Iraq's "unprecedented social services" BEFORE bush's invasion...

[LynnTheDem]

Within a period of just a few years, the state provided some social services to Iraqi people unprecedented in other Middle Eastern countries. Saddam initiated and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program.

The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

In order to diversify the oil-dependent economy, Saddam oversaw and advocated a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and development of other industries to diversify the oil-dependent economy. The campaign effected a comprehensive revolution in energy industries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

Hmmmm...and now the people of Iraq will get American-style social programs. As in, you're on your own if you're not a haves and have mores.

To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia).

Not any longer; Sharia is back! No need to thank us, Iraq!

[oblivious]

1. Unicef report, 1993.

"Rarely do women in the Arab world enjoy as much power as they do in Iraq ... men and women must receive equal pay for equal work. A wife's income is recognised as independent from her husband's. In 1974, education was made free at all levels, and in 1979 it was made compulsory for girls and boys until the age of 12."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1378411,00.html

[LynnTheDem]

2. That's all gone bye-bye now,

THANKS TO BUSH.

[Wilms]

3. They hate us for our education system. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

4. Oh geeez...ya know I never even thought of that! And don't forget our

health system!

[radwriter0555]

5. Yes, under saddam, Iraq was a thriving socialist nation with a high

literacy rate, producing esteemable and accomplished engineers and doctors from top rated universities.

Morons think Iraq was only a desert filled with oil wells, tents and camels and have no clue that Bagdhad was the cultural hub of the middle east.

george really did blast them back to the stone age.

[LynnTheDem]

8. Highest number of PhDs per capita than any nation on earth,

Now back to the stone age, complete with rubble.

[Selatius]

11. Iraq was not a true socialist country

It would be more accurate to say that Iraq's economy was a mixed economy with elements of socialism and capitalism because certain sectors of its economy still had private ownership and marketplace competition. Only essential or major sectors of the economy were under state control.

Also, I define socialism as "the democratic administration of the resources by the people for the benefit of the people." Like the USSR or North Korea, Iraq had no democracy, and it looks like it never truly will as long as it's dominated by a foreign superpower. There can be no true socialism without the voice of the people.

[LynnTheDem]

15. Agreed.

Well put, Selatius. Hussein instituted all those benefits for the Iraqi people in order to maintain his control of the country, based on the idea that improving the people's lives would keep them from bothering about his regime. Such as the "give em Nascar, reality TV and McDonald's" in America.

The problem with by the people for the people and true socialism/democracy in Iraq is the large number of very fundamentalist Shia clergy. Women in Iraq espeically had a lot of freedoms and opportunities which they now no longer have, and as long as the Shia clergy are the government and in power, they never will have.

Will the women of Iraq be willing to accept the kind of things going on now in, for example, Basra? I don't think so. Will the Shia, Sunnis, Turkmen, etc who are secular be willing to live under the very repressive fundamentalism the new Iraq "constitution" calls for? I don't think so.

But under Hussein, the repressed fundies were outraged by his secularism; now the fundies are in control. How to accomodate both sides? Good question.

[sandnsea]

6. The rest of the country

This is from al-jazeera so if you have a problem with it, tell them not me. I do not know why you find it necessary to idealize Saddam Hussein.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D58B4A08-5E73-4A57-B8A3-2E478F0B6DAD.htm

Under ensuing governments, Sadr City's Shia made up to a third of Baghdad's population, but held few positions of power and were disproportionately represented in Iraq's unemployment rolls, prisons, and the frontlines of its wars.

The people first turned to communism to address their social woes, then to the homegrown revolutionary ideology of Ayat Allah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, executed by the government in 1980, and his cousin Ayat Allah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr assassinated in 1999. Both men had studied for years under the leader of the Iranian Revolution Ayat Allah Khomeini. Support for the al-Sadr family among the urban poor is strong...

Most importantly, he dared to stand up for them to Saddam Hussein.

"Al-Sadr demanded the government release prisoners, because many of our youth and men of religion were just rotting in jail and no one knew their fate," says Abd al-Zahra.

