It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED: Saddam's Daily Horrors *Graphic Content*

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   
The liberal American press is the impetus behind the furor over the abu ghraib "torture" pictures/scandal! How ridiculous...a few soldiers go " a little" over the top and "embarrass some prisoners" and now the whole military is sadistic! Just what they want to hear on Capitol Hill...like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy! I actually used to like Chappaquidick Ted till his cute little remark about the prison being under "new " management. There is No comparison between what our troops did and what Saddam or the beheading terrorists have done. Somebody is blowing smoke!!




posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   


TextThere is No comparison between what our troops did and what Saddam or the beheading terrorists have done. Somebody is blowing smoke!!


You may have a point, but remember anything US does in any part of Iraq now, will be magnify, analyze, and use against us, for the only reason of us seen as invaders and Americans over all.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jalengrma
The liberal American press is the impetus behind the furor over the abu ghraib "torture" pictures/scandal! How ridiculous...a few soldiers go " a little" over the top and "embarrass some prisoners" and now the whole military is sadistic!


You think all they did was what you saw? Have you read the reports?



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Yes Saddam was a brutal dictator, or so we have been told to believe, but how does this justify Americans raping men/women and commiting a myriad of other vial acts ?

What have those civilians done to deserve this ? Why were they imprisoned? Under the same intell that discovered the WMD'S ? How long with the Us bounce around excuses to justify this war ?



Bush is a passive Saddam.

America should have invaded to take down a brutal dictator, not to enlarge thier cash crop.

Deep



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Bush is a passive Saddam.


No. Not even slightly comparable to Saddam. Saddam tortured and killed people for forty years!

George W. Bush gets worse press than Saddam Hussein, because lets face it, America is the superman of the world. People expect America to be perfect. Noone expects that of places in the middle east or other third world countries.

Noone ever talks about Pol's Pot in Cambodia, or the outrageous tortures inflicted by Hussein and his regime. But people are made to be naked and stacked in a pyramid, and the press goes wild! So a few people lose thier dignity? Cry me a river, build a bridge, and jump off it!

No, its not right, but thats life. Theres bad apples in every barrel.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I would like take this opportunity to encourage everyone who does not agree with what America (or the UK) is doing in Iraq to move to France.

The human race, no matter how "civilized" it becomes, will always require war. War is something humans will NEVER outgrow. Pacifism only gets you conquered in the long run, read some history books.

You know what else? War is atrocious. It's a horrible, vile, despicable aspect of human nature. That's not gonna change either, not in any significant way. War is never going to be pleasant.

The Coalition has launched one of the nicest, most politically correct wars in recorded history, and still people gripe. Read some of the atrocious things that have occurred in past wars (worldwide) and prove me right.

Iraqi individuals are INFINITELY better off than they were before we went in there. Yes, some innocent civilians died, but how many innocent civilians had been killed before we arrived, and how many more would have been killed had we not gone at all? A TON more than died in the war effort. Has no one heard of the Greatest Good? If one person has to die to save one thousand, it sucks for that one person, but isn't it worth it?

People who would rather see more of their own innocent countrymen dead than risk embarassing a few foreign combatants make me physically ill.

Carry on,

--J1m



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:54 AM
link   


I would like take this opportunity to encourage everyone who does not agree with what America (or the UK) is doing in Iraq to move to France.


I would like to tell you to dig a hole and stay in it, cause thats obviously where you mind is.



The human race, no matter how "civilized" it becomes, will always require war. War is something humans will NEVER outgrow. Pacifism only gets you conquered in the long run, read some history books.


The pioneers of a warless world are those who refuse military service - Einstein. Yea, lets go to war cause everyone else is doing it. Have you ever stopped to consider that war encourages war? We can defend ourselves, but whats this crap about pre-emptive strike all about? If we had that in the COLD WAR, MOST WOULDN"T EVEN BE ALIVE RIGHT NOW!!!



You know what else? War is atrocious. It's a horrible, vile, despicable aspect of human nature. That's not gonna change either, not in any significant way. War is never going to be pleasant.


