Misinformation, misconceptions, and so on

[Tinneth]

And I thought doing the washing up was torture

 

[Tr0n]

Hapless:
I'm not going to argue with you. Either shape-up or ship-out.
The only reason you were acting like that was because another mod warned you and you disagreed, so you decided to act without showing any maturity.
If you have a problem with a particular comment because it breaks a rule, then report the post. I did not give you your original warning, I don't care about your original warning. What I do care about is your behaviour right now.
The other members you allege are misbehaving are sarcastic, yes, but contextually, they are also participating in discussion, rather than making posts that are 100% sarcastic attempts to rebel against the warnings given to you previously.
I think I've made it clear enough that theres going to be no debating the issue.
I don't know about what you do in real life, I don't care what you do in real life, at this site, Halflife2.net makes the rules.

Hapless sorry to say, but....you was pwned.

 

[CptStern]

Sarcasm like this?

ummmmmm hapless, why did you post a quote that I allegedly made about you when the quote was actually in reference to seinfeldrules? you're taking all of those quotes out of context: post the entire message and I'm sure I could prove that they were warrented

But hey, it's Stern and Mech we're talking about here, they can do no wrong.

not true, I've been warned before and countless threads have been locked by mods because of bickering/flaming etc. You're no different than anyone else ..if the mods think you've said something abusive/bigoted/racist etc then live with it: it's their ship, you're just here for the ride

And before you guys say I'm overreacting, I don't really have a problem with most of the examples I posted here. With the exception of the rather abusive comments regarding my fitness to do my job. If I were to say that, "based on the opinions Mech has posted on this board, I can tell he is a terrible artist," I'd probably be banned for life. My problem is with the apparent double standard evidenced by the subtle warning that I quoted to start off this post as well as my warning level of 3. :hmph:

you have to admit some of your comments made you seem more like Sheriff Buford T Justice than a law abiding, respectful police officer that you claim to be

 

[Hapless]

ummmmmm hapless, why did you post a quote that I allegedly made about you when the quote was actually in reference to seinfeldrules? you're taking all of those quotes out of context: post the entire message and I'm sure I could prove that they were warrented

I wasn't posting quotes about just me. I was posting generally sarcastic quotes.

not true, I've been warned before and countless threads have been locked by mods because of bickering/flaming etc. You're no different than anyone else ..if the mods think you've said something abusive/bigoted/racist etc then live with it: it's their ship, you're just here for the ride

Well, the problem I had seems to have been rectified. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

you have to admit some of your comments made you seem more like Sheriff Buford T Justice than a law abiding, respectful police officer that you claim to be

Why, exactly, do I have to admit that? I'll admit it if you admit some of your comments make you seem like this lovely lady. :E :E

 

[CptStern]

barbara? I dont see the connection frankly I thought you would have said I remind you of this guy

 

[Hapless]

barbara? I dont see the connection frankly I thought you would have said I remind you of this guy

Other than the fact that they are both outspoken lefties, prone to sayihg things like, "If Bush wins, I'm leaving the country." She was the first to pop into my mind. At least I didn't say you reminded me of him.

 

[CptStern]

please, do me a favour and stop using the term "lefty" ...makes me think of hockey ..I prefer left wing or even left of centre ..I also could have said you remind me of this person :E

 

[burner69]

What has become of this thread? *shakes head and walks off into the sunset to threads-a-new*

 

[Hapless]

please, do me a favour and stop using the term "lefty" ...makes me think of hockey ..I prefer left wing or even left of centre ..I also could have said you remind me of this person :E

Dude, she is teh hotteh :thumbs:

 

[CptStern]

in a sick sort of way ...I agree :thumbs:

 

[bliink]

Am I being silly in thinking this may go back on topic?

 

[Hapless]

Am I being silly in thinking this may go back on topic?

Well, the topic is misconceptions...

/me runs and hides......

