Guantanamo bay prisoner beatings "common practice"

[CptStern]

Marine Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, who represents a detainee at the U.S. naval base in eastern Cuba, filed a complaint with the Pentagon last week alleging that abuse was ongoing at the prison. He attached a sworn statement from his paralegal, Sgt. Heather Cerveny, in which she said several Guantanamo guards bragged in a bar about beating detainees, describing it as common practice.

http://www.yahoo.com/s/413986

so despite idiot bush's assurances that the US "doesnt use torture" abuse is still common place in US pow prisons

...is that exactly what the US accused Saddam of doing? torturing iraqis? how is this any different?

 

[kirovman]

Ah but the US has moved the goalposts, after having withdrawn from the Geneva Convention.

Anything they do short of castration and burning their genitals in front of their face cannot amount to "torture".

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

"the interrogation method, which simulates castration"

 

[Sulkdodds]

Ridiculous.

 

[Snaps]

If they are terrorrists, they deserve everything thats coming to them.

 

[Tr0n]

If they are terrorrists, they deserve everything thats coming to them.

Go away noob.

 

[99.vikram]

If they are terrorrists, they deserve everything thats coming to them.

Inocent until proven guilty, you genital-burner! :frown:

And after they have been tried and found guilty, they can be punished in an appropriate manner (does not include rape and skinning).

 

[Snaps]

Inocent until proven guilty, you genital-burner! :frown:

And after they have been tried and found guilty, they can be punished in an appropriate manner (does not include rape and skinning).

Yeah, just like criminals in the UK. You kill a person, no problem, get a 10 year sentence and out in 4 years... Yeah... THAT WORKS. Innocent until proven guilty my arse

 

[CptStern]

If they are terrorrists, they deserve everything thats coming to them.

the overwelming majority havent even been charged with anything ...so how can they deserve what they get if it hasnt been proved they're terrorists in the first place? .. the US routinely releases prisoners from gitmo; obviously they're innocent yet most complained of ill treatment while imprisoned ..so this seems less about a punative response and more of a vindictive one

 

[Snaps]

Ive seen and read about so many guilty parties who have just been treated like kings while they are "proven" guilty. Lets face it, the majority of people ARE GUILTY, so they should get whatever is coming to them.

It should be "Guilty until proven innocent" rather than "innocent until proven guilty". And well, if the innocent party loses out... well tough bananas, we all were innocent at one stage but still lost out.

 

[KagePrototype]

It should be "Guilty until proven innocent" rather than "innocent until proven guilty". And well, if the innocent party loses out... well tough bananas, we all were innocent at one stage but still lost out.

 

[Snaps]

I could give you many examples Kage...

 

[CptStern]

Ive seen and read about so many guilty parties who have just been treated like kings while they are "proven" guilty. Lets face it, the majority of people ARE GUILTY, so they should get whatever is coming to them.

do you have anything to support your statements? or are you going on hunch alone?

if the "majority of people ARE GUILTY" as you seem to believe why does the US routinely set them free? I mean you wouldnt release terrorists ...right?


if the "majority of people ARE GUILTY" as you seem to believe why havent the majority of prisoners been charged with anything? I mean if they're terrorists surely it would be a simple matter to try them for acts of terrorism ...why havent they been charged with anything?

Among the roughly 500 detainees, 10 have been tried and none has been proven guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-100106-action-eng
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/11/usdom9990.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art10.shtml
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20020528.html

It should be "Guilty until proven innocent" rather than "innocent until proven guilty". And well, if the innocent party loses out... well tough bananas, we all were innocent at one stage but still lost out.

/me knocks on Snap's forehead ..HELLO!!! they havent been charged with anything! how can they be either innocent or guilty if they've yet to be charged with anything? It seems to me like you're speaking from gut instinct rather than documented evidence ..I suggest you actually do the research before making baseless statements that amount to little more than lip service

I could give you many examples Kage...

by all means please do ..oh and using american court cases as an example does not apply here because as non US citizens are not protected by US law ..they are however protected by international la/geneva convention

 

[Absinthe]

Ive seen and read about so many guilty parties who have just been treated like kings while they are "proven" guilty. Lets face it, the majority of people ARE GUILTY, so they should get whatever is coming to them.