Couldn't agree more. The much heralded precision missiles probably helped out some with that...oh, no, wait, they killed many innocents too..



The Coalition has launched one of the nicest, most politically correct wars in recorded history, and still people gripe. Read some of the atrocious things that have occurred in past wars (worldwide) and prove me right.


Nice propaganda. Make an assertion, make someone else prove it wrong. Prove it right!!!! The latest Iraqi war had tripled the casualties from the GULF WAR! I won't even go beyond that, because that's your responsibility to prove your own assertion.



Iraqi individuals are INFINITELY better off than they were before we went in there. Yes, some innocent civilians died, but how many innocent civilians had been killed before we arrived, and how many more would have been killed had we not gone at all? A TON more than died in the war effort. Has no one heard of the Greatest Good? If one person has to die to save one thousand, it sucks for that one person, but isn't it worth it?


Let's see, the US helped put Saddam into power. The US helped supply Saddam with WMDs. The UN oil-for-food program involved companies illegaly buying oil that we now allow to rebuild Iraq and companies in which members of the Bush administration were involved in. The money which went into Saddams pocket. Yea, I could see him taking care of the rest.



People who would rather see more of their own innocent countrymen dead than risk embarassing a few foreign combatants make me physically ill.


I don't really know what you mean. My mind allows me to see more than in shades of black and what. Maybe you could clarify.

The whole point is, did we need to go to war???Was Saddam an immediate threat? I say no.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 04:22 AM
link   

I would like to tell you to dig a hole and stay in it, cause thats obviously where you mind is.


What, exactly, makes me appear that I have my head in the sand? Perhaps you're just taking a personal shot at me?




The pioneers of a warless world are those who refuse military service - Einstein. Yea, lets go to war cause everyone else is doing it. Have you ever stopped to consider that war encourages war? We can defend ourselves, but whats this crap about pre-emptive strike all about? If we had that in the COLD WAR, MOST WOULDN"T EVEN BE ALIVE RIGHT NOW!!!


I seem to remember the United States "pre-emptively" attacking Germany in WWII. Our gripe was with Japan, not Germany. Germany just happened to be allied with someone who attacked us. Was America wrong to attack Germany then? I would wager the Nazis would have killed Einstein, too, had America not protected him. A warless world would be Utopian, and by Utopian I mean unobtainable.


Couldn't agree more. The much heralded precision missiles probably helped out some with that...oh, no, wait, they killed many innocents too..

Obviously, you are one of those people that overlooked the idea of greatest good. Brush up. The ones that lived are a lot better off than they were under Saddam.


Nice propaganda. Make an assertion, make someone else prove it wrong. Prove it right!!!! The latest Iraqi war had tripled the casualties from the GULF WAR! I won't even go beyond that, because that's your responsibility to prove your own assertion.


I suppose this "Gulf War" you refer to was Operation Desert Storm. Operation Desert Storm lasted about 3 days. So we have TRIPLED the casualties of a 3 day "war" in about 180 times the length of time? Is that what you're implying? Sounds pretty humane to me, why don't you pick a real conflict next time?



Let's see, the US helped put Saddam into power. The US helped supply Saddam with WMDs. The UN oil-for-food program involved companies illegaly (sic) buying oil that we now allow to rebuild Iraq and companies in which members of the Bush administration were involved in. The money which went into Saddams pocket. Yea, I could see him taking care of the rest.


Give me a break. The whole world had a vested interest in Saddam Hussein. France was selling him advanced weaponery. Russia and France had been getting massive kickbacks from Saddam in the Oil-For-Food program. That's why they wouldn't back us up. Saddam Hussein was MOCKING the United Nations Security Council. Enough is enough, and America was the first nation with the cajones to stand up. Did America screw up sometime in the last 25 years or so? Sure we did. Did anyone else screw up? Absolutely. Did anyone else stand up to Iraq? Not many.

