, why doesn't another country step up to the plate? Why doesn't Canada go in. The UN is too busy trying to decide if it is geoncide, meanwhile thousands are being killed. [/b][/quote]
The US tried basically the same thing in Somalia. I can't remember if the went alone or not.

What!!??

That was a UN mission. Remember the Canadians? Remember the marines in the movie running towards the stadium held by the Pakistani's under the UN banner.

Cowperson

[arsenal]

That was Reagan. And by all accounts, Reagan was a wonderfull President. Now Bush is trying to make it right, and he is getting all the flack. Go figure.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Yup, Saddam was a bad mother #$@%er and he deserved to get the boot. I'm glad he's gone, but it is still no excuse for an invasion by the US. Nothing they find, short of a nuclear device with bin Laden's name on it, will change that fact.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 12 2004, 09:00 PM
Yup, Saddam was a bad mother #$@%er and he deserved to get the boot. I'm glad he's gone, but it is still no excuse for an invasion by the US. Nothing they find, short of a nuclear device with bin Laden's name on it, will change that fact.

You would think that if Bush was smart, that they just plant wmds in Iraq after they invaded and didn't find anything. There were be no debate then and Bush would have another 4 glorious years in office.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Oct 12 2004, 01:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Oct 12 2004, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

The world already hates Bush and the US for invading Iraq. Lets make everyone hate them even more by invading Sudan.

The US tried basically the same thing in Somalia. I can't remember if the went alone or not.

On that note, why doesn't another country step up to the plate? Why doesn't Canada go in. The UN is too busy trying to decide if it is geoncide, meanwhile thousands are being killed.

The US tried basically the same thing in Somalia. I can't remember if the went alone or not.

What!!??

That was a UN mission. Remember the Canadians? Remember the marines in the movie running towards the stadium held by the Pakistani's under the UN banner.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
My bad. That was when I was in my "teen" years, where I didn't really care about anything.

Now that you mention it.. stuff about Canadians soilders being indicted for mis-treatment of prisioners is comming back to me.

I stand corrected.
But didn't the US have a larger number of troops there?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied+Oct 12 2004, 09:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bertuzzied @ Oct 12 2004, 09:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 12 2004, 09:00 PM
Yup, Saddam was a bad mother #$@%er and he deserved to get the boot. I'm glad he's gone, but it is still no excuse for an invasion by the US. Nothing they find, short of a nuclear device with bin Laden's name on it, will change that fact.

You would think that if Bush was smart, that they just plant wmds in Iraq after they invaded and didn't find anything. There were be no debate then and Bush would have another 4 glorious years in office. [/b][/quote]
I agree. If it was a pre-planned lie that's exactly what I would expect a normal person - not even a smart one - to do.

They just look like idiots and morons because they really DID expect to find something there.

Cowperson

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Oct 12 2004, 09:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Oct 12 2004, 09:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You would think that if Bush was smart, that they just plant wmds in Iraq after they invaded and didn't find anything. There were be no debate then and Bush would have another 4 glorious years in office.

I agree. If it was a pre-planned lie that's exactly what I would expect a normal person - not even a smart one - to do.

They just look like idiots and morons because they really DID expect to find something there.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Bush= Geraldo! on live tv opening capone's safe.

I guess it is the US where that can happen and both still remain as popular as ever.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied+Oct 12 2004, 09:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bertuzzied @ Oct 12 2004, 09:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I agree. If it was a pre-planned lie that's exactly what I would expect a normal person - not even a smart one - to do.

They just look like idiots and morons because they really DID expect to find something there.

Cowperson

Bush= Geraldo! on live tv opening capone's safe.

I guess it is the US where that can happen and both still remain as popular as ever. [/b][/quote]
Well, to clarify, I'll repeat something I wrote in a thread on the weekend:

If you said before the war in Iraq that the country had no WMD, then hoist the Cup over your head and take a victory lap. Shanana, hey, hey, hey, goodbye!! You win. Tampa loses!!

I found in the pre-Iraq debates lots of people who put forth various objections to the approaching conflict, ranging through a gamut that included: "war is never the answer," "hundreds of thousands of civilians will be killed and nothing is worth that," "the inspectors need more time," "we don't know that he has WMD (different than saying he didn't)," "America has WMD so why can't Iraq have it," "Imperial America only wants Iraq's oil," etc, etc.

There were actually lots of people on this board who objected to the war but didn't object by saying: "Iraq has no WMD." It implies they didn't know for sure or they actually believed he possessed the weapons but objected on other grounds or didn't think WMD was important.

So . . . . throw your hands up in celebration if you said he had no WMD. You win. Truly. The podium is yours. If you didn't, then you might be in the muck with the rest of the wafflers or deniers.

In other words, I think a lot of the objectors to the conflict believed he had WMD or weren't sure he didn't. Both sides have a few Geraldo's.

In the end though, there's only one team that gets to wear the dunce cap and that's the way it is and should be.

Harry Truman had a sign on his desk - "The buck stops here."

Cowperson

[Flame On]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 12 2004, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 12 2004, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bertuzzied@Oct 12 2004, 01:40 PM
This is happening in Sudan also. Why isn't Bush invading there? i guess not enough oil!

The world already hates Bush and the US for invading Iraq. Lets make everyone hate them even more by invading Sudan.

The US tried basically the same thing in Somalia. I can't remember if the went alone or not.

