WHITE HOUSE: WE LIED

"My argument has always been anti-Saddam, it's never waivered in my disgust for his dictitorial stranglehold. I won't, however, wrap myself in the flag and claim righteousness while the root cause of anything done to date was simple crony capitalism."

Words. You've argued against Saddam. Mere words. Much akin to someone saying "I support the troops" and then vomit the anti-war rhetoric that usually follows.
Words didn't stop the torture, words didn't stop the rape. Words didn't silence the screams from the plastic shredder.
And words didn't erase another threat to my family. That eraser came in the form of the U.S. military with Bush as the Commander in Chief.

You fear Republican cronyism so much that you'd rather the obvious goals not be met so that your conspiratorial goals can't materialize.

I wonder how you'd react if it were democrat cronyism that would benefit. Naw, I don't really wonder.

hkot - if you want to destroy bad regimes, then perhaps the US should stop supporting countries like Turkey and Columbia. Or Israel maybe? Or are they all good bad regimes? Like when Turkey displaced up to 3 million Kurds and 10000+ were killed, why did the US respond by increasing aid to the Turkish government? How about Columbia where US money is now funding defoliant usage across areas of the country that are helping the anti-government militias?

I don't think any liberals were saying that they agreed with butchering Iraqi's, I think a lot of them would have liked to have seen Saddam removed. But you're totally fooling yourself if you think that's what Bush was fighting about. This justification only came along as a quick "look we're great" thing after the war, to prevent us noticing that there were no WMD's, and to keep us going until they can find some evidence of WMD production or terrorst links (if they can).

TC - Very emotive. But once again, Bush was not fighting for the right of the Iraqi people to live in a democracy. Even you must know that Bush wouldn't risk American lives over something like that...

The difference with Turkey is it is a Democratic Government and it's people are changing its policies over time.

Why should we go in there and bomb the hell out of them to straighten them out, when in 50 years they'll be fine?

I don't believe we "support" columbia if you look at the whole situation going on down there.

We support the organized government, not its crime riddled infrastructure, and you shouldn't believe all that spoon filled crap about "indians" and "native columbians" that you hear from your Anthropology teachers.

Sorry if you didn't mention columbia, but I'm not double checking...damn slow internet today...

My statement was very clear one point is even today on Saddam birthday very clear the before and after shots are quite convincing. The truth is today going to Iraq and shouting praises in the streets because today is his birthday will get you killed. Why was it last year the celebration rivaled Mardigra (sp) in New Orleans or New Years Eve in Rio?

The inspectors were there, clearly they were chosen for this job due to their inteligence. They were there to investigate WMD; they were there after GW1 and just before for quite some time (all together). Why were the facts about what was going on in that country not reported in open forum at the UN?

Gentlemen, during the reports provided by Hans Blix had it been stated either verbally of in writing that these people were being treated the way they were. What very simple conclusion would be made as to why they were not fighting back?

With respect to motivations the issues of torture chambers, mass graves and people who hate their leader. Celebrating his birthday (as they did not this year) is a factor in concluding Saddam Hussein's arsenal with respect to WMD, was sufficient to deal with the population of Iraq.

Its important in respect to understanding this issue to understand what type of people we are talking about.

This being a culture that sees suicide as part of honor as long as the cause is just. Taking this into consideration what is apparent is that the only reason they did not deal with Saddam themselves, was due to the conditions inherent in the environment.

What are some of these conditions?

1. No press reports coming from the Arab press in respect to their plight.

2. The UN not was presenting this factor as an issue with regard to their basic rights.

3. The UN not engaging Saddam Hussein as a result of what he was doing.

Clearly this is not the only country in the world which has or is in the present engaged in this type of behavior. As well it seems apparent that in the aftermath of the Cold War Era, the former leaders of
the Soviet Union. Had very little issues with how the leaders of a country they supported, dealt with their populations.


My feeling is that after we have dealt with the issues of leaders of Nations who were chosen because they fit the profiles of serial killers. We can start to address the other matters which plauge our world.