And what about KBR/Halliburton? They do the best job in America. How do you win a gov't contract? By doing a good job. Find me a better qualified American company to do the work. Why American? To the victor go the spoils. Can you backup your assertion that Saddam was paying off Haliburton? I can back up my assertion that Saddam was paying off France and Russia. Just see the bottom of this post.



J1M - People who would rather see more of their own innocent countrymen dead than risk embarassing a few foreign combatants make me physically ill.

Clarification: People say it's horrible that we humiliated these foreign combatants. Some of them (most of them) knew something that would save American lives. I say that American lives are worth more than their pride. If you knew that one of these people had information which could save the life of a loved one, how would you extract the information, or would you let your loved one(s) die with the solution sitting right in front of you? War is hell, and a lot of hard decisions have to be made. Put yourself in the decision-making shoes.

So, that said, would YOU rather see a humiliated enemy combatant, or another dead American?


The whole point is, did we need to go to war??? Was Saddam an immediate threat? I say no.


. . .and you are correct to say no. However. A LOT of innocent people were being tortured and killed. Did we NEED to save them? Nope. We CHOSE to save them. Saddam was not going to overthrow America, this much is true. Was he going to continue to do bad things to his people, bribe European leaders, and make a mockery of the United Nations? I think he would have. America CHOSE to do what America did for the greatest good, not because they HAD to or NEEDED to.



--J1m

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." --Albert Einstein


Edit: Oh yeah, links. . .

Advanced French Weaponery Found in Iraq
Russia and France taking kickbacks from Oil-for-food
Cheers!

[edit on 24-6-2004 by Just1Man]



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 06:19 AM
link   
i don't care what saddam did. of course it was evil, but the world is chock full of evil dictators. the cry of 'look how evil saddam was' is really only the cry of two people- his victims, and the neo-cons who realized that "WMD's" failed as a rallying point for their war.

the video is old news. everyone knew saddam tortured his people mercilessly. no one cared until we needed new justification for this war. the reason abu ghraib is so scandalous, in my american mind, is because it was americans doing it, not iraqis. i can't be responsible for the rest of the world, but i will shout and make a fuss if i see my own people behaving in such a manner.

-koji K.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by d1k
Where did you get that from what I wrote? Sometimes I do think we should just drop a flurry of nukes and wipe out all those savages though.

I agree, turn the place into a glass car-park.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Just1man,

I will have to agree with Jamuhn, but this evil doer of Sadam was US pretty boy at one time, and we did financed him, we praised and we gave him American money, It is more of Evil Sadam and condescend America that this government will one you to see.

And we have done this not only we them but with many ( now evil ) nations in the world, occurs evil now but not when US were financing them, and about Frances and Russia well they were doing what we have done in the past. Big Deal now they are the evil too and US is the savior. Right?

Foreign politics are dirty nasty and US is in the middle of all of it.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Saddam's French weapons were provided to him essentially at US request. The majority of European powers wanted to support Iran following Iraq's unprovoked attack on Iran, but the US supported secular Saddam. Reagan and his cronies couldn't convince the congress or the american people to allow arms sales directly to Iraq at the time, because even then his poor human rights record was known (although it didn't stop the US from selling him chemicals needed for biological weapons programmes). So, under "Operation Staunch", we convinced and encouraged our European allies, primarily the French and West Germans, to sell weapons to Iraq instead, guaranteeing their payment on Saddam's behalf as incentive and frequently utilizing american-based arms brokers as middle men.

In another matter, Kellog Brown & Root, that fine American company, was indicted in 1995 for faciltating arms sales to Libya, and again for practicing apartheid-style racial discrimination in the workplace. ("American-only" bathrooms, among other things.)

So, if we're American, let's not fool ourselves into believing we're squeaky clean. No one is. And what good is it pointing fingers at other countries? Can you change anything there? Change things at home. It's easier. Go ask a Nam vet.

-koji K.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
koji_K,

Thanks, you did the homework I did not wanted to do so early in the morning and without coffeeeeee, you are right, we can dig hard and long and find the US foreign policies connections (the dirty ones) all over, but memories are short and the media makes a good job at selling the (compassioned America) lead by our government.

