Babies found in new mass grave in Iraq (liberals hang your heads in shame)

Originally posted by earthtone

Originally posted by Valhall
We went in on false intell. We went in because we (we being the administration as well) were led to believe that there was an imminent danger of WMDs in a country that was run by a lunatic that had a history of going expansionist.

But how can you say this Valhall. I just cannot believe they they truly viewed Iraq as a threat.

Gotta agree with this one: there were other countries AND other US officials saying that Iraq wasn't a threat. Furthermore, Osama was on the loose and there were a lot of other situations in the world that more desperately needed our attention. I suspect that Iraq looked like an easy target to Bush and in his "cowboy mindset" (and as a Texan, I use that VERY ironically) he wanted to be a huge hero.

I have a number of favorite lunatics with expansionist dreams, including Kim Il Jung of Korea (note that, unlike the President, I can remember the guy's name.)

And on a scale of "relative threat," I think that we can ALL agree that that nut, Osama, is a LOT greater danger than Saddam!

As to the topic, we knew about the mass killings and mass graves since 1989. It's part of the record that this genocide occurred... we're just now digging up the bodies. These aren't fresh graves and fresh executions; they're decades old and the people who (as so many have said) put Saddam in there were the conservatives.

my list of lunatics with expansionist dreams incluse most US presidents.


By the way did i just read "14 year od girl killed by CROSSFIRE" tsk tsk at it again are we?

Originally posted by snagltooth

Iran had the US hostages taken during the Iranian revolution in 1979 until 1980. For that deal look up Iran-Contra.

This had everything to do with arming Sadom IE..punked

Nah, Saddam's been US's bitch for a long time.

Now we have Iran developing nukes and there's a crisis there. It turned out Iraq didn't have nukes and wasn't close. Ok, but we still have to finish job there and not just have some funny elections and throw the winner the keys.

If you look at are History, the election of Lincoln looked worse then this. Freedom has always been spawnd from revolution


Well, US invasion of Iraq wasn't a revolution. We may be seeing a revolution in Iraq now, though, but it's not being supported by the US.

Lincoln's election wasn't that bad. It was the whole South declaring themselves a new country situation that was bad. The country has held together since because there's more commonaliy among the population of the former Confederates and Unionites than seperation. But Southerners still have quite a bit of pride about the Confederacy, and being Southerners - far more than most Yankees really know. This same feeling is multiplied many times over between the ethnicities in Iraq, the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites.

Being Completely Anti-War isn't always a good thing, my left-winged friends.

War is sometimes the answer, not always, nor most of the time, but sometimes, it is. A last resort of catastrophic consequences, no doubt.

However, let us compare the U.S. bombing of innocents, to the complete destruction of life by Saddam. Another question for you: If saddam was still in power, how many more innocent people would have died?

Sure, people die during war. However, those lives lost during war time save thousands during peace time in Saddam's Iraq.

sure, war is neccessary on occasion. not this occasion. not for the reasons given. i would support this war if i believed it was about iraqi freedom. it is not. also, if ousting dictators is reason enough for war, lets slide our cannons over to the North Korean part of the board. Darfur anyone? -oh nothing to gain there - let em' kill eachother off.

A last resort of catastrophic consequences

!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

you mean like when an unstoppable fighting force is on the verge of complete anhialation of europe?

saddam was a joke, his military was destroyed days into the war, guerrilla tactics are their only means of attack. random bombs and such placed on well know american force convoy routes. the only reason we maintain a presence is to control the oil. supplies are shipped back and forth between citys to ensure fully capable security of the oil. we daily walk into the line of fire carelessly to maintain our own selfish needs. does that sound like a catastrophic scenario? perhaps, but it is of our own doing!

Originally posted by sturod84

A last resort of catastrophic consequences

!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

you mean like when an unstoppable fighting force is on the verge of complete anhialation of europe?

saddam was a joke, his military was destroyed days into the war, guerrilla tactics are their only means of attack. random bombs and such placed on well know american force convoy routes. the only reason we maintain a presence is to control the oil. supplies are shipped back and forth between citys to ensure fully capable security of the oil. we daily walk into the line of fire carelessly to maintain our own selfish needs. does that sound like a catastrophic scenario? perhaps, but it is of our own doing!

The oil is not flowing. The insurgents blow up the pipelines and transfer stations at every opportunity.

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
However, let us compare the U.S. bombing of innocents, to the complete destruction of life by Saddam. Another question for you: If saddam was still in power, how many more innocent people would have died?

Sure, people die during war. However, those lives lost during war time save thousands during peace time in Saddam's Iraq.

So to defend the actions of this war you have to consider the United States the police force of the world despite other areas of the world that also are in desperate need of help and actually are far worse? It seems fairly hypocritical to me.

Have you ever read the below article?

observer.guardian.co.uk...

It states that only around 5,000 bodies were found in graves in Iraq that have been blamed upon Saddam. Considering that the extremely conservative estimates of the civilian death toll of Iraq from the current war is somewhere around 13,000, the coalition has seemingly killed more if the above article is true.

Now there was a new article that came out recently about another grave found recently with a few hundred people in it, some children, but even then that would not come close to the low estimate of 13,000 of this current round of hostilities in Iraq.

[edit on 17-10-2004 by heelstone]

.
Crossfire, I feel no shame,
I am not responsible for 20,000 Iraqi deaths and 1000 American deaths or mass graves in Iraq.

You hypocracy is disgusting. Frankly it is sick to justify mass murder with mass murder.
Hitler used some kind of similar phony excuse against the jews in Nazi Germany.

You are just one more murderous person who veils their murderous desires under whatever guise or banner is handy. Religion, patriotism, self protection, every cause is just a phony shell for your mental sickness.

Your brain is diseased to think there is ANY kind of connection at all.

Need I remind anyone that it was the CONSERVATIVE REAGAN administration was sending birthday cakes to Saddam to buddy up with him.

How about murder of Women and children and men in Sudan? You express any concern there. NO. You are pure bullsh*t.

You are another disgusting fake conservative. You are beneath contempt. The kind of filth that slithers underneath the Universe.
.