 

[Shad0hawK]

I'm tired so I'm only going to make one point: I'd say forcing someone to stand on a box with wires attached to their fingers with the threat of violence should they fall off was torture. Not bamboo under the nails torture, but still...

hiya guys, i've been busy and it seems i am jumping in on the thread late so...indulge me as i do not have much time these days.

saying "purty pleeez" only gets you so far in interrogations.

the iragi "insugents"(many of whom are not even iraqi BTW) still have it better of than many of the german "insugents" did immediately after WW2. a bit of mild torture and sexual humiliation is nothing compared to being executed by the side of the road. on the other hand when the US started doing that the german "insurgency" did not seem to last to much longer...and lasted even less time in the soviet zone.

 

[Shad0hawK]

I'm tired of you people and your ****ing hypocracy

go hug a tree or something and you will feel better. mayhap there will be a strategically placed knothole. either way you can hear the birdies sing.

just smile and have a sense of humor there stern.



BTW everytime is see your avatar the soundtrack to heavy metal plays in my head, thanks for the memories! watch out for that big guy busting through the bulkheads!

STEEERRRNNNNNNN!!!!

STEEERRRRNNNNNNNN!!!!

 

[bliink]

hiya guys, i've been busy and it seems i am jumping in on the thread late so...indulge me as i do not have much time these days.

saying "purty pleeez" only gets you so far in interrogations.

the iragi "insugents"(many of whom are not even iraqi BTW) still have it better of than many of the german "insugents" did immediately after WW2. a bit of mild torture and sexual humiliation is nothing compared to being executed by the side of the road. on the other hand when the US started doing that the german "insurgency" did not seem to last to much longer...and lasted even less time in the soviet zone.

The main issue for me is the hypocracy; for a country's leaders to ramble about rights, democracy, and freedom, and then to do that (blatantly breaking geneva conventions etc) is ludicrous; especially when the country will then go and start wars with others, using the, breaking of various vows to other conventions as part of the reason.

Clearly, all it demonstrates is that 1) the US isnt very trustworthy, and 2) there's a double standard, which virtually invalidates what the standard is

 

[Hapless]

The main issue for me is the hypocracy; for a country's leaders to ramble about rights, democracy, and freedom, and then to do that (blatantly breaking geneva conventions etc) is ludicrous; especially when the country will then go and start wars with others, using the, breaking of various vows to other conventions as part of the reason.

Clearly, all it demonstrates is that 1) the US isnt very trustworthy, and 2) there's a double standard, which virtually invalidates what the standard is

The question of whether the Geneva Conventions have been broken, blatantly or otherwise, is a subject of debate.


As to rambling about rights and freedom, I recall seeing a photo in the news of a protest in Iraq shortly after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. The photo showed several Iraqis, obviously pissed and yelling, holding up various signs written in English. The foremost sign said, "Is this your freedom?"

Now, I know what the maker of that sign was trying to say. But as I looked at that photo, I thought to myself..."Yes. Yes it is." Because under Saddam, those folks would never have thought of protesting anything that happened at Abu Ghraib, much less actually doing it. Think about it.

 

[bliink]

As to rambling about rights and freedom, I recall seeing a photo in the news of a protest in Iraq shortly after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. The photo showed several Iraqis, obviously pissed and yelling, holding up various signs written in English. The foremost sign said, "Is this your freedom?"

Now, I know what the maker of that sign was trying to say. But as I looked at that photo, I thought to myself..."Yes. Yes it is." Because under Saddam, those folks would never have thought of protesting anything that happened at Abu Ghraib, much less actually doing it. Think about it.

heh, very clever of you... can't say I noticed that, however, when it comes to geneva conventions, its not so much that breaking the exact treaty is the problem, but rather, the US signed it saying "Doing that stuff is bad", but it still does it anyway; sure, it may not be violating the terms stipulated in the convention, but it is in violation of its own claims as to what is and is not humane.

 

[burner69]

The question of whether the Geneva Conventions have been broken, blatantly or otherwise, is a subject of debate.

