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.

 

WAR: The Story of Iraq No Other News Source is Reporting

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fu Manchu
.......
Photo ops with innocent children don't change that.


Neither do wild claims with no proof to back them up......

Fu....according to you we made Saddam attack Kuwait.....prove that first....then prove that the US killed disarmed Iraqis as they were retreating...in general present proof for your claims or do not make wild claims unless you can prove them.....

BTW, as i said i hate having to present this, but the facts are that under Saddam, and under sanctions to disarm Saddam more Iraqis were killed.

Saddam was not a peaceful man like Moore and some people would like you to believe....the facts prove this. And these facts come from Iraqis who suffered and saw family members being killed many times in masses...

I am going to wait for the proof to your claims....

[edit on 31-10-2004 by Muaddib]




posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 01:11 AM
link   








War is hell. It's always hell, whatever the rationale. To pretend otherwise is either ignorant or psychotic.

As far as the rationale goes and why we're in Iraq, exactly - well that changes every day doesn't it? Bush went into Afghanistan after OBL and al-Queda with world support. Then he suddenly shifted gears, and attacked Iraq - I can't even remember if OBL was supposed to be in Iraq at the time because the story keeps changing.

At this point, the spin seems to be that somehow the war in Iraq is NOT about oil, but rather simultaneously to free the Iraqi people and save the world from terrorism. Duh. Doesn't wash.

The war in Iraq is not making the US, Iraq OR the world a safer place. It is creating new terrorists every day. It is creating angry mad anguished terrorists who will not quit until they are avenged.

Good work guys. Great planning. It will take centuries to recover from this little resource grab.


.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   
---edited for double post---

[edit on 31-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 01:20 AM
link   
And leaving hundreds of thousands and even millions of people getting killed in mass by genocide is more psychotic than going to war to stop this....

Would you rather have it if we never fought against Hitler?......

Was there just one reason for going to war in Iraq? no, there were many.


[edit on 31-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
And leaving hundreds of thousands and even millions of people getting killed in

Was there just one reason for going to war in Iraq?



I will agree there were a lot of excuses - and some very cute dancing!


But let's get something straight - the US did not go to war with Iraq. The US attacked Iraq, unprovoked. Going to war implies a legal position, one with the recognition of other world powers. The world did not recognize the US action, and the US did not declare a formal war. ...Last I heard - it was some vague and general BS about a war on terrorism.

The US attack on Iraq was corporate colonization. The rest is just spin.



.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Under the UN and Clinton's sanctions on Iraq there were from 500,000-560,000 children who died in Iraq, and this is without counting the older people who died which put the figure to possibly 1,000,000 Iraqis dead... meanwhile countries like Russia, France, Germany, NK, and a few other were making billions. (Is this what you were refering to when you said millionares were getting richer at the expense of Iraqis?
)


So the sanctions put in place by George Herbert Walker Bush killed more people than Saddam Killed?
Why aren't you slamming him instead of the UN members like France, Germany and Russia who were trying to get the sanctions lifted because of all of the deaths?


Another vote to starve Iraq (May 1 1998)

France Calls for Lifting of Sanctions Against Iraq (August 1, 2000)

Iraq: France Incensed At Being Ignored By U.S., Britain (March 1, 2001)



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

I will agree there were a lot of excuses - and some very cute dancing!


But let's get something straight - the US did not go to war with Iraq. The US attacked Iraq, unprovoked. Going to war implies a legal position, one with the recognition of other world powers. The world did not recognize the US action, and the US did not declare a formal war. ...Last I heard - it was some vague and general BS about a war on terrorism.

The US attack on Iraq was corporate colonization. The rest is just spin.

.


No, we went under resolution 1441 which had an unanimous vote by most UN nations.

www.itmweb.com...

UN Security Council Resolution 1441
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions, notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles". Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if these are not met. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance.


Excerpted from.
www.brainyencyclopedia.com...


[edit on 31-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Now, I want to see where the 100,000 figure of Iraqis killed in this war comes from...and I suppose all these people claiming this say the coalition forces killed all these people?......which is an outright lie..... if you follow even the mainstream media most Iraqis are dying by attacks done by insurgents' attacks.....

BTW, I really hate having to present proof of these attrocities...which some people don't seem to believe proof is needed and making wild claims is just enough....


This is the report here:


Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq
We estimate that
98 000 more deaths than expected (8000194 000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the
outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction,
cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of
death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces.


They're saying that most violent deaths were attributed to coalition forces not insurgents.