"He called state ministers to ask for forgiveness. He used to chant: 'No, no to Satan, no, no to the unjust one!' And everyone knew that what he meant by Satan was Saddam."

[LynnTheDem]

7. No one is "idealizing" Hussein. FACTS are just FACTS. and I don't

know why YOU are so incapable of facing the FACTS.

:)

More FACTS for ya;

Iraqis Endure Worse Conditions Than Under Saddam
http://www.health-now.org/site/article.php?menuId=14&articleId=446

[sandnsea]

9. More than just YOUR set of facts

Like I said, tell it to al-jazeera. They wrote the piece about how bad it was in Saddam City, not me. You are idealizing Saddam Hussein by not dealing with the WHOLE story. You don't have to pretend it was a utopia before in order to tell how bad it is now.

[LynnTheDem]

10. "My set of facts"...rotflmao!!!

You crack me up! :rofl:

[sandnsea]

12. It's real funny

That's just pathetic. You never deal with what you don't want to hear. You're not helping bring anybody home when you praise Saddam Hussein, and the worst part is that you don't even care.

[LynnTheDem]

13. Whatever.

:)

[FreedomAngel82]

38. So do you think they

would prefer a Bush idealistic Iraq? :eyes: Look at their now Constiution. If a woman is caught in an affair she will be stoned and made an example out of. How is that for freedom?

[geek tragedy]

49. And if she criticized Saddam she'd be gang-raped and have

her tongue cut out.

All praise Saddam! Glorious Saddam!

His health care package was so generous that political prisoners had the co-pay waived for their amputations!

All praise Saddam! Fascist freedom forever!

[LynnTheDem]

55. Link please.

To women being gang-raped and their tongues cut out for criticising Hussein.

Thanks.

[geek tragedy]

59. Here's one on tongue amputation for Iraqis who criticized your dear leader

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,399714,00.html

"The regime is becoming increasingly paranoid about opposition. Recent laws make it illegal to 'slander' Saddam or his family. Those found guilty can have limbs amputated. In September a man had his tongue cut out for breaking these laws, before being driven through the streets as an example to others."

But, I'm sure his health insurance covered the procedure.

[LynnTheDem]

75. Hey geek, can ya JUST ONCE try to post without hurling insults?

Just wondering. ;)

Now for your Guardian link; OH LOOK a defector from the INC! Way to go, CHALABI!

Debunked, geek. Along with this "defector's" '45 minutes can launch WMD" lie.

Got any links a wee bit more credible than a "defector"? Ever since the INC, Chalabi, Allawi and "curveball" I just don't trust "defectors" for some reason.

[geek tragedy]

86. Okay, here's another you'll just dismiss out of hand.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/22/MN294160.DTL

"Baghdad -- Ali fell to his knees and said this is how it was done:

He put his hands behind his back to simulate being bound, then leaned his head back and closed his eyes as if blindfolded. A friend stepped behind him to hold his head, taking on the role of one of the enforcers. Then another would force open the victim's mouth, Ali said, and a third would yank the tongue out with pliers and slice it off with a surgical knife or an army blade.

Tales of such abuse have flowed out of Iraq in the two weeks since Saddam Hussein was toppled. But Ali was not one of those whose tongue was cut. He was,

he said, one of those who did the cutting.

Ali belonged to Fedayeen Saddam, a security force led by the dictator's elder son, Odai. For the better part of a decade, Ali recalled, he assassinated opposition figures, broke the backs of those accused of lying to the government and chopped off tongues, fingers, hands and once even a head.

"It didn't matter if we felt he was guilty or not guilty. We had to do it," he said. "These people were against Saddam Hussein. If we got orders to punish him, we would go and do it. If Odai said to cut off his tongue, we would do it.

"

[LynnTheDem]

92. You might want to shorten that to DU rules.

No, I wouldn't "dismiss out of hand". The penalties in Iraq were severe, that's not in question. They're worse now.

And your own much-loved HRW (and AI) said "humanitarian intervention" is NOT justification for bush's invasion. And none of this is what the OP was about in the first place.