Bout time let me make myself clear, my personal impression is that because Saddam Hussein was the first person since WW1 to use Chemical weapons against a population. Especially since in was a first strike scenario and furthermore, that it involved Moslems I feel makes killing him Justice.

He should have been taken out power and whatever circumstances could be construed as valid is OK. For me the very act itself invalidates him, his sons and his regime as something I want to see as possible upon this Earth.

Your comments in respect to "wrapping a flag around myself' has nothing to do with why I feel this way, my interests are much more diverse than that. Albeit true I think the US has the right idea and with respect to the future (to be clear) the world must go beyond a five-year plan.

Clearly what is presented above is my opinion.

What are your thoughts?




[Edited on 29-4-2003 by Toltec]

Sorry Toltec, I know you're not addressing me but I thought i'd add that I think you have an interesting point of view on this.

However, I think it's more likely that the Iraqi people were just kept in check by the militia's and the general environment of fear which Saddam constructed.

And about the inspectors... they were there to inspect WMD's, NOT human rights abuses. They can't go reporting about torture chambers when that is totally irrelevant to their mission.

And finally, does Agent Orange count as a chemical weapon? (It's a chemical, it kills people) If it does, then 77 million litres of it probably counts as a sizeable use of chemical weapons.

Toltec - I had been critical against Clinton for not intervening sooner in Bosnia, and it's always been a strong opinion of mine that the role American is obligated to play is that of protector. We have the might and power to influence coalitions to stop these sorts of menaces to mankind globally.
That idealism is alway curtailed by greed. While I respect your opinion, and was not lumping you in with the Thomas's or junior fascist boys club right wingers who've been in Jingoistic overdrive, I strongly disagree & feel that any humanitarian grace out of this whole god foresaken exercise is just gravy.
I don't give a damn what party is driving the cronyism; but when the croynism is on the military/industrial complex scale as we've seen here, you're damn skippy I'm gonna nail the scumbag Republican responsible for making the world a more dangerous place & putting our kids in danger.

Bosnia was a mess About Time what as incredible was that the stench of dead bodies was everywhere, you could not miss it if one spent more than a week there. To be specific in the case of that country the UN would have known more about that anyone else besides the former leaders of the Soviet Union.

All one needed is to be downwind

That's when you stop and consider who is responsible and why people whose job is to interfere with such acts does nothing.

The Soviet Union ran that country and when the Kremlin denounced Stalin and his method of rule, they did so only in Russia. To some extent it continued in the countries of the other Warsaw pact nations. Stalinism as we understood the term (as applied by Stalin) was being practiced in Bosnia and it was also being practiced in Iraq.

I would refer you at this juncture to what being tortured or assaulted does to a person when it is long term with the example of Patty Hearst. Pain and assault with no hope of resolution results in the captive blaming whoever the captor feels they should blame.



Dom as I understand, Napalm is considered a weapon which is disallowed by the UN and to which the USA has complied. If you were asking me if the US used chemical weapons in Vietnam my response would be that Napalm is more like a fuel air bomb than a chemical weapon of mass destruction. Chemical weapons use I feel, are more akin to nuclear weapons use. In that once detonated, chemical weapons active ingredients can kill millions and all that determines that is the weather, of which a factor is the ability to predict it (how much trust do you have in weathermen).

In respect to your other comment, indiscriminant killing and torturing of indigenous peoples in a country. Is a factor related to either a conventional army, which is vastly superior (as in the case of Bosnia). Or if that is not the case the existence of WMD which is used as a threat/promise to those peoples.

Taking into consideration the last three conflicts with USA has engaged in. Iraq military was insufficient to be defined in respect to the former conclusion in the last paragraph.

It was the job of the inspectors to present all information relevant to the matter of Iraqis capacity to apply WMD. To say that what was happening in Iraq in respect to atrocities is not relevant was not there job to decide. Simply stated the fact that one is afraid of someone means they have something that will harm them, but if one is prepared to strap a bomb to oneself and kill what they perceive as an aggressor

Then the mere fact they do not do this to a person whom is torturing and killing those he loves, does clearly present the argument. That whatever is being held against them will do much more harm than what is happening to them now.