It should be "Guilty until proven innocent" rather than "innocent until proven guilty". And well, if the innocent party loses out... well tough bananas, we all were innocent at one stage but still lost out.

You are the biggest idiot on this forum I've seen in recent weeks.

 

[kirovman]

Innocent until proven guilty my arse

Ok, I accuse you being the mastermind in the 9/11 attacks, you raped and killed a schoolkid, and you are also guilty of supplying nuclear material to North Korea.

Until you prove yourself innocent, you will be tortured to within an inch of your life under the presumption that you're guilty.

Hey, I like this method of law enforcement much better than the standard one, I can see why you get a hard on over it!

 

[VictimOfScience]

What a tattle-tail!! Geez!!

But seriously, is anyone surprised by this? And what does the government care really? I am sure people complained about the abuses at the labor camps in the German/Soviet/Italian/Japanese/Chinese back in WWII too (until they were relocated there with the other human cattle).

And with Habeas Corpus going the way of the dodo, what exactly are we supposed to do?! Man, the next guy in office is sure going to have his work cut out for him trying to clean up everything that Bush and his coven have screwed up.

 

[No Limit]

Is gh0st back again? Shit dude, let it go already.

 

[Stigmata]

It should be "Guilty until proven innocent" rather than "innocent until proven guilty". And well, if the innocent party loses out... well tough bananas, we all were innocent at one stage but still lost out.

Let's tie him down with crushing legal fees!

THIS MAN RAPED ME

 

[0mar]

What a tattle-tail!! Geez!!

But seriously, is anyone surprised by this? And what does the government care really? I am sure people complained about the abuses at the labor camps in the German/Soviet/Italian/Japanese/Chinese back in WWII too (until they were relocated there with the other human cattle).

Actually, both sides treated prisoners of War well. As long as you weren't a jew, Germany treated American and Russian prisoners of war well, giving them decent rations, treating their injuries. Same for the Americans, in general, being a POW during WWII afforded some civility.

It was the Japanese who treated POWs extremely bad. Bataan death march, zero treatment. It's pretty sickening what happened to POWs under those japs. Russians also treated German POWs fairly badly, but nothing that approached war crime level.

And with Habeas Corpus going the way of the dodo, what exactly are we supposed to do?! Man, the next guy in office is sure going to have his work cut out for him trying to clean up everything that Bush and his coven have screwed up.

The next guy in office will do exactly what this administration did. Just like Bush did what Clinton started. Clinton provided the backdrop for the Patriot Act with his extension of the FISA warrant system. Several programs from his day are directly responsible for many pieces of legislation in today. It just so happened that he got his dick sucked at the same time, much like Foley jacked off to arm/leg-cast porn (not making this up) during the dissolution of habeas corpus. Ever since FDR (except for the Eisenhower administration), every administration has been towards authoriatism and away from freedom. It was during JFK's administration that the biggest abuses of CIA and FBI powers occurred, along with massive extension of executive power during emergencies. It was during Johnson/Nixon that the greatest expansion of executive branch power occurred (until now). It was Carter's administration that put us in the Middle East for life (Carter Doctrine, attack on ME oil supplies = attack on American soil). Each administration has kept the steady march towards fascism. Only the PR has changed.

Ive seen and read about so many guilty parties who have just been treated like kings while they are "proven" guilty. Lets face it, the majority of people ARE GUILTY, so they should get whatever is coming to them.

It should be "Guilty until proven innocent" rather than "innocent until proven guilty". And well, if the innocent party loses out... well tough bananas, we all were innocent at one stage but still lost out.

Are you daft boy? Do you realize what the potential for abuse for such a system is (not that it matters anymore with habeas corpus dissolved)? The Pres/SecDef could accuse you of doing anything, classify the documents needed to prove it one way or the other and send it to trial. It happened during the Zacaria Mossaoui case. The defense wanted to critically examine documents that could have proved ZM's innocence or cast reasonable doubt on the government's case, but those documents were classified, and the defense couldn't access them. The entire trial was a sham. What exactly can you do when the evidence is classified?

I'm all for putting criminals away, but one must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Many of these "terrorists" were later proven not to be terrorists by the DoD. This was years after the fact. And when the DoD makes such a statement, you know there was absolutely no way for them to even fake the guy being a terrorist. And, worst of all, it gives our enemies the best ammonition possible. It's like America is doing everything possible to lose this "war."