Anyways, do you have a link to the gang-raping and tongue cutting of women who criticised Hussein? That was your assertion and what I asked a link for.

And is PBS a "Saddam cheerleader"?

Is CBS a Saddam cheerleader"?

Unicef? UNESCO?

I've not posted my own opinions, you haven't realized that yet. I've posted sourced info. But you have an agenda, so never mind. :)

[geek tragedy]

93. I linked to an article where a member of Saddam's regime

talked about cutting tongues out of people who opposed Saddam.

If you don't think that supports the notion that a woman who criticized Saddam could have gotten her tongue cut out, well I can't teach reading comprehension and logic over the Internet.

And "the penalties in Iraq were severe."

Wow, and Jack the Ripper gave some women a close shave.

[LynnTheDem]

96. FACTS again for ya geek, although I know ya don't like em.

Iraq was not the worst, was not the most repressive. And that's just a fact.

You said women were gang-raped and tongues cut out. Do you have a HRW report saying so? AI?

You believe a lot of things that are not true. Many Americans still believe in that Purple Plastic People Shredder. Among other bullshit.

In time, you will find out that they are not true. Of course you will probably call everyone "Baath bootlickers" etc, lol!

One thing I thought was funny; the genocide and the "gassed the Kurds" charges against Hussein have been dropped. No evidence, apparently. You'd think what with 200,000...300,000...500,000, 1,000,000 (floating number, rather like bush's war justifications) dead and mass graved they could manage to find enough evidence.

Wrong about WMD.

Wrong about al Qaeda ties.

Wrong about 911 ties.

Hmmm.

[geek tragedy]

101. This was a member of the regime admitting that he cut the tongues

out of dissidents.

That counts as evidence where I come from.

And the Halabja charges have not been dropped. They're going to try him for a single massacre first. That Saddam gassed Kurds is undisputed by human rights researchers. UNDISPUTED.

[LynnTheDem]

104. Ok you don't have any link for your assertion. Thank you.

And yes the charges have been dropped, no they are not charging genocide or gassing the Kurds.

That's FACT and no, it is NOT "undisputed".

:)

[geek tragedy]

106. To clarify, they're going to charge and execute him for this crime.

They're not going to try him for the other crimes because they don't want to reveal the extent to which the US and its allies aided and abetted his crimes.

There's 100% consensus in the human rights community that Iraq gassed the Kurds during the 80's. 100%.

And, I posted a link to an article where a member of his regime talked about how he cut people's tongues out for opposing Saddam. But, to you, that's a lack of evidence that women who opposed Saddam faced such treatment.

Such is the logic of the Baathist.

[LynnTheDem]

113. This is your own opinion?

That they won't try him because of US involvement?

Fact is, they do not have evidence. Watch the news; the media should be reporting on that fact fairly soon.

YOU asserted WOMEN were GANG RAPED and tongues cut out. YOU.

If this is so, I would like a LINK. That's all!

You have not supplied any such link.

If you do not have a link, if you were only making an assumption, FINE.

Good grief.

[geek tragedy]

116. There's no evidence Saddam's regime was responsible for Halabja?

You said "Fact is, they don't have the evidence."

I'll give you one chance to retract that mendacious claim.

Because it is FACT FACT FACT that there is evidence--and a lot of it--that Saddam's regime was responsible for the gassing of Kurds in Halabja and other places.

A lot of it.

[LynnTheDem]

121. geek, watch the news.

Hussein will not be charged with genocide of Halabjah due to insufficient evidence.

There is as much evidence -and not Kurds aligned with Iran, but DOCTORS who were on-site- that Iraq did NOT gas the Kurd civilians; they used mustard gas as an area denial weapon against the Iranian waves.

I'm not saying Iraq did or didn't. I'm saying there is evidence Iraq did not. That is a fact. He is not being charged with Halabjah or genocide due to "insufficient evidence" and that should be in the media shortly. Or at least in UK or Cdn media.