The geneva convention IS being broken.

Unlawful combatant (also illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant) describes a person who engages in combat without meeting the requirements for a lawful belligerent according to the laws of war as specified in the Third Geneva Convention. Countries that identify such unlawful combatants may not necessarily accord them the rights of prisoners of war described in the Third Geneva Convention, though they retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention in that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial

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

 

[CptStern]

go hug a tree or something and you will feel better. mayhap there will be a strategically placed knothole. either way you can hear the birdies sing.

just smile and have a sense of humor there stern.

I do, it's just that, like everyone else I have my limits

BTW everytime is see your avatar the soundtrack to heavy metal plays in my head, thanks for the memories! watch out for that big guy busting through the bulkheads!

STEEERRRNNNNNNN!!!!

STEEERRRRNNNNNNNN!!!!

"not too worry, I've got ...an angle!"


love that movie, especially ..sternn

Now, I know what the maker of that sign was trying to say. But as I looked at that photo, I thought to myself..."Yes. Yes it is." Because under Saddam, those folks would never have thought of protesting anything that happened at Abu Ghraib, much less actually doing it. Think about it.

2 wrongs dont make a right ...you cant compare it to saddam and his murderous reign ..it's just a way of diverting attention from the fact that they were protesting their so called liberators are capable of some of the same barbarity they were there to save them from in the first place ...you're justifying the actions of the torturers ..own up to it, the order came from up high, it was sanctioned by the cia, people were caught, shit hit the fan, now hopefully you've learned from your mistakes ..and let the healing begin

 

[Shad0hawK]

The main issue for me is the hypocracy; for a country's leaders to ramble about rights, democracy, and freedom, and then to do that (blatantly breaking geneva conventions etc) is ludicrous; especially when the country will then go and start wars with others, using the, breaking of various vows to other conventions as part of the reason.

Clearly, all it demonstrates is that 1) the US isnt very trustworthy, and 2) there's a double standard, which virtually invalidates what the standard is

name one war since the geneva conventions were made where they were actually kept.

for example in ww2 every single signatory to the geneva conventions broke them. it was common. it has been common in every single war. it always will be. why? there really is no nice way of killing people.

as far as abu gahrib goes, a little sexual humiliation and mild water torture are not near as bad as getting your hands and feet cut off, or getting your tongue cut out. or simply getting shot and thrown in a mass grave.

i think it is fitting that many former guards of abu gharib became prisoners there, call it..karma. i have no mercy for the merciless, they gave none.

want to talk about hypocrasy? the biggest hypocrites on this earth are the ones who preach and pontificate about human rights of the iraqi's, but said nothing when iraqi's were being killed by the hundreds of thousands and being thrown in mass graves, there were no protests, there was no great outrage from the left. and the real and true reason many are so concerned now is simply because of politics, as many of these hypocrites do not give a damn now any more than they did then...so when these people call others "hypocrite" it is beyond a meaningless sham.

 

[Shad0hawK]

I do, it's just that, like everyone else I have my limits

"not too worry, I've got ...an angle!"


love that movie, especially ..sternn

i liked the den storyline

2 wrongs dont make a right ...you cant compare it to saddam and his murderous reign ..it's just a way of diverting attention from the fact that they were protesting their so called liberators are capable of some of the same barbarity they were there to save them from in the first place ...you're justifying the actions of the torturers ..own up to it, the order came from up high, it was sanctioned by the cia, people were caught, shit hit the fan, now hopefully you've learned from your mistakes ..and let the healing begin

that is true, 2 wrongs do not make a right, but it really is not about wrong or right, and many people do not understand this, it is about doing what is neccesary. no justification is needed as it is not really a moral question(that is by defualt) because when you get to the heart of it war is really wrong period, so how can there be a "right" way to prosecute it or anything else associated with it? it is all "wrong" anyway. but sometimes it is neccesary.