 

[VictimOfScience]

POWs are very different from 'enemy combatants'.

And I don't think the next administration will continue this lunacy, but a lot depends on the upcoming elections here and just how unhappy the American People become and what they are willing to do about it.

 

[Reaktor4]

But seriously, is anyone surprised by this?

No.. The fact that they are being ordered not to speak about it is the more news worthy part of this.

 

[CptStern]

it really doesnt matter who is in office ..US foreign policy hasnt changed much in over 50 years. Sure the bush admin may speed things along but the underlying agenda is still the same no matter who's in office

 

[brink's]

It should be "Guilty until proven innocent" rather than "innocent until proven guilty". And well, if the innocent party loses out... well tough bananas, we all were innocent at one stage but still lost out.

This has to be the most retarded post ive seen on these forums for a looong time.

 

[No Limit]

it really doesnt matter who is in office ..US foreign policy hasnt changed much in over 50 years. Sure the bush admin may speed things along but the underlying agenda is still the same no matter who's in office

No doubt. The problem is how do we deal with this? I'm going to hold my nose and will be voting Democratic to slow down the destruction of this planet by this country; but they are hardly the solution.

The problem as I said is with american people. They are so ****ing arrogant and fail to see what our policies our doing to the world around us. Bush I enacted sanctions against Iraqis that killed hundreds of thousands, Clinton upheld those senctions and then his administration even claimed the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were worth it. Bush II then came in, upheld those sanctions, and bombed the shit out of this Iraq that will kill millions by the time its over (this is making a huge assumption that it will ever be over).

But we have to remember, other countries supported those sanctions too. There are people throughout the entire western world that really don't give a shit, their life is perfectly fine so why should they care about anything that goes on in poor 3rd world countries. How many people have died in Sudan? How many small children die each and every day from hunger? How many more millions will die throughout Africa of AIDS? At this point this entire world is ****ed because of selfishness and/or arrogance. And I will not sit here and claim that I am any better than anyone else out there when it comes to these problems.

 

[CptStern]

ya while I agree every country supported the sanctions ..however the sanctions were imposed before desert storm ..during desert storm coalition bombing ensured that the sanctions would have a much more devestating effect due to the iraqis inability to rebuild water treatment plants due to the fact that key components were restricted due to the sanctions ..in other words they made a bad situation far far worse ..even after they knew what the result would be because that was their goal in the first place ..bush(sr) hoped crippling sanctions would force iraqis to overthrow saddam ..it was a calculated move that failed miserably and over a million iraqis paid the ultimate price for it

I agree there's little the voting public can do because they're too mired in partisan bullshit to notice the bigger picture ...who cares if Bush lied to get into iraq Mark Foley's little dalliances with boys is far more interesting as far as they're concerned

 

[0mar]

No doubt. The problem is how do we deal with this? I'm going to hold my nose and will be voting Democratic to slow down the destruction of this planet by this country; but they are hardly the solution.

The problem as I said is with american people. They are so ****ing arrogant and fail to see what our policies our doing to the world around us. Bush I enacted sanctions against Iraqis that killed hundreds of thousands, Clinton upheld those senctions and then his administration even claimed the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were worth it. Bush II then came in, upheld those sanctions, and bombed the shit out of this Iraq that will kill millions by the time its over (this is making a huge assumption that it will ever be over).

But we have to remember, other countries supported those sanctions too. There are people throughout the entire western world that really don't give a shit, their life is perfectly fine so why should they care about anything that goes on in poor 3rd world countries. How many people have died in Sudan? How many small children die each and every day from hunger? How many more millions will die throughout Africa of AIDS? At this point this entire world is ****ed because of selfishness and/or arrogance. And I will not sit here and claim that I am any better than anyone else out there when it comes to these problems.

The problem is that you literally cannot get anything done in American politics. The system is rigged so that you have to be part of the Democrats or Republicans, which are really one and the same. Outside of a few individuals, the Democrats and Republicans are the same party with different colors.