Another article, from Knight Ridder, also says that there were more people killed by the coalition than by insurgents:

More Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. forces than by insurgents, data shows



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
In a war zone, you only hear of the terror and horror that happens. But beleive me there is alot of great compassionate, things going on also. GI's have thing for kids. I know we used to give away alot of candy, chewing gum and medical treatment if called for.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

But the truth is that there are "tons of good things happening in Iraq."
.
.
And this is not an isolated incident, what I excerpted above is happening all over Iraq. Take a look at the links below if you want to continue reading about the good things that are happening in Iraq, and if you don't want to be influenced into believing that everything that happens in Iraq after the war is violence and death.


There are three reasons why the news media is not playing up this positive news about Iraq.

1) The "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality. This is a fact of news reporting within our own borders, so it should be no surprise that it should extend to the news coverage of a foreign country as well. Negative news is almost always more visceral and more psychologically salient than run-of-the-mill stories about building a new hospital or school.

2) Proportionality. The articles you are talking about speak of children hugging soldiers and schools being built. This is not as positive as the stories of regular beheadings are negative; that is, these stories are not really positive enough because they are regardd as relatively commonplace. If it were a story of Iraqis taking to the streets in massive numbers to protest the insurgents; or if there were stories of some kind of MLK-like nonviolent resistance to the insurgents; or if ; then the stories would be "big" enough to get play in our news media.

3) Believe it or not, we in the United States do not care about the Iraqis; we care about Americans. Americans are the ones who are getting killed in Iraq. One reason that no one can come up with accurate numbers for dead Iraqis is that no one in the U.S. cares enough about them to keep track. I know this war was called Operation Iraqi Freedom. But if we really cared about the Iraqis, we would have taken retribution against Hussein after he gassed his own people in 1988 -- sixteen years ago! -- and we would have helped them when they rose up against Hussein after the end of the first Gulf War.

We aren't there to serve their interests, we are there to serve our interests. Never forget that. Right now that interest (which has been ever-changing) appears to be the encouragement of democratization. On its face this seems to be something that will have the side effect of being good for the Iraqis. But the possibility of this being a successful venture is highly dubious. Democracy alone does not cure all ills for people under extreme duress. Look at Weimar Germany; it was one of the most democratic states in the world when it was created after World War I. But the population still voted the Nazi party into power when things were going tough.

Also, as far as this comment goes:


Originally posted by Muaddib
And leaving hundreds of thousands and even millions of people getting killed in mass by genocide is more psychotic than going to war to stop this....

Would you rather have it if we never fought against Hitler?......


Well, we didn't go to war with Hitler to stop genocide. During the course of the war, FDR was reluctant to take action against the concentration camps (i.e. bombing the train lines to the camps). [This isn't ATSNN conspiracy stuff -- it's historical record that by 1944 we were within range of striking the camps with our bombers, and we didn't.] We got into World War II because we were attacked by Japan. Hitler conveniently declared war against us shortly thereafter. Hitler had already conquered most of Europe at that point, a development which was clearly dangerous for the United States, so we had to get involved in the European theater as well as the Pacific campaign.

The United States does not go to war to stop genocide, especially if it's taking place within a country's own borders. It's never been our policy, and it will not be anytime in the near future. How many troops are we sending to Darfur region of Sudan right now to stop the genocide going on there? How many troops did we send to Rwanda to stop the slaughter of one million in 1994? How many troops did we send to the Ottoman Empire to stop the Armenian slaughter of 1915? And how many did we send to Iraq after thousands of Kurds were gassed at Halabja in 1988?

Oh yeah, zero. None. I will reiterate again: our foreign policy is predicated on our own self-interest, not our willingness to "do good" in other countries. Don't delude yourself.

And finally in regards to this comment:


Originally posted by Muaddib
Was there just one reason for going to war in Iraq? no, there were many.


There are many reasons for us going to war with Iran and North Korea right now, too. There are a lot of reasons for going into Pakistan and Syria as well. Does that mean it would be in our best interest at this point to go to war with them? Or should we find other means to deal with them?



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 02:59 AM
link   
[edit on 31-10-2004 by gurudude]



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Fu Manchu
.......
Photo ops with innocent children don't change that.

Neither do wild claims with no proof to back them up......

Fu....according to you we made Saddam attack Kuwait.....prove that first....then prove that the US killed disarmed Iraqis as they were retreating...in general present proof for your claims or do not make wild claims unless you can prove them.....
I am going to wait for the proof to your claims....
[edit on 31-10-2004 by Muaddib]


Quite a good point. Proof is always best.
RE: the claim "US suckered Iraq into invading Kuwait"
On 25 July 1990 in a meeting in Baghdad between Saddam and US Ambassador April Glaspie, she asked him why his troops were massed at the Kuwaiti border. After some brief discussion of Iraq's grievances, Ambassador Glaspie said:


We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.