It is a pity that US is the greatest country in the world and that it can do so many goods, but the politicians and governments have twisted and used this greatness to their own advantage, now we are becoming one of the most hated country in the world.


And we the people have never been ask if we wanted any part of it, is our lives and our security the one that the decision of this government jeopardizes. With their stupidity and poor choices, I see presidents as any other human give them power and their go on a power trip.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
"Operation Staunch" discouraged all arms sales. It especially discouraged arms sales to Iran. This does NOT equate to encouraging arms sales to Iraq.

Can anyone back up some of the stuff that's been said about KBR? I don't mean liberal media speculation, either. I read one time that Dick Cheney was a reptoid alien, who would have guessed? I've seen a ton of really BAD allegations, but when I started digging, it turns up unfounded, based on a confidential top secret document, or based on an anonymous tip.

Once again. . .Did America screw up in the past in Iraq? Yes. Did pretty much the entire world community screw up in the past in Iraq? Yes. How many groups stepped up to fix their mistake? How many groups voted in the United Nations Security Council to leave Saddam Hussein alone, despite his being in non-compliance with international will for about 12 years?

So it looks like everyone else thinks we should have left Saddam in Iraq to torture and kill Iraqis until his heart was content and he died of old age. I guess that would have been a lot easier and more convenient for the American people. We didn't jump the gun going into Iraq, we waited too long.

Oh, and does anyone remember finding Sarin gas in Iraq? I certainly do.

--J1m



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   


TextI guess that would have been a lot easier and more convenient for the American people.


Just1man,

I agree until this point, our goverment is the one that make our decicions not us the public, the mistake he make the world make us resposible for it and that is the truth, and you are right US waited to long when it cvomes to Iraq, Bush senior made a mistake and we the people of this country and Iraq people is paying for it after 10 years.



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   


So it looks like everyone else thinks we should have left Saddam in Iraq to torture and kill Iraqis until his heart was content and he died of old age. I guess that would have been a lot easier and more convenient for the American people. We didn't jump the gun going into Iraq, we waited too long


The most convenient thing for American people is to believe everything the government tells them. But anyway, since when do you liberate a people by killing them. You say, the greatest good. How come we didn't take out Saddam on his own. There are many ways we could have done this, but the way we chose to do it is drop as many bombs as possible in the shortest amount of time and then shoot first as questions during the ground invasion. I can't be critical without giving my own solution, so...

There such a thing called DIPLOMACY, which we were far from exhausting. We should have said to Saddam, let all your people go to Turkey or wherever and we'll set up refugee camps for them. As far as I know, there wasn't much of any kind of talk between us and iraq, and we just decided to rush in there and kill,kill,kill.

BTW. Does the common good call for the indifference to looting of the priceless artifacts, life savings, and most other property of the Iraqi people?



posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Just1Man
"Operation Staunch" discouraged all arms sales. It especially discouraged arms sales to Iran. This does NOT equate to encouraging arms sales to Iraq.

Can anyone back up some of the stuff that's been said about KBR? I don't mean liberal media speculation, either. I read one time that Dick Cheney was a reptoid alien, who would have guessed? I've seen a ton of really BAD allegations, but when I started digging, it turns up unfounded, based on a confidential top secret document, or based on an anonymous tip.


True about Operation Staunch, but you need to look at it holistically. The man in charge, Richard Fairbanks, left the Reagan administration and ended up on Saddams payroll as head of an advisory group helping Iraq get weapons and supplies from the US. During the same time he headed Staunch, he encouraged the sale of weapons to Iraq, frequently during the same trips which were part of Staunch. For one source on this, see Murray Waas's article, "What Washington Gave Saddam For Christmas", The Village Voice, Dec. 18, 1990.

As for the KBR stuff, it's all in Singer, P. "Corporate Warriors", Cornell University Press, 2003. pp 141-42.

-koji K.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Well, from my side, it looks like the most convenient thing for people to do is believe everything the MEDIA tells them. How about a little balance? I certainly don't lap up everything the government says without thinking about it and researching. The media is not a noble, non-partisan institution anymore (If it ever was). They have a lot of stock in politics. If one doesn't believe everything the politicians say, one certainly shouldn't believe everything the media says.