You cannot get anything done on the Federal level in a 3rd party. There's only 1 independant in all of Congress, and he was formerly a Democrat I believe. 3rd party candidates get no air-time because all the prime-slots are reserved for D/R, even if they haven't paid for the slot yet. 3rd parties have to jump through rings in several key states just to get on the ballot, for example, paying high entry fees, getting 40,000 signatures, putting a candidate in office, etc etc. 3rd party candidates are limited in radio play as well, with the prime slots being reserved for D/Rs. Few people realize how stacked the cards are against the 3rd party. It's purposely setup so that people think there is democracy/republic, but in reality, there are no ways for a 3rd party candidate to succeed. Only twice in history has an independent gained significant votes. Polk, in something like 1828, was an independant and won the Presidency. The other was Perot, in 1992, because of his immense oil wealth, he was able to circumvent many of these hurdles. And he only got 19% of the popular vote and zero electoral votes. He tried again in 1996, but failed to make even half of that number.

There are plenty of people who want to do something, but they are physically unable to do so. There are no candidates that represent America anymore. Not in ideals, not the middle class, not the lower class, nothing except for the elite and the corporations. Corporations spend something like 9 million dollars every day "lobbying" (bribing is more like it) Congress into passing these sorts of laws, tax cuts, and other niceties. How is the average person supposed to compete with that? And because of the electoral college, you would need 12-18 seperate voting coalitions just to make a dent in the Executive branch. Because of redistricting, you would need dozens of state-wide voting coalitions to change Congressmen. Congressmen have a better incumbency rating than the Soviet Communist Party during the height of Soviet Communism. I say, without hyperbole, the average incumbency rate of Congress is 98%.

You can't have just one nation-wide coalition (by coalition, I mean a group of like-minded individuals who can sway votes) to make an impact. That's the whole point of the system. A nation-wide coalition is too dilute to make an impact anywhere. It's very difficult to organize a state-wide coalition, once again, because the system dilutes the impact. Just about the only place where people can make a difference is in local politics. And nothing really significant occurs on the local level; most of the time they just rubber stamp what happens above. Other than that, good luck, because you're going to need it.

 

[No Limit]

Omar, though I agree I don't think this is strickly a problem in america, though the arrogance in this country is probably the largest in the world due to poor education and this sentiment that America can do no evil. In the end politicians reflect the people living in that country as every action a politician takes is to get elected again. We have primaries set up so a small group of activists can really make a difference. The problem is these people elect the most electable person becasue they know people on the other side of the political isle have millions of dollars to spend on attacks. Our chickenshit media isn't doing anything to help this.

Problems in the middle east are huge issues. But there is other shit going on out there too that is killing millions of people and nobody is doing a damn thing about it. Not America, not Canda, not Holland, not whoever. I think that once westerners start dying from AIDS, from hunger, and from radical religious groups things might change.

 

[Snaps]

Torture has worked many times in the past, and I dont think we should stop now because of "human rights". These people dont care about human rights, so why the hell should we?

Whatever goes around comes around.

 

[15357]

Uh, the rules of war, geneva, international laws, human empathy?



Wait, I don't give a crap either!

 

[Snaps]

Neither do I. These terrorists ****s dont care about anyone but themselves. They go kill 3000 people in 9/11 and expect to be treated humainly. Hah. jokes.

I support everything that the US is doing, including beatings in Guantanamo Bay.

 

[Sulkdodds]

That's because you're barmy, by all indications.

Torture has worked many times in the past

Really?

One well documented effect of torture is that with rare exceptions people will say or do anything to escape the situation, including untrue "confessions" and implication of others without genuine knowledge, who may well then be tortured in turn. The cases of the Guildford Four, Birmingham Six and Maguire Seven are notorious examples of the dangers of extracting confessions and information using duress and coercion.

In case you haven't heard of the Birmingham Six, that's where six innocent people who had nothing to do with a bombing were arrested and kept in prison for a couple of decades.

The problem is that often torture only serves to gratify sadism or a desire for revenge, without ever actually solving anything. Isn't it funny how no matter what they do to the inmates of Guantanamo Bay, hardly any have yet been charged or convicted of anything?

We both agree that it is going on, but if you can show me any evidence that it's working, or that torture is a good tactic in general terms, go ahead.

These people dont care about human rights, so why the hell should we?