In diplomatic circles, that's known as "giving a green light." Remember, up to this time the US & Saddam were allies, with the US giving satellite intel as well as material support to Saddam in his war against Iran.

I'll give you some URLs to investigate the 1991 murder of retreating Iraqis in another post. Out of time right now.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

They're saying that most violent deaths were attributed to coalition forces not insurgents.

Another article, from Knight Ridder, also says that there were more people killed by the coalition than by insurgents:

More Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. forces than by insurgents, data shows



There is a big difference between the two reports. The first one i couldn't even open because my system couldn't verify the signature for the 90,000+ deaths. When it finally loaded it came up blank...

I did a google search for the "98,000 more deaths than expected in Iraq" i also googled "more Iraqi deaths than expected" and 90,000-194,000 Iraqis deaths and the only thing that loaded were reports from Japan on people who have been evacuated due to the earthquakes.

Second, while the first report claims there are 90,000+ death, which the second says the Iraqi interim office mentions about 1,500 althou it does say that the count is probably higher. What is this higher number?.. The US numbers say that there are between 14,000-16,000 Iraqis deaths and even websites which oppose the war and are highly critical of the response of US officials say that the numbers are pretty much the same.

www.iraqbodycount.net...


Althou that was the count in April this year I highly doubt that in 5 months we have killed 70,000+ more Iraqis.... Unless we started dropping scuds on the population again or gassing the masses of Iraqis as Saddam did....

Also your second link quoted a general of Saddam's army.


"The Americans do not care about the Iraqis. They don't care if they get killed, because they don't care about the citizens," said Abu Mohammed, 50, who was a major general in Saddam Hussein's army in Baghdad. "The Americans keep criticizing Saddam for the mass graves. How many graves are the Americans making in Iraq?"


Excerpted from the second link you gave Ace.

Are we quoting now from Saddam's loyalists?
i don't know about you but I still remember Baghdag Bob as he was claiming on the Iraqi tv that "there were no American infidels in Baghdag, that it was all a lie....." meanwhile the US forces were in Baghdag fighting the loyalists of Saddam...

Another question that I have... We all know as it has been announced by every news source, that there have been forces from other countries that have gone to fight in Iraq. Insurgents/radicals from Iran, Syria and probably other countries.

None of the reports so far give the figures from the deaths of these people, so my guess is that when they are counting the deaths in Iraq everyone is counting the deaths of all these people as if they were Iraqis, unless you believe that we have not killed any of these radicals/insurgents that have gone to Iraq.


[edit on 31-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fu Manchu
............


We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.


In diplomatic circles, that's known as "giving a green light." Remember, up to this time the US & Saddam were allies, with the US giving satellite intel as well as material support to Saddam in his war against Iran.

I'll give you some URLs to investigate the 1991 murder of retreating Iraqis in another post. Out of time right now.


Let me try to clear something out... First, you are claiming that you know how diplomatic circles work? what is your expertise on how "diplomatic circles work?

Second, the claim that what the US Ambassador said was a green light for Saddam to invade is far fetched....

Having no opinion on an issue as a green light to go to war..... i am no expert on the political arena but thats too far fetched.

Also next time do show links please, so we can see where those quotes come from.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   
BTW, once again this thread which was originally to post the "good things happening in iraq" was turned into the violence in iraq once again.

I guess what the News media are suggesting is true, many if not most Americans and the world only want to know about what is going wrong in Iraq...

humm, perhaps we should only report on what is going wrong in every country and make our opinions about those countries based on those things?......



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
....
So the sanctions put in place by George Herbert Walker Bush killed more people than Saddam Killed?
Why aren't you slamming him instead of the UN members like France, Germany and Russia who were trying to get the sanctions lifted because of all of the deaths?


How do you figure the sanctions were allowed to stay in place by GWB after he was not in office?

Under Bush senior the sanctions against iraq started, yet Clinton kept the sanctions in place.

Let's see what Clinton has said about the sanctions in 2000.


AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton, UN figures show that up to 5,000 children a month die in Iraq because of the sanctions against Iraq.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: (Overlap) That's not true. That's not true. And that's not what they show. Let me just tell you something. Before the sanctions, the year before the Gulf War, you said this ... how much money did Iraq earn from oil? Answer - $16 billion. How much money did Iraq earn last year from oil? How much money did they get, cash on the barrel head, to Saddam Hussein? Answer - $19 billion that he can use exclusively for food, for medicine, to develop his country. He's got more money now, $3 billion a year more than he had nine years ago.
........................
AMY GOODMAN: The past two UN heads of the program in Iraq have quit, calling the US policy ... US/UN policy, genocidal. What is your response to that?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: They're wrong! They think that we should reward ... Saddam Hussein says, I'm going to starve my kids unless you let me buy nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. If you let me do everything I want to do so I can get in a position to kill and intimidate people again, then I will stop starving my kids. And so we are supposed to assume responsibility for his misconduct. That's just not right! I know they ... you know, the truth is a lot of these people want to start doing business with Saddam Hussein again because they want his money.