 

[Hapless]

2 wrongs dont make a right ...you cant compare it to saddam and his murderous reign ..it's just a way of diverting attention from the fact that they were protesting their so called liberators are capable of some of the same barbarity they were there to save them from in the first place ...you're justifying the actions of the torturers ..own up to it, the order came from up high, it was sanctioned by the cia, people were caught, shit hit the fan, now hopefully you've learned from your mistakes ..and let the healing begin

I was only pointing out the irony of the thing. You're absolutely right that the liberators are capable of the same barbarity. They are human after all. If the sign had said anything else other than what it did, it probably wouldn't have struck me the way it did. I hope the healing does begin. Unfortunately, the people on the other side are probably going to do their damndest to keep it from beginning. Let's not forget that they aren't accountable to anyone but us. There's not an insurgent government that's going to prosecute these people for beheadings and other atrocities, let alone any world governmental body. When those on our side were caught, they were punished. One just got 10 years in the pokey. And that's 10 years in Leavenworth Military Barracks, not some state or Federal country club prison. Th at guy is going to have 10 years of boot camp-like conditions, where much of his time is spent making little rocks out of big rocks and other such enjoyable endeavors. :x

 

[burner69]

want to talk about hypocrasy? the biggest hypocrites on this earth are the ones who preach and pontificate about human rights of the iraqi's, but said nothing when iraqi's were being killed by the hundreds of thousands and being thrown in mass graves, there were no protests, there was no great outrage from the left. and the real and true reason many are so concerned now is simply because of politics, as many of these hypocrites do not give a damn now any more than they did then...so when these people call others "hypocrite" it is beyond a meaningless sham.

No, the hypocracy is the reason why there weren't protests. Nobody knew. While the US traded arms with Saddam they decided to keep his horrific behaviour under wraps, and did not report on it - so nobody was really aware of it over in the west - so nobody could demonstrate. Do you really think if lefties had known they wudda gone "Ah screw it, we can't blame the US so we'll leave that for someone else to protest" Come off it Shadow.

And there are comparitively 'nice' ways of killing people. Imprisoning and beating them to death isn't one of them, and not only that, but you don't even HAVE to kill them - like you HAVE to shoot the enemy on the battlefield.
What annoys me is that people seem to forget that a good number of people being mistreated in the jails were not formerly prison guards, they were not formerly enforcing Saddams rule, they were not formly terrorists - and good number of them are just everyday people taking up arms against an invading force which the rightly see as a threat. "We're not a threat" I hear you bellow. Try telling that to them while you're half drowning them, threatening to release unmuzzled dogs at them, electrocuting them, humiliating them. Oh, and some might just be totally innocent - like Guantanimo has shown.

And by the way, all of the above, which is what we're complaining about, is unecessary. You've seen the photos, thumbs up, laughs and smiles - they're just avin a laugh, not extracting confessions.

And I'll say it again; if it's ok to beat people with the butts of rifles, strip the naked and humilate them, hold them under water, electrocute them, unmuzzle dogs and unleash them at them, kick them etc etc because Saddam cut hands and feet off.
Surely by that argument we could have let Saddam off because he's not as bad as Pol Pot, or Hitler, or Stalin.
See how that dosen't quite work?

 

[Shad0hawK]

No, the hypocracy is the reason why there weren't protests. Nobody knew. While the US traded arms with Saddam they decided to keep his horrific behaviour under wraps, and did not report on it - so nobody was really aware of it over in the west - so nobody could demonstrate. Do you really think if lefties had known they wudda gone "Ah screw it, we can't blame the US so we'll leave that for someone else to protest" Come off it Shadow.