[geek tragedy]

125. Yeah, I'll be watching for the "Saddam's lawyers claim

that there is insufficient evidence to try him on Halabja" stories.

Meanwhile, I'll trust sources that research human rights violations full time over those whose comments are indistinguishable from those of Saddam's defense team.

[LynnTheDem]

133. Great.

And no, I'm not talking about "Saddam's lawyers' claims".

And of course you're free to trust HRW etc. Did you trust them when they changed their Anfal story 4 times? That's your right; I have the right not to trust an agency that is so wrong so often. :)

[geek tragedy]

135. You trust Saddam's supporters. I'll trust the ENTIRE human

rights community, i.e., EVERY SINGLE CREDIBLE HUMAN RIGHTS BODY ON THE PLANET.

Still waiting on my month's old request for you to name one credible human rights organization that thinks that Iraq's guilt is unlikely.

You always flee the scene when that request comes up. Why is that?

[LynnTheDem]

144. LOL! Yeah them medical doctors were 100% "Baath bootlickers"

I didn't "flee"; I got sick & tired of your insults, and I told you 2 months ago, after all your hurling of insults at me, that you can go whistle for the links to the NGOs that said they don't know either way about the gassings.

And you can go whistle. Now if you have Lex Nex, you can find those NGOs all by yourself. :)

[geek tragedy]

148. Fact: you can't/won't name a single credible human rights organization

that disagrees with me on the issue of Iraq's use of poison gas against the Kurds.

You don't know of any.

[LynnTheDem]

154. FACT: Yes I can.

Yes I do.

Do a LN search. :)

[geek tragedy]

157. Yeah, and OJ is still out there looking for the real killer. eom

[LynnTheDem]

161. Hey, easy enough for you to prove me wrong; do a LN search.

:)

[geek tragedy]

163. I know you won't name a single credible human rights organization

that disagrees with me on Halabja and the gassing of the Kurds.

I also know that you'll provide plenty of excuses for not doing so, but that you will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever provide the name of a single credible human rights organization that disagrees with me on Halabja and the gassing of the Kurds.

[LynnTheDem]

167. Only 1 excuse, and it's the same excuse I gave you the first time

we went round and round on this. I got sick & tired of your hurling of insults. I told you then that I would not in future give you ANY links on the topic.

End of story.

:)

[dutchdemocrat]

177. Ya... Member of the 'regime'

Who was anonymous and chatting with an embedded reporter who happened make a Media Matters report for being a shill for Bushco already.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507080007

PETER BAKER of the Washington Post wrote it... it HAS to be true.

Love the ending...

Ali said he agreed to tell his story "to feel more comfortable" with himself. "The secret has to be out," he said. "Everything I told you, no one knows that, not my wife, nor my family."

His wife is pregnant with their first child, due to be born in another month or so. He has been praying lately. "I ask my God to get a good son. I hope that he doesn't find out who I am."

Right. And of course he spilled to Peter... Anonymous Peter... a white guy in a flak jacket who rode on the tail of tank into Baghdad. Ali opened up his heart and found SALVATION in this fine young conservative reporter...

[sandnsea]

109. The Iraqis believe it

If we're going to listen to what they have to say, like you say we should.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-10-19T151713Z_01_ROB952550_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-SADDAM-HALABJA.xml

Or make it more true if I post it over and over again.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/12944967.htm

[geek tragedy]

115. Kurds = liars. Didn't you get the memo from Baath party HQ?

Much better to rely on the word of hacks from the Reagan and Poppy Bush administrations who were trying to justify Republican support for Saddam against Iran.

[LynnTheDem]

124. Nope, I believe the medical doctors.

Kurds were (are) aligned with Iran. FACT.

Against Iraq. FACT.

That makes their evidence biased. So no, I don't take them at their word, especially not against the medical drs.

No, I wouldn't believe anything Raygun or Poppa Bush said. Raygun was not in office at the time and was senile by the time he'd left; do you think he had the wit or the power to tell the CIA, the DIA, the Pentagon, the US marine corps etc what to put in their reports? Perhaps. I don't know.