Because we're not genocidal madmen. Are we?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you think descending to that level is going to accomplish. Criminals don't care about human life, so why should we? Because we're supposed to be the good guys, you dolt. It's like old Dubya says: if you support terrorism, you are a terrorist. What you're basically saying is that "these people are disgusting, horrible absolute bastards...therefore, I'm going to be a disgusting horrible absolute bastard." They're immoral, so you're going to do exactly what they've been doing. You're going to become them. You're going to imitate them.

Which means you support their values.

They torture you, you torture them - tell me, what seperates you from them exactly? That they started it?

Not to mention that if they don't respect human rights, and you respond by not respecting human rights, what chance is there that they're going to stop? They're just going to think 'if they don't respect human rights, why should we?'

And if you're moral, and they're not, then at least from a utilitarian point of view less people are being harmed. And they're the bad guys.

DO YOU SEE THE LOGICAL PROBLEM WITH YOUR STATEMENT?

These terrorists ****s

Oh yeah - you know what your other problem is? Assuming everybody in Guantanamo Bay is a terrorist. Assuming everybody the government thinks might be a terrorist is a terrorist. Assuming that all 'terrorists' are part of a global terrorist conspiracy that goes right back to 9/11.

Tell me why Guantanamo inmates haven't been charged.
Tell me why they haven't been tried.
Tell me why they haven't been convicted.
And tell me why a sizeable number of them have been released.

Is it because the US government is okay with releasing known terrorists?
If it's so damn certain that they all deserve it, how come they're being released?
"Don't do it again!"

But of course, all this stems from your mad belief that terrorists should be treated as guilty until proven innocent.

Which is clearly ridiculous.

 

[CptStern]

Torture has worked many times in the past

no, you are wrong

and I dont think we should stop now because of "human rights". These people dont care about human rights, so why the hell should we?

because you're supposed to be in iraq to help iraqis ..or at least that's what your idiot government claims

Whatever goes around comes around.

lol, you'd better hope that doesnt come true or you're ****ed

Neither do I. These terrorists ****s dont care about anyone but themselves. They go kill 3000 people in 9/11 and expect to be treated humainly. Hah. jokes.

no offense but you're either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid ...either way it doesnt explain your inability to read a simple sentence

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2072714&postcount=9
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2072757&postcount=13

and that's just from me ..half a dozen other people cockslapped you with your own idiocy

I support everything that the US is doing, including beatings in Guantanamo Bay.

this is exasperating ..why exactly do you feel this way, please provide clear reasoning as to why this practice is justified ...and saying "just because" isnt a good enough ..I want CLEAR ideology ..so I can then rip it to shreds

 

[r3ghost]

because you're supposed to be in iraq to help iraqis ..or at least that's what your idiot government claims

Whoa now. Since when did the UK Government have a say in what happened in Guantanamo Bay? If your referring to America it isnt an idiot government as they are also at war with us concentrating on clearing the planet of tyrrany and opression. Any country that does anything like that gets my vote.I dont like getting involved in Political debates so I wish I had stayed outside now xD . We are in Iraq to help the innocent people as there are some in every war, but the first priority is to rid the country of the war and terror that has plagued them for so long. Then the rescue mission begins.

 

[CptStern]

Whoa now. Since when did the UK Government have a say in what happened in Guantanamo Bay? If your referring to America it isnt an idiot government as they are also at war with us concentrating on clearing the planet of tyrrany and opression.

no sorry that's just not true ..makes for a nice sound bite but it's just a lot of hogwash ..the US knew saddam wasnt a threat so did the UK ..read this

Any country that does anything like that gets my vote.I dont like getting involved in Political debates so I wish I had stayed outside now xD

well you've drawn your line in the sand now it's time to face the consequences

and no the US didnt have good intentions when they invaded Iraq ..they planned it from the very beginning ...9/11 just gave them a reason (false one at that)


please read the links before replying

 

[r3ghost]

well you've drawn your line in the sand now it's time to face the consequences

I dont consider them consequences at all, this is a friendly debate and not a blazing row :cheers:

no sorry that's just not true ..makes for a nice sound bite but it's just a lot of hogwash ..the US knew saddam wasnt a threat so did the UK

How can you say that the US and the UK among other countries knew that Saddam Hussein wasnt a threat? Im hoping you have heard of Halabja as a lot of people havent. This is what people consider a "Non Threat".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Not that I am particularly proud of it I have seen the video of the aftermath of Halabja and believe me it wasnt nice at all.