BULL%#@! everyone knew! hell i knew! many small media outlets reported on what was going on in iraq everyday! there were a few on the left that to thier credit DID speak out, but as i have pointed out since europe and some UN fatcats were happy and making money of the deal it was all okay. for the most part many simpletons think if somethign is not talked about on CNN every @#%@#ing day it does not exist. another thing that makes your argument shallow is you know now...think about that. and yes many on the left do not give a #$!@ about the people over there, most value thier political idealism above all else, vietnam is another example, ohh the war is wrong! the evil american imperialists dogs!!

genocide is going now, but there are no protests, no outrage. after all it is not on CNN or talked about as an evil thing in an a.n.s.w.e.r. phamphlet...so it must not be much of a big deal.

And there are comparitively 'nice' ways of killing people. Imprisoning and beating them to death isn't one of them, and not only that, but you don't even HAVE to kill them - like you HAVE to shoot the enemy on the battlefield.
What annoys me is that people seem to forget that a good number of people being mistreated in the jails were not formerly prison guards, they were not formerly enforcing Saddams rule, they were not formly terrorists - and good number of them are just everyday people taking up arms against an invading force which the rightly see as a threat.

i cannot believe you actually think this, you must be very young or just plain deluded! there is not "nice" way to kill another perosn, why you ask? because you are f%^3ing KILLING him that is why! and those you describe represent a minority in the country, who want to set up another socialist dictatorship and kill anyone who disagrees with them...JUST LIKE BEFORE. you also do not mention many of the insurgents are not even iraqi..again. BTW how many prisoners were killed by americans in abu gharib? i forget the number.

"We're not a threat" I hear you bellow. Try telling that to them while you're half drowning them, threatening to release unmuzzled dogs at them, electrocuting them, humiliating them. Oh, and some might just be totally innocent - like Guantanimo has shown.

and how many times does saying "you better tell us or else" or "pretty please tell us what we want to know" over and over does it take to get a terrorist to talk? perhaps we could bribe them with cakes and pie sitting around a campfire singing "why cant we be friends"?

And by the way, all of the above, which is what we're complaining about, is unecessary. You've seen the photos, thumbs up, laughs and smiles - they're just avin a laugh, not extracting confessions.

to my knowledge they did not cut anyones head off...but hey evil imperialist american women laughing at arab men's genitals is the worse horror! oh they threatend to sic a dog on the poor innocent prisoners!and GASP! some were actually kicked!!! thos eevil americans!! let's spend all our time and energy focusing on this1 that is th answer!!

And I'll say it again; if it's ok to beat people with the butts of rifles, strip the naked and humilate them, hold them under water, electrocute them, unmuzzle dogs and unleash them at them, kick them etc etc because Saddam cut hands and feet off.
Surely by that argument we could have let Saddam off because he's not as bad as Pol Pot, or Hitler, or Stalin.
See how that doesn't quite work?

actually saddam IS as bad as pol pot, hitler and stalin, and not taking him out is tantamount to "letting him off" which is the bloody point! he was "let off" for over a bloody decade and only the galactically stupid would believe for that for ten years saddam would distribute food and medicine to everyone...iraq was the holocaust in 1/3 scale "only" 2 million killed by saddam but let's worry more about WMD and not think much about mass graves and genocide!

and my argument is not that it is okay, put that paraphrased straw man away. i said "neccesary" for one simple pragmatic reason: when two entities fight; be they individuals or groups of nations the one that will win is the one that will do whatever it takes to win. and yes, it is that simple. is it "right"? no. is it pretty? no. but it simply is the way it is.

 

[burner69]

BULL%#@! everyone knew! hell i knew! many small media outlets reported on what was going on in iraq everyday! there were a few on the left that to thier credit DID speak out, but as i have pointed out since europe and some UN fatcats were happy and making money of the deal it was all okay. for the most part many simpletons think if somethign is not talked about on CNN every @#%@#ing day it does not exist. another thing that makes your argument shallow is you know now...think about that. and yes many on the left do not give a #$!@ about the people over there, most value thier political idealism above all else, vietnam is another example, ohh the war is wrong! the evil american imperialists dogs!!

genocide is going now, but there are no protests, no outrage. after all it is not on CNN or talked about as an evil thing in an a.n.s.w.e.r. phamphlet...so it must not be much of a big deal.