[geek tragedy]

127. Is the evidence of the ENTIRE interntional human rights community

also biased?

And, yes, Poppy Bush certainly wasn't above a little intelligence-rigging.

[LynnTheDem]

118. Yes, I've read all the reports, including the doctors who found no

evidence of gas attacks other than mustard, which Iraq has always admitted to using, and which has a very low fatality rate and is an area-denial weapon, and blood agent, which Iraq didn't have. Iran did.

Iraqi and Iranian troops were gassing each other; Iraq with mustard to repel the Iranian waves, and Iran with blood agent. Civilians got caught in-between, 500 civilians if you read the newspaper reports at the time. Killed by blood agent. Something Iraq didn't have and Iran did.

Something we call "collateral damage".

And as the Kurds sided with Iran against Iraq...that and the doctors' evidence (rather their lack of) makes it "far from proven".

Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Hussein.

[geek tragedy]

119. Yeah, and you IGNORE the work of EVERY single human rights

organization that has looked into the issue.

Funny how someone who is interested in posting 1979 praise for Saddam by UNESCO also goes out of her way to place blame on Iran for a crime the ENTIRE human rights community blames on Baathist Iraq.

[LynnTheDem]

129. And HRW has been WRONG so many times on Iraq already that

yeah I find it difficult to take their word at much of anything.

Fool me once blah blah blah.

I don't "ignore" them, I look at what they say, their proof or lack of, who's telling them the stories, and the NGO's track record.

I don't go "out of my way" to blame Iran; there are a dozen reports blaming Iran, from the US marine corps to medical doctors who inspected the Kurds who claimed to have been gassed.

I realize you would prefer every report that says differently than what you believe to just disappear, but... :shrug:

[geek tragedy]

131. Name ONE credible human rights organization that maintains

that Iran did it.

Or that Iraq's guilt is even unlikely.

One. I challenged you to do this months ago. And you couldn't.

You won't now. Because you can't.

Dozens of medical reports?

You're simply lying.

[LynnTheDem]

136. Oops careful with your reading please!

I did not say "dozens of medical reports". I'm not sure how many medial reports there were; did the doctors do a seaparate report for each doctor? Each patient? I've no idea.

HRW has been wrong on Iraq far too many times for me to trust them. I have that right. ;)

No, I'm not "simply lying", but you are of course free tobelieve whatever you like. :)

[geek tragedy]

139. Do you have the name of a single credible human rights organization

that disagrees with me regarding the gassing of the Kurds?

Let me answer for you:

No, Geek Tragedy, I don't. Your point that the entire human rights community agrees with you stands unchallenged. But, I believe Poppy Bush's intelligence apparatus and the Baath party instead.

[LynnTheDem]

145. Yep. Got Lexus Nexus?

Go find the NGOs yourself. I told you last time you could take your insults & shove them and that I was not going to give you any more links on the subject. I meant it.

You don't have LN? Find someone who does. :)

[geek tragedy]

151. My position is that they don't exist. You have offered no evidence

to contradict my position. Because you have none.

I'm not going to look them up on Lexus Nexus--because they don't exist.

[LynnTheDem]

156. Fine.

:)

Whenever you happen across a LN, do a search for the fun of it.

Oh by the way, do you believe the invasion of Iraq is justified as a humanitarian intervention?

[geek tragedy]

158. No it wasn't justified. Thanks for conceding the point on human rights

organizations unanimously supporting my POV on Halabja, though.

[LynnTheDem]

166. Sorry, dear, I don't "concede" you anything.

It's interesting that when I was on other political boards the rightwingnuts were forever demanding I PROVE this and I PROVE that. And when I finally told them to take a flying leap, that I was sick and tired of constantly doing their fucking research for them, do it their bloody selves, they'd turn around and say "so you're conceding the point".

Anyways, I very clearly remember our last go-round when I got sick & tired of your insults; I told you then that I was not going to do any more of your research for you, I was not going to fulfill any more of your demands, and that you could bloody well do the research for yourself.

And I am sticking to that. Take it any way you like, but hell will freeze over before I ever post ANY links on the subject to you.