Toltec since he'll probably think of it before long.

Agent Orange was a chemical weapon used in Vietnam, but!!!! And this is perfectly legal as my CSM would tell, it was used merely as a foliage remover. Lay that down and nothing would grow back, or so they'd hope. Good DZs.

What many don't understand is the UN allows loopholes.

One such loophole is this, and my CSM employed it plenty of times.

You can not shoot someone with I think a specific round, hollow point for .50 cal machine gun I believe, however as he pointed out, nothing is stopping you from shooting his canteen

The end justifies the means!!!

The history of humanity is based on this.

Just because you think Bush is evil doesn't mean that you can slander the man.

You may be alive this very moment because of him.

Everything is a question of time, Time tells whether a person is a hero or a villian

Bush is not evil, hes just like the French said, " A cowboy".
Theirs nothing wrong with that.

He only won because of Florida. I voted for Gore, F*ck it, Im not complaining.

As for Bush being a bad guy for invading Iraq, S h i t Happens, They're free and happy, and your at home pissed and bitching. Easy to satisfy, I think not.

Just be happy that Gas prices are back and that you werent in Iraq when it was being invaded. Every country ever helped by the US in their most desperate hour has never once bitched about it.

Then why do you bitch when the US helps people, you against helping people?

Thought not. Get the facts straight, nothing worth while has ever been accomplished without spilling blood in the mud.

"you cant make an omlet without cracking a few eggs."

Good Luck

[Edited on 4/30/2003 by FoxStriker]

[Edited on 4/30/2003 by FoxStriker]

[Edited on 4/30/2003 by FoxStriker]

Yesh HkoT, foliage removal was the general idea. But at the time it was already known that Agent Orange caused birth defects etc...

"A 1965 confidential memo by one Agent Orange manufacturer, Dow Chemical, described the dioxin in the herbicide as exceptionally toxic. In 1969, studies in the United States found that dioxin caused birth defects in mice and rats. Two years *later*, the United States halted Agent Orange spraying in South Vietnam. " [emphasis '*' added by me]

Here's another quote from that page

"Vietnamese scientists believe the dioxin contamination has caused not only birth defects, but also respiratory cancers, heart problems and diabetes. Last month, the US Air Force released a study indicating a link between Agent Orange exposure and diabetes and heart disease.

Pilot surveys conducted by Vietnamese researchers in December 1998 found that between 800,000 and 1 million Vietnamese had Agent Orange-related health problems, according to a report released last year by Dr. Le Cao Dai, executive director of the Agent Orange Victims Fund of the Vietnam Red Cross. Up to 100,000 of those affected by the herbicide suffered some form of birth defect, the surveys found. "

www.house.gov...

But of course, the US isn't helping out here at all. Because the US won the war. And these weapons don't count as chemical weapons, because the US used them...

If the USSR had used them you could guarantee that we'd be refering to these attacks as chemical weapons attacks.

Dom there are a lot of chemicals that are used in countries outside the US which are no disallowed for use by the government. Chemicals such as DDT for instance which are highly carcinogenic and as well causes birth defects.

If what your implying is that a chemical defoliant was purposefully introduced into Vietnam to kill civilians. Would suggest had that been the intention the US
would have used something else.

Of the top of my head I can think about several other potential carcinogens and causers of birth defects which is disalowed in the US. But in countires like Vietnam are authorized for use for civilians every day.

But the USSR did worse things Dom and we never pointed it out.

We had a strained relationship with the USSR, we couldn't point out their faults, and they couldn't point out ours without it causing some huge crisis, so we never bothered.

Now apparently you failed to listen, but if we aren't specifically using it for the purposes banned by the UN, then we can use it.

Certain things not allowed under any conditions are serrated bayonettes, and bayonettes larger then, what is it now 3 inches?

But for instance, pesticide, I can spray a field with pesticide in a war time situation, right on the villagers *say they are really vietcong*, and kill them but because I was simply spraying the field, no one can touch me for it.