On that note, why doesn't another country step up to the plate? Why doesn't Canada go in. The UN is too busy trying to decide if it is geoncide, meanwhile thousands are being killed. [/b][/quote]
The world doesn't hate the US and Bush, just Bush. So what do you care, half your own country doesn't much like him either, so just perhaps it's not about being bratty and saying "gee why doesn't Canada go invade them" it's a sarcastic comment about how the Bush admin on behalf of the US picks and chooses it's fights on one criteria, whilst saying that it picks them on another. If it was about liberation and spreading freedom, why not go liberate other dictatorships...we're pointing out the hypocrisy.

[arsenal]

Just for the record, I am Canadian. Born and raised in Calgary.

So, how much of this hatred towards Bush is becuase he is a Bush?
Also, I stand by my comment of "Why doesn't Canada go do something about the Sudan?".
1) First and formost we can't, becuase we don't have the military to do so.
2) We would need the backing of the UN in order to do so. But the UN is too busy trying to decide weither or not it is genocide.
3) Paul Martin already addressed the UN in stating what is going on in Sudan is genocide.

Firstly, I applaud Mr. Martin for standing up in front of the UN and for his first speech basically giving the other member nations a figurative slap in the face.
Secondly, you may think that I am not a proud Canadian, becuase I basically slammed our military. Well, maybe if we had a stronger military, a navy that didn't catch on fire, and enough plane for our pilots, maybe we could be a permanent member on the UN council.

Originally posted by Flame On
it's a sarcastic comment about how the Bush admin on behalf of the US picks and chooses it's fights on one criteria, whilst saying that it picks them on another. If it was about liberation and spreading freedom, why not go liberate other dictatorships...we're pointing out the hypocrisy.

Why are you suggesting that a dictatorship is evil? Pakistan is a dictatorship. They are showing signs of growth and prosperity. Pakistan is able to get along in the world community. China is a dictatorship, they are able to get along in the world community (somewhat).
On the flipside, there are badly run democracies as well. Mulroney(sp) for one.
I am sure everyone will point out G.W. Bush.

Its not a matter of just dictatorships. Its a question of what that leader does to his people. What kind of threat they pose to the world community. At the time in question, Iraq was the largest perceived threat.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 12 2004, 03:57 PM
Firstly, I applaud Mr. Martin for standing up in front of the UN and for his first speech basically giving the other member nations a figurative slap in the face.
Secondly, you may think that I am not a proud Canadian, becuase I basically slammed our military. Well, maybe if we had a stronger military, a navy that didn't catch on fire, and enough plane for our pilots, maybe we could be a permanent member on the UN council.

And you should be a proud Canadian, even if you exposed our under-funded, miniscule military. Be proud of the fact that we still HAVE an army! I know I am!

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 12 2004, 10:57 PM
2) We would need the backing of the UN in order to do so. But the UN is too busy trying to decide weither or not it is genocide.

Sweet, I'm Calgarian too

I'm no expert on this stuff, but I thought that for a peacekeeping force to be dispatched, the host country had to agree or something? Clearly that was not the case in Somalia (I assume, since warlords ran the show).

Maybe someone can correct me (I'm sure they can)

[Flame On]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 12 2004, 10:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 12 2004, 10:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Just for the record, I am Canadian. Born and raised in Calgary.

So, how much of this hatred towards Bush is becuase he is a Bush?
Also, I stand by my comment of "Why doesn't Canada go do something about the Sudan?".
1) First and formost we can't, becuase we don't have the military to do so.
2) We would need the backing of the UN in order to do so. But the UN is too busy trying to decide weither or not it is genocide.
3) Paul Martin already addressed the UN in stating what is going on in Sudan is genocide.

Firstly, I applaud Mr. Martin for standing up in front of the UN and for his first speech basically giving the other member nations a figurative slap in the face.
Secondly, you may think that I am not a proud Canadian, becuase I basically slammed our military. Well, maybe if we had a stronger military, a navy that didn't catch on fire, and enough plane for our pilots, maybe we could be a permanent member on the UN council.

<!--QuoteBegin-Flame On
it's a sarcastic comment about how the Bush admin on behalf of the US picks and chooses it's fights on one criteria, whilst saying that it picks them on another.# If it was about liberation and spreading freedom, why not go liberate other dictatorships...we're pointing out the hypocrisy.

Why are you suggesting that a dictatorship is evil? Pakistan is a dictatorship. They are showing signs of growth and prosperity. Pakistan is able to get along in the world community. China is a dictatorship, they are able to get along in the world community (somewhat).
On the flipside, there are badly run democracies as well. Mulroney(sp) for one.
I am sure everyone will point out G.W. Bush.

Its not a matter of just dictatorships. Its a question of what that leader does to his people. What kind of threat they pose to the world community. At the time in question, Iraq was the largest perceived threat. [/b][/quote]
Well Saddam, if you kept out of his hair was pretty good for his people too. There was power, there was gas, there was business, there was water, there was a lot. China may act well with the world, but they have a lot of dirty laundry we know some about, and there's still lots more we don't I'm sure. Anyway, i think it's more a case of we get on with them, because of their burgeoning economy and not least due to their imense military!!! Pakistan was all but part of the problem with the Taliban until the US forced t hem to take a side, and they did. Do they get on with India?
I'm affraid I can't agree that a badly run democracy is a tenth as bad as a "well" run dictatorship.
Your points on Canada, Somalia and our military are taken.