:)

[geek tragedy]

169. As I said, you will never post an example of a credible human rights

organization that disagrees with me on Baathist Iraq's use of poison gas against the Kurds.

You will offer excuses for not doing so, but you will NEVER provide such an example as long as you live.

This I guarantee.

[LynnTheDem]

176. Not "excuseS", my dear.

ONE excuse, the same one I've said since the last time we had this go-round and hurled your nasty snide rude little insults and I told you to take a flying leap.

You are correct; I will never provide "gassing" links of any sort to you. Just as I told you I would not do when I finally got sick & tired of your crap. I told you how to research them yourself.

EOM.

:)

[geek tragedy]

183. As I said, excuses.

I maintain that you refuse to because you are unable.

Folks are free to draw their own conclusions as to why you don't provide the name of a credible human rights organization that disagrees with me.

But my claim that every single credible human rights organization on the planet largely agrees with me on Iraq's gassing of the Kurds remains uncontradicted by any factual evidence--only your unsupported claims.

You claim to deal in facts, but then chicken out when the facts don't support you.

[LynnTheDem]

193. LOL!

Ok 1 reason is a plural. Not what I learned in school but hey, whatever. I told you last time, do your own research; I meant it. :)

[geek tragedy]

199. I've researched it, and found that every single credible human rights

organization supports my view.

You see, my research supports a certain conclusion.

You claim your research supports a different conclusion. But you can't produce a single example to contradict my claim.

I can readily cite several human rights organizations--HRW, AI, etc etc--that support my account. You can't cite a single credible human rights organization that dissents from this consensus.

Oh wait. That's right. You have the names of such organizations--you're just intentionally withholding them.

As if.

[countryjake]

217. Is this credible enough for ya?

Articles - Democratic Underground

Gassing His Own People?
February 8, 2003
By Barbara O'Brien

What happened in Halabja?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/08_gassing.html



I'd say Democratic Underground is pretty concerned with human rights, wouldn't you? Note the end of the article...you say potato, Lynn says potato...without any reliable evidence proving otherwise, it's fairly reasonable to take your pick, don't ya think!


And then read this...just one of the references cited in the article:


(Originally appeared in the New York Times on January 31, 2003)

A War Crime Or An Act of War? Who really gassed the Kurds?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1148.htm

[geek tragedy]

230. The actual evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Iraq gassed

the Kurds.

Just because some random author says the evidence is inconclusive doesn't mean it is.

Those who have actually researched the question and applied scientific techniques UNANIMOUSLY conclude that Saddam's regime was guilty.

The Pelletiere article is the same garbage he was peddling as a member of the Poppy Bush administration back when Saddam was a client of the Republican party. It was crap then, and crap now.

[NuttyFluffers]

261. Lexis Nexis has part of it free

http://www.lexisnexis.com/news/

you can do some searches with it. granted it isn't the super deluxe package, but still an incredibly powerful tool.

and if someone is a student just about every university I have heard of provides free access to enrolled students to "supah deluxe!" versions of hundreds of scholastic search engines and journals, including Lexis Nexis. all you gotta do is take a credit/ no credit class at even your local community college to get access through the college's library website via your own computer. and hell, all you gotta do is walk into a college's library and just use their computers therein. some might have security and not let you in (but those are usually big universities), but you can get a library card for a minimal reg fee for 1 year. all community colleges i've heard of allow free access and thus free search engine access.

basically, there's no excuse to not be able to do your homework. though, lynn, you are quite kind to not blatantly point it out. though i will, because it will help other people who would like to learn something. :)

[sandnsea]

126. "collateral damage"

And you would go absolutely ape shit if we gassed people today, with mustard or any other kind of gas. But because Saddam did it to some and maybe not to others, oh well. I guess the Kurds had it coming, seeing how they sided with Iran and all, is that it? But isn't Iran the country pushing the Islamist government you hate so much? Maybe that's why it doesn't bother you that they didn't benefit from the glorious social programs the way the Ba'athists did.