Well I was not alive before 1985, but I have read in numerous articles, seen on various websites, and been told by various people, that before the Gulf war, while the US and Saddam were busy trading weapons, including WMD - his genocides were kept well covered. Afterall, what government would want its people to know its trading with such an evil man.
The whole idea behind the left is thinking about other people's views. I personally don't vote for a particular party, therefore I have no political idealism. Vietnam? Genocide? I am not aware of that. What do you want me to say? That I support it? Because I assure you I won't. But if I'm not aware of it, what can you expect me to do?

i cannot believe you actually think this, you must be very young or just plain deluded! there is not "nice" way to kill another perosn, why you ask? because you are f%^3ing KILLING him that is why! and those you describe represent a minority in the country, who want to set up another socialist dictatorship and kill anyone who disagrees with them...JUST LIKE BEFORE. you also do not mention many of the insurgents are not even iraqi..again. BTW how many prisoners were killed by americans in abu gharib? i forget the number.

I put nice in inverted commas because I am well aware there are no pleasent ways to be sent prematurely to your grave, but being locked in a prison with no charge, then beaten to death for no reason is not necessasry, or pleasent.
Being shot on the battlefield is necessary in times of war - ok, its not nice at all, stupid word really - but I'd certainly rather die there than in a cell, especially if I was innocent, like it is believed many are.

and how many times does saying "you better tell us or else" or "pretty please tell us what we want to know" over and over does it take to get a terrorist to talk? perhaps we could bribe them with cakes and pie sitting around a campfire singing "why cant we be friends"?

Tell them what? What information do you think these people who want to become matyrs, and believe that they will shame themselves if they tell of any plans. What info has been extracted? I've heard of nothing. You'd think that they'd tell us when something like that happened, (obviously not right away, or it'd spoil the intelligence) to try and justify the shit going on down there.

to my knowledge they did not cut anyones head off...but hey evil imperialist american women laughing at arab men's genitals is the worse horror! oh they threatend to sic a dog on the poor innocent prisoners!and GASP! some were actually kicked!!! thos eevil americans!! let's spend all our time and energy focusing on this1 that is th answer!!

Again, you're comapring Saddam with the US. Of course Saddam was worse, we don't have to be bad though. See?
DO you know how degrading that arab man will find that? It's one of the worst shames he can have, they really can't hack that kind of stuff. Of course you or I can't understand that because we don't practise his religion, but chances are when he's released he's gunna be scarred for life or just kill himself.
"The poor innocent prisoners". OK, 1) Why are they sicing the dog on them in the first place? In my memory you don't bring a handicam into confession extraction - they're just ****ing about. 2) Suppose he is innocent, like many have proven to be. Imagibe if it was you, taken away, stripped naked, a dog set on you. Bet you'd av a luvly little time wudn't you, at the hands of those naughty little americans.
No, let's not focus all our attention on this. But let's not just laugh and say it's ok and walk off. You're supposed to be rebuilding this country into a democracy (whether they're ready for it, want it, need it or not) how about start with showing them the benefits of it - not showing them a toned down version of their old regime.

actually saddam IS as bad as pol pot, hitler and stalin, and not taking him out is tantamount to "letting him off" which is the bloody point! he was "let off" for over a bloody decade and only the galactically stupid would believe for that for ten years saddam would distribute food and medicine to everyone...iraq was the holocaust in 1/3 scale "only" 2 million killed by saddam but let's worry more about WMD and not think much about mass graves and genocide!

No, he killed less people, he's not as bad.
The US has killed at least 16'000 Iraqi civilians, does that make them as bad as pol pot?
I agree totally he should have been overthrown a long time ago, but because him and the US were trading partners he wasn't. So what can you do?

and my argument is not that it is okay, put that paraphrased straw man away. i said "neccesary" for one simple pragmatic reason: when two entities fight; be they individuals or groups of nations the one that will win is the one that will do whatever it takes to win. and yes, it is that simple. is it "right"? no. is it pretty? no. but it simply is the way it is.