If you are interested in a read that will show what a threat the US KNEW Iraq were with chemical weapons etc, take a read of this (may take a while )
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#05

This was known AFTER Halabja so people knew back then that he was a threat to the country he was in as well as neighbouring countries. I am very glad that the Allied forces have removed Saddam from power but do people feel safer? No.

The only reason this is so personal to me is that I have my 2 twin brothers out in Iraq at the moment and I know for a fact that the situation is more precarious than what some people think.

Im glad that we can talk like this as oppose to argue and I look forward to more of the same with you

Also, what country are you from?

Take your time to read everything and I will get back to you tomorrow.

Regards

 

[15357]

What you ignore is the price of oil. You get, what 40 cents a liter of gasoline? Thank Bush for that. We get 160 cents per liter.

It all goes down to the better interests of the nation, and secondly the better interests of teh international community.

 

[r3ghost]

What you ignore is the price of oil.

Some people believe this is what the war was fought over. I personally dont but everybody is entitled to thier opinion. You never know to be honest.

 

[15357]

I don't believe that either, but it sure was one of the consequences.

 

[r3ghost]

I don't believe that either, but it sure was one of the consequences.

Agreed.

 

[CptStern]

I dont consider them consequences at all, this is a friendly debate and not a blazing row :cheers:

How can you say that the US and the UK among other countries knew that Saddam Hussein wasnt a threat?

you didnt read the links I provided ..that much is clear:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

Im hoping you have heard of Halabja as a lot of people havent. This is what people consider a "Non Threat".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

if saddam was a threat why did both Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice say this a few months before 9/11?

Not that I am particularly proud of it I have seen the video of the aftermath of Halabja and believe me it wasnt nice at all.

yes well it's not as black and white as you seem to claim ..the US really wasnt all that concerned

# Following the Halabja attack and Iraq’s August CW offensive against Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed on 8 September the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" the day after it is introduced.[31] The act cuts off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil.[32]

# Immediately after the bill’s passage the Reagan Administration announced its opposition to the bill,[33] and SD spokesman Charles Redman called the bill "premature".[34] The Administration works with House opponents to a House companion bill, and after numerous legislation compromises and end-of-session haggling, the Senate bill died "on the last day of the legislative session".[35]

# According to a 15 September news report, Reagan Administration officials stated that the U.S. intercepted Iraqi military communications marking Iraq’s CW attacks on Kurds.[36]

# U.S. intelligence reported in 1991 that the U.S. helicopters sold to Iraq in 1983 were used in 1988 to spray Kurds with chemicals.[37]

# "Reagan administration records show that between September and December 1988, 65 licenses were granted for dual-use technology exports. This averages out as an annual rate of 260 licenses, more than double the rate for January through August 1988."[38]

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

just like they werent overly concerned when saddam used CW to gas thousands of iranian soldiers in 1983

If you are interested in a read that will show what a threat the US KNEW Iraq were with chemical weapons etc, take a read of this (may take a while )
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#05

ya well that was a lie:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/iraq/main601876.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0206-01.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A15019-2003Jun4&notFound=true
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/27/AR2005052701618.html

watch the videos:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6ZXCg6dx-3A
http://youtube.com/watch?v=v1FTmuhynaw
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uh8LVrA7xg4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TDf3IULg38U
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZqGsAKBy0CA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BvJYezckT6g

This was known AFTER Halabja so people knew back then that he was a threat to the country he was in as well as neighbouring countries.

you can say that till you're blue in the face but it doesnt change the fact that the US didnt see saddam as a threat ..he was "contained"

I am very glad that the Allied forces have removed Saddam from power but do people feel safer? No.

the removal of saddam brought about the deaths of 655,000 iraqis and for what? no wmd, no ithreat, no justification

The only reason this is so personal to me is that I have my 2 twin brothers out in Iraq at the moment and I know for a fact that the situation is more precarious than what some people think.

ya well your government lied and your brothers run the risk of paying the ultimate price for their lies

Im glad that we can talk like this as oppose to argue and I look forward to more of the same with you

well political debates are always heated ..that's why they're politcal

Also, what country are you from?

not that it matters: canada

Take your time to read everything and I will get back to you tomorrow.

Regards

I have and now I've given a whole whack of stuff to read/watch ..please do