People suffered under Saddam. People are suffering now. Either support an agenda to stop the suffering or YOU are perpetuating the suffering yourself. Dragging Saddam into the debate is a distraction that ends up allowing the suffering to be ignored.

[LynnTheDem]

140. I really get a kick out of how you always assert what I would do or

think or say or feel.

Iraqis are WORSE OFF NOW than they were under Hussein. That's fact. Accept it or not, up to you. :shrug:

[sandnsea]

187. Worse off than in 1979

Which is quite a different thing than being worse off than under Hussein, 20 years later. And, you ARE going ape shit over what the US is doing in Iraq, that's the whole premise of your argument. You couldn't say the Iraqis are worse off than under Hussein unless you were going ape shit about what the US is doing.

[LynnTheDem]

194. Worse off NOW than they were in 2003 and 2002 and 2001...

That's just fact.

I don't go "ape-shit" over facts. :)

[sandnsea]

205. You don't have those facts

"From 1969 to 1979 Saddam Hussein was the vice-president of Iraq and had a profound effect on his country. He nationalized the oil industry. He instituted a nation-wide literacy project...hundreds of thousands of illiterate Iraqi men, women and children learned to read.

He advocated the building of schools, roads, public housing and hospitals. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East. UNESCO gave him an award."

You have these 'facts' and people who suffered for 25 years after this and then 2 more years after our invasion. A whole host of people, some who received special favors under Saddam. And another whole host of people who lived horribly under Saddam. Some will be better, some will be worse. But the majority did not have life good under Saddam and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that they did. A 1979 award does not mean squat.

It is really reaching to have to use it to justify praising Saddam because you think that's necessary to fight against the war. Saddam is not an issue. Bush fucking up the country because he's an ideological warmongering imbecile is the issue and the only issue. We either force him to change course and fix the country, or force him to get out. Saddam is not part of the equation. It is an unnecessary distraction.

[LynnTheDem]

213. Yes actually I DO have those facts. And have posted the links so

many times to you already.

Last time;

child malnutrition rate doubled since bush's invasion

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-30-un-iraq-malnutrition_x.htm

Iraqis 58 times more likely to die since bush's invasion

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

less oil & electricity since bush's invasion

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=business&story_id=101105d1_oil

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/30/AR2005043001121.html

less clean drinking water, sanitation, since bush's invasion

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/reconstruct/2005/0410waste.htm

Into the third year of American "superiority", Iraqis Endure Worse Conditions Than Under Saddam
http://www.health-now.org/site/article.php?menuId=14&articleId=446

[sandnsea]

220. Picking and choosing again are you

I literally just clicked a link at random and this is what popped up...

"Iraqi officials have crippled scores of water, sewage and electrical plants refurbished with U.S. funds by failing to maintain and operate them properly, wasting millions of American taxpayer dollars in the process, according to interviews and documents. Hardest hit has been the effort to rebuild the country's water and sewage systems, a multibillion-dollar task considered among the most crucial components of the effort to improve daily life for Iraqis. Of more than 40 such plants run by the Iraqis, not one is being operated properly, according to Bechtel Group Inc., the contractor at work on the project. The power grid faces similar problems. U.S. officials said the Iraqis' inability to properly operate overhauled electrical plants contributed to widespread power shortages this winter. None of the 19 electrical facilities that has undergone U.S.-funded repair work is being run correctly, a senior American advisor said."

[LynnTheDem]

223. You amaze me.

You absolutely amaze me.

Doesn't matter how many polls Iraqis say GET OUT; you know better.

Doesn't matter how many links and there have been literally hundreds, that say Iraqis are worse off...including the Iraqis themselves...but you know better.

As you're so anxious for us to ignore what the Iraqis want, and to remain in Iraq, you really should enlist. :)

Ya could just GOOGLE for YOURSELF and then you can opick which articles you like. Want some more? You didn't like the GAO report? You didn't like the UN report? You won't like any of these reports, either, I'm sure. :eyes:

Fucking amazing.