Good point, why DIDN'T we take out Saddam on his own? Assassinating a head of state is (also) prohibited by the Geneva Convention. Had we "taken Saddam out on his own," people would still be attacking the governing bodies of the coalition. Yes, assassinating Saddam Hussein could have saved a lot of innocent lives, but what of the rest of the Baathist party, etc? Saddam was not acting alone.

Diplomacy was attempted for 12 years. The government of Iraq was not cooperative. They had no interest in being diplomatic. When Operation Desert Storm removed Iraq from Kuwait, the diplomatic process began (or continued, depending on how you look at it). Iraq continually broke deals and scoffed at the international community.

Speaking of 12 years, that's a long time to seek refuge. Iraqis were taking refuge in Saudi Arabia before the first Iraq Conflict. A good many Iraqis have made it out in the last 15 years or so. There were places to go, and there was a lot of time to do it. Approximately 4 million Iraqis were in "refuge" areas worldwide when the war began. 500,000 in Saudi Arabia alone.

There are people who will always say "America should have done more," no matter how much America does. There comes a time when you have to make good on your word.

Are priceless artifacts, life savings, and property worth human life? It is a shame that these things were not preserved, but is that more important than minimizing civilian death? Prioritize. I think it's better to be free, poor, and alive than enslaved, rich, and dead. The people who survived in Iraq are going to experience a wealth and a quality of life that those who died under Saddam never dreamed of. They're poor now, but things will get better. Most of the people who had something to lose were affiliated with the governing party, thugs, and criminals. The general populace was not very wealthy.

"France became the major source of Iraq's high-tech weaponry, in no small part to protect its financial stake in that country. The Soviet Union was Iraq's largest weapon's supplier, while jockeying for influence in both capitals. Israel provided arms to Iran, hoping to bleed the combatants by prolonging the war. And at least ten nations sold arms to both of the warring sides."

--From Stephen Shalom's "The United States and the Iran-Iraq War"

America was not alone in manipulating Iraq and Iran, and was also not the most influential. Richard Fairbanks did questionable things. Does that mean people associated with Fairbanks are inherently corrupt, or inherently "in on it?" Also, the vast majority of what they got from America were the "dual-use" items: Helicopters, trucks, etc (which were not armed). If you sell someone a plastic bag, and they suffocate their neighbor with it, are you liable? I know it's a cop-out, but think about it. It was a dark time for America, but it was a darker time for the world as a whole. This was the Cold War. I think that comes down to communism vs democracy, and some shady things were done to preserve democracy. I feel that was a different era, and is a different discussion all together.

Oh, and for the record, I apologize for my initial France comment in this forum. It was a cheap shot, and not very indicative of my beliefs. America is all about expressing dissimilar ideas from dissimilar people. I was wrong to imply that people should leave America just because they disagree with something America does.

Also, thank you for hearing me out, even though many of you don't agree with me.


--J1m

1. Diana Johnstone, "'Little Satan' Stuck in the Arms Export Trap," _MERIP Reports_, no. 148, Sept.-Oct. 1987, pp. 8-9.

2. Mansour Farhang, "The Iran-Iraq War: The Feud, the Tragedy, the Spoils," _World Policy Journal_, vol. 2, Fall 1985, p. 668; see also Cordesman, _Iran-Iraq War..._, pp. 23-36; Nita M. Renfrew, "Who Started the War?" _Foreign Policy_, no. 66, Spring 1987, pp. 104-06.



posted on Jun, 25 2004 @ 06:56 AM
link   
We can argue about the invasion of Iraq, on and on for years, and the reason we did and didnt, and what we should have done 10-12 years ago and did not.

But the truth comes to this administration still did not fallow Geneva conventions when invade Iraq and US is stuck to his neck now with this country and I don't see and end to it.

May be I am one of the few that see that Iraq is not better off, and terrorism is still as active as it was before Iraq.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join