Afterall, even rice needs pesticide right? lol

"The US military used 19 million gallons of herbicides - including more than 11 million gallons of Agent Orange - between 1962 and 1971 during Operation Ranch Hand, which was intended to destroy forest cover used by Viet Cong guerrillas and, to a lesser extent, crops thought be useful to the insurgents or their sympathizers."

just to point it out again

"and, to a lesser extent, crops thought be useful to the insurgents or their sympathizers."

So the US are "to a lesser extent" targetting food crops.

HKoT - Just because the USSR did bad things doesn't mean that you can justify anything bad that the US did. I thought the US were fighting for good?

Besides, the US should be paying for the cleanup regardless of whether or not these sideeffects were known by the people making the calls. The fact that the report showing birth defects in lab rats came out 2 years before Agent Orange use was stopped does indicate that people in the know knew what the consequences of their actions would be... in which case I don't see a problem with war crimes trials for the people involved.

So the US are "to a lesser extent" targeting food crops.

No it means they were to a lesser extent targeting food crops. Dom there was no issue
to my memory of peoples of Northern Vietnam
starving to death because of the above.

Also this happened a very long time ago and is not reflective of today�s US policy

The war with Vietnam was fought at a time when the matter of Stalin�s acts against his populations was very fresh in the minds of those running NATO and the US (Ever heard the phrase the �lesser of two evils�). Personally I feel the worst thing NATO forces did in the Vietnam War was order its troops not to take prisoners.

But that still was a very long time ago and is not reflective of today�s policies, meanwhile the problem of Stalinism still is what is more important? Saying that the US and NATO forces did something they were not supposed to do between 40 and 30 years ago. Or dealing with the reality that there are leaders in the world who turn children into hamburger while there parents watch at least once a week this year?

Personally I think it�s a matter of priorities, so while I can relate with the idea that Kissinger did something wrong. Given what has been seen to date from the other side of the court walking in his moccasins before
I pass judgement makes sense.

As for Bush being a bad guy for invading Iraq, S h i t Happens, They're free and happy, and your at home pissed and bitching. Easy to satisfy, I think not.

happy???
it s a joke.
they hate us for the years of embargo that lead them to economic crisis, starvation and poverty.
"food for oil" didn t change anything.
Saddam oppression didn t change anything.

They hate Saddam as much as the US.
they are barbarian or ungrateful?
=> they suffered because of us!
Foreign soldiers now occupy their lands.
Actually there is a military dictatorship under General Garner.
Reality is different of PWB speechs.

Oh yep Toltec, sorry, I forgot. We're not actually allowed to admit that the US ever did anything wrong, because it was all "a long time ago". And the recent stuff, we just ignore.

It's worth pointing out that this was the US and Australia verses Soviet-backed guerilla's. And also that the war cost between 2-3 million Vietnamese lives, although no-one knows for certain because nobody counts. After all, who cares how many people the US have killed? It's irrelevant. It was all for the best. The people weren't peace loving and so deserver to die.

I don't believe you're consciously being a hypocrite. But there is a strong whiff of hypocrisy in this view that we're allowed to hold up everybody elses evilness, but we can't possibly look at the evil things that the US have done. Because after all, how can the US be evil? It's just unimaginable!

And yes, dealing with human rights abuses is a great idea. So why don't we start looking at that problem, change starts at home after all, how about stopping the execution of people who committed their crimes under the age of 18? How about stopping execution full stop? How about applying some idea of legal law to the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay? How about stopping the transfer of prisoners to friendly countries for "interrogation" (i.e. torture). OOoops, I forgot again, we're in the war on terrorism right now so the US allowed to do nasty things to anyone they think might be involved. Silly me!