Blix: Iraq Worse Off Now Than With Saddam
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0406-01.htm

Who’s Better Off?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul241.html

“Better off under Saddam”- The Iraqis admit
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_id=9804

A woman's place is in the struggle: Iraqi women worse off under US-led Occupation
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p8b.htm

Iraqis: Worse Off Than Before the War?
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/008868.html

Dean: Iraqi standard of living worse now
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-01-25-dean-iraq-today_x.htm

War left Iraqis worse off, says Short
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1178376,00.html

Iraq: The situation is worse than ever; Amnesty International
http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGMDE140582004

"Our Lives Are Worse Now" -- Yanar Mohammed
http://www.awakenedwoman.com/marshall_yanar.htm

[sandnsea]

226. I clicked YOUR link

Can't help what it says. I don't know why it is so hard for people to grasp that anybody can find someone to verify their point of view. Lots of someones in fact, and those someones will be repeated by others. But it doesn't mean ONE set of information is absolutely accurate, just because it's what you agree with. Iraq is fucked up, but it was not the utopia you want to portray it as before we invaded. Saddam didn't care anymore about the Iraqis than George bush cares about Americans. The only ones who had the jobs and money were those who were loyal to him. Those people, particularly, are definitely worse off. Others have it as bad as they did under Saddam. Some have it better. Now those are the FACTS. What the Iraqis want is a secure and rebuilt country. When you take their statements and polls as A WHOLE, it is quite clear. We either force George Bush to change course so they can have that, OR LEAVE. You don't care what happens to the Iraqis, fine. But don't pretend you do when you ignore the big picture because it doesn't fit in with your hatred of George Bush and the war.

[LynnTheDem]

227. No dear; only YOUR view is correct.

;)

Bye. :hi:

[sandnsea]

228. You're the one with the single-minded view

It's too bad you can't see it. You're not helping to stop this war by claiming Saddam was just a victim of George Bush. You're just not.

[hiley]

264. That is fact.

Iraqis are worse off now!

[eridani]

191. They will never try him for Halabja, ever

If they did, he'd rat out who sold him the ingredients for the gas and gave him satellite photos the better to target it.

[geek tragedy]

195. Bingo!

They're trying him on the one atrocity that didn't involve complicity from a Republican administration in the US.

Note also: the French, Chinese, British, and Russians don't want him testifying either.

[LynnTheDem]

197. Not blood agent they didn't.

And the Kurds caught in Iran-Iraq crossfire were killed by blood agent.

:)

[geek tragedy]

200. Who says they were killed by a blood agent? Which on-site investigator?

Which medical doctor?

Please don't tell me you're using Pelletiere as a source, as he's never been to Kurdistan and is a political analyst, not a forensic M.D.

[LynnTheDem]

209. Nope not Steven P. Butsome of the drs were French, so they can be

discounted. Right?

France, UN and the Red Cross sent drs to examine Kurds who said they'd been gassed. The symptoms were from a non-lethal tear gas.

[geek tragedy]

211. Really? Why does every major study not affiliated with Poppy Bush

conclude that it was a combination of mustard gas and nerve gas?

And, let me guess, you're going to refuse to provide a link to those stories as well.


This link says it all:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/archives/2003/su03/casey.htm

<snip>
In hundreds of eyewitness interviews conducted over the next few years, survivor after survivor identified the source of the gas at Halabja (and at other sites) as Iraqi military aircraft that flew low enough so that their markings were visible from the ground. Beginning in October of 1988, seven months after Halabja, a series of forensic investigations, some sponsored by Middle East Watch (now the Middle East division of Human Rights Watch) and Physicians for Human Rights and others organized by independent medical scientists, undertook medical examinations of survivors, conducted tests for trace chemicals on soil samples and bomb fragments, and performed autopsies of exhumed bodies. The results of a number of these studies were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Based on these studies, scientists concluded that the victims of Halabja and other sites had been exposed, in the words of medical geneticist Christine Gosden, "to the highest doses of the most potent cocktails of chemical and biological nerve and mustard agents ever used against civilians." The nerve gases sarin and