Excerpted from.
www.globalpolicy.org...

Couldn't Clinton have lifted the sanctions any time he wanted to when he was in office?...

Yes, Bush senior put the sanctions, and i see now that I was wrong in here and before as i have thought I read somewhere that it was Clinton who put these sanctions, yet Clinton did nothing when he got the statistics on what the sanctions were doing to the people in Iraq. in fact he decided to keep them in place.

All those link you gave on France and other countries trying to lift the sanctions (do you really believe they said this because they were thinking on the Iraqi people dying because of the sanctions? ....why didn't they make the same deal out of the genocide of Sudan, and Rwanda...so the French and Germans who were somehow involved on what was happening in Rwanda were bashing the sanctions on Iraq...) were brought up when Clinton was in office.

---edited to add comment---




[edit on 31-10-2004 by Muaddib]

[edit on 31-10-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fu Manchu

Ambassador Glaspie: We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

In diplomatic circles, that's known as "giving a green light." Remember, up to this time the US & Saddam were allies, with the US giving satellite intel as well as material support to Saddam in his war against Iran.


Originally posted by Muaddib
Let me try to clear something out... First, you are claiming that you know how diplomatic circles work? what is your expertise on how "diplomatic circles work?

Sorry to seem condescending, but anyone who reads much history, especially from original sources, knows how diplomatic circles work. BTW, my roomate in college has been in the US Foreign Service for decades. He was in Beijing during Tien-an-Men. He was in Israel in the late'90's. I don't have the familiarity he does, but, yeah, I have some idea about diplomatic circles.


Second, the claim that what the US Ambassador said was a green light for Saddam to invade is far fetched....

Never been exposed to the concept of "a wink and a nod?"

Having no opinion on an issue as a green light to go to war..... i am no expert on the political arena but thats too far fetched.

Don't know how old you are, but at the time, it was discussed widely, but not so much in the US press, of course.

Also next time do show links please, so we can see where those quotes come from.

You're quite right. But the best way would just be to google "April Glaspie," to get a variety of takes on the scene. Shereally isn't known for much else besides this incident.There appear to be 2 versions of the Glaspie/Hussein meeting, one that leaves it as I've put it, and one that adds another line that implies she's only referring to diplomatic recourses to solving the problem. My point is, whichever transcript is accurate, she did say those words, and she knew what a maddog Saddam was. The fact that he was a maddog was exactly why Washington backed him throughout the'80's, and sicced him on Iran in the first place. You don't tell maddogs you "don't care" how they handle things unless you want them to go wild.


Saddam was not a peaceful man like Moore and some people would like you to believe....the facts prove this. And these facts come from Iraqis who suffered and saw family members being killed many times in masses...

I have to agree with you 100% here, muaddib. What I'm saying is that just because someone is a monster DOES NOT give the US or any other government the legal right to invade his country and kill tens of thousands of civilians, especially after he is out of power [as is currently the case]. Check the UN website for the UN Charter to which the USA is a charter signatory. The US Constitution does not give the federal gov't the power to cure the ills of the world in general or those of any country in particular.

Sorry, but it's late & I'm tired. I promise to send the info on the US war crimes in Gulf War '91 tomorrow.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Here. I got some more for ya.
soldier 1

and

soldier 2

and

soldiers holdin' on

It's propaganda and brain-washing that turns our boys into monsters.

May God have mercy on our soldiers and their families. [And I suspect and trust He will.] But, coming home will be very hard, too, and healing from the abuse and the guilt and the sorrow of it all.





[edit on 1-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
It's propaganda and brain-washing that turns our boys into monsters.

May God have mercy on our soldiers and their families. [And I suspect and trust He will.] But, coming home will be very hard, too, and healing from the abuse and the guilt and the sorrow of it all.

[edit on 1-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]


The problem is that a lot of these people who are against the war, are going to take it out with our soldiers when they return, not all of these people, but a lot of them....and it is a shame really, most people are really unaware of the history of their own country, or the world.

War is hell, but through wars every nation was formed....



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fu Manchu
......
The US Constitution does not give the federal gov't the power to cure the ills of the world in general or those of any country in particular.
......


Saddam had shown that he would attack anyone and he was not only a pro-terrorist dictator but he was funding and helping many terrorist groups against the west...

BTW, please do keep on the topic, as there are many threads around the forums that post "everyone's opinion, and bashes the US and it's soldiers for what some have done".....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join