My argument is that in a situation as delicate as this, when you need to capture a countries hearts and minds, killing and torturing prisoners is not the way to go about it. This is especially true when you consider the number of false imprisonments of innocent Iraqi civilians you hear about.

If you need to extract information from a suspect, do it properly, stripping them naked and making the roll around for chuckles isn't the way to do it.

Grow up, wake up, and wage a war properly uncle Sam.

 

[Scoobnfl]

I agree totally he should have been overthrown a long time ago, but because him and the US were trading partners he wasn't. So what can you do?

Wow only the USA traded with Sadam and Iraq? It's true that the USA bought most of Iraqs oil but what about these other countries? Do you hold them equally responsible for sadam not being "overthrown"?

Iraq's top ten export trading partners

1. USA
2. Canada
3. Jordan
4. Italy
5. Morocco
6. Brazil
7. Spain
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Australia

Iraqs top ten import trading partners.

1. Jordan
2. Vietnam
3. USA
4. Germany
5. Russia
6. UK
7. France
8. Italy
9. Australia
10. Japan

 

[burner69]

Do you think the UK, Germany really had the respurces to attack him?

And do you fail to see the hypocracy in the fact that you otherthrow Saddam for being evil and having loads of weapons, when you sold him the weapons in the first place.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Do you think the UK, Germany really had the respurces to attack him?

And do you fail to see the hypocracy in the fact that you otherthrow Saddam for being evil and having loads of weapons, when you sold him the weapons in the first place.

what are you asking me about the UK andGermany attacking Iraq for? Are you aware that the UK is a member of the coalition and has troops in Iraq and that they participated in our attacking Iraq?

are you sniffing glue? whiteout?


is it your supposition that the USA is the only country that supplied Iraq with weapons?

 

[burner69]

Wow only the USA traded with Sadam and Iraq? It's true that the USA bought most of Iraqs oil but what about these other countries? Do you hold them equally responsible for sadam not being "overthrown"?

Iraq's top ten export trading partners

1. USA
2. Canada
3. Jordan
4. Italy
5. Morocco
6. Brazil
7. Spain
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Australia

Iraqs top ten import trading partners.

1. Jordan
2. Vietnam
3. USA
4. Germany
5. Russia
6. UK
7. France
8. Italy
9. Australia
10. Japan

what are you asking me about the UK andGermany attacking Iraq for? Are you aware that the UK is a member of the coalition and has troops in Iraq and that they participated in our attacking Iraq?

are you sniffing glue? whiteout?


is it your supposition that the USA is the only country that supplied Iraq with weapons?

Why do you keep asking questions then getting confused when I respond to them? Are you smoking crack? Throwing a chunder monkey?

Of course I'm aware that the UK is involved in the coalition - I'm from the UK.

It is not my suggestion that the US is the only country doing it at all. It IS my suggestion though that the US and UK are the only ones who sold him weapons then went to war to reclaim them.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Well I was not alive before 1985, but I have read in numerous articles, seen on various websites, and been told by various people, that before the Gulf war, while the US and Saddam were busy trading weapons, including WMD - his genocides were kept well covered. Afterall, what government would want its people to know its trading with such an evil man.
The whole idea behind the left is thinking about other people's views. I personally don't vote for a particular party, therefore I have no political idealism. Vietnam? Genocide? I am not aware of that. What do you want me to say? That I support it? Because I assure you I won't. But if I'm not aware of it, what can you expect me to do?

ahh gotta love marathon posts!

there was no "cover up" of saddam's atrocities...but at the same time they were not talked about much... and saddam was a trading partner mainly due to at the time we viewed iran as more of a threat than him, just as in ww2 we were trading partners(actualy allies with) with stalin because germany was more of a threat. the principle is the same,the only difference is scale.

as far as the sanctions, i hold many of the deaths in iraq at the entire western world's feet(including the US), sanctions are idiocy. they hurt and kill more of the people they are meant to "help" the only reason they are done is when the people do not see thier soldiers fighting on the news every day, they do not bitch...

it is better just to go ahead and get it over with.