[EDIT] Actually, having reread your post I noticed that maybe I went a bit off the hook. But I think the point is, that it's extremely common for people to just brush things like this under the carpet. "Yes we may have done a few bad things, but they were justified, and they were a long time ago, and we need to look at other things now". The problem is that a lot of other people in the world can see both sides of this. And they're not American and blinded by patriotism, so instead it just looks like the US are hypocrites. Why aren't the US at least helping to play for the cleanup of some of the chemical weapons they used in Vietnam? And why is it impossible to admit that the US may have used chemical weapons in the past? Why is there this constant "Iraq were the only people to have used chemical weapons since the first world war" statement cropping up which is difficult to justify?[/EDIT]

[Edited on 2-5-2003 by dom]

Dom we can place an emphasis upon what happens here and pretend it changes what happens in several parts of the world. Or we can deal with what is happening in several parts of the world bring it to an even keel with what is happening here and then go from there.

What is obvious with respect to the world is that atrocities committed specifically target civilian populations who are non-combatants (this is not happening in the United States). WE as a world have
to set priorities, those priorities based upon a scale of what is the worst to what is the least worst.

I am not trying to brush anything under the carpet I even mentioned that the US/NATO policy of taking no prisoners was wrong.

The very fact that we are not calling herbicides chemical weapons when found in Iraq is one causative factor for not referring to them in the same light with respect to Vietnam.

We may have killed as many people as you state in Vietnam but it was not the result of purposefully targeting civilians, to be more specific in respect to chemical weapons use see attached link...

www.fas.org...


The issue exists today that non-combatant civilians are a target for military style assaults. This problem was in fact more of an issue in the 60s ( as a reuslt of the cold war) which ensued, when Stalin did what he did. In effect it is an effort to place the standards of war prior to the industrial revolution back into effect. But as a reuslt of technology the scale of assault has changed dramatically.

We cannot sit by and allow such a policy to become a precedent and to be certain it is clear such an effort is being made. You feel that (for instance) Henry Kissinger should be tried for war crimes because he supported the activities in Vietnam, which were wrong.

My response is before I took such an action I would have to take into consideration the realities of that decade.

In light of what is apparent today a realistic conclusion is that in the 60s, despite popular belief. The system which was Stalinism, was very much more organized and engaged in many more atrocities than it is an issue at present. Perhaps on as much as 70% to 100% more efficient (the 70% being after Stalin died).

To say the very least Stalin murdered (some say) as many as10,000,000 to 20,000,000 people in the former Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact (had a college professor which was from Checkoslovakia (sp) and lived there in those days, I am quoting his estimate).

My opinion is that the mindset of the administrations, which authorized the Korean and Vietnam war. Were
from the perspective that if Communism gained such a foothold that it controlled the US. 50,000,000 civilians dead as a reuslt of the transition of power, would be the minimum (from the point of view of a peaceful surrender without the use of WMD).

Getting back to walking in another�s Moccasins what would you do to save 50,000,000 lives?


Further reading...

hrw.org...


web.amnesty.org...\IRAQ?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\IRAQ

VzH - I meant it from a comment from somebody else. My bad I should have said who. We did not oppress their people. Saddam did. We oppressed Saddam and he supressed his people. US got involved because Saddam had now become a treat.

Sometimes a country is in a situation where it can be us or them. Be happy your in the fat, supple USA.

And stop bitchin', Nah, I'm just kidding. you got your oppinion, I got mine.

VzH what would you have done??? would you let the Iraqi's be oppressed. If we caused the oppression, our bad, but were fixing it, and the soldiers aren't going to be their forever.

VzH what would you have done??? would you let the Iraqi's be oppressed. If we caused the oppression, our bad, but were fixing it, and the soldiers aren't going to be their forever.

I admit you are right, but on another hand war isn t good (it s really the worst solution to resolve a conflict)
what a difficult dilemma it was this war!
And now the situation is so complicated : tensions between iraqis and soldiers, threat of a muslim state, humanitarian difficulties, illegality of the war...

Yeah, let' s hope marines will go back safely.
Have a thought for them and their family.
and for the iraqi...

Peace...............

Dom, the Nazis killed almost 20 million people, almost 10 million through murder, and the soviets were no better.

May you forever be under Hitler's boot.