 

[burner69]

I think I agree with pretty much all you said there, so... let's leave the debate between me n u there, n go get a nice cold pint :cheers: :farmer:

 

[bliink]

name one war since the geneva conventions were made where they were actually kept.

for example in ww2 every single signatory to the geneva conventions broke them. it was common. it has been common in every single war. it always will be. why? there really is no nice way of killing people.

ahh.. "everyone else was doing it!" -thats not an excuse.

as far as abu gahrib goes, a little sexual humiliation and mild water torture are not near as bad as getting your hands and feet cut off, or getting your tongue cut out. or simply getting shot and thrown in a mass grave.

I wouldnt call being anally raped with a broom "a little sexual humiliation" and I wouldnt call being beaten to death and then having your body packed in ice "mild water torture"

i think it is fitting that many former guards of abu gharib became prisoners there, call it..karma. i have no mercy for the merciless, they gave none.

I, and most other members of "democracy" prefer a court of law over "karma"... you know... that legal thing?

want to talk about hypocrasy? the biggest hypocrites on this earth are the ones who preach and pontificate about human rights of the iraqi's, but said nothing when iraqi's were being killed by the hundreds of thousands and being thrown in mass graves, there were no protests, there was no great outrage from the left. and the real and true reason many are so concerned now is simply because of politics, as many of these hypocrites do not give a damn now any more than they did then...so when these people call others "hypocrite" it is beyond a meaningless sham.

hmmm.. you see.. back then, people knew it was happening, noone was standing around saying it was "OK".
Now its happening, and the US is basically saying theres nothing wrong with it, and that its all ok.

 

[Scoobnfl]

It is not my suggestion that the US is the only country doing it at all. It IS my suggestion though that the US and UK are the only ones who sold him weapons then went to war to reclaim them.

oh and that makes it bad....


so it would make it good then if we said we were only going to get the ones sold by countries that aren't members of the coalition.... or would that still be bad? I'm having a hard time following this teenage logic.

 

[burner69]

How hard is it to grasp?

I dislike the hypocracy of selling weapons to a country, then saying the weapons are really bad and invading them to get rid of said weapons.

Do you really find that hard to grasp?

Oh, and answer to your rather fumbled, extremely difficult to read sentence - I'd find it much less of a hypocracy, it'd make more sense to me.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

It is not my suggestion that the US is the only country doing it at all. It IS my suggestion though that the US and UK are the only ones who sold him weapons then went to war to reclaim them.

95% of Saddams weapons where previously manufactured by the Soviets. They were'nt Challengers and Abrams tanks we were duking down -- they were squat worthy Russian T-55's.

ahh.. "everyone else was doing it!" -thats not an excuse.

Ahh.. then why do you want to fix one, as opposed to anyone of the rest?

Saying something is not an excuse, does'nt solve the problem. It just, makes a whole new one -- and leaves us with answered questions.

I wouldnt call being anally raped with a broom "a little sexual humiliation" and I wouldnt call being beaten to death and then having your body packed in ice "mild water torture"

Well yea. Yea you would.

I, and most other members of "democracy" prefer a court of law over "karma"... you know... that legal thing?

Well, first Karma gets you, then the justice system gets you.

Karma = The Justice System got you. It works -- almost in the same line.

hmmm.. you see.. back then, people knew it was happening, noone was standing around saying it was "OK".
Now its happening, and the US is basically saying theres nothing wrong with it, and that its all ok.

In a sense, silence is answer. Everyone was pretty quiet about it.

Do you really find that hard to grasp?

Well, yea, when Iraq's weapons were mostly sold off to them by the Soviets. Not that I doubt your ... inclinations ... but do you have sources to what exactly we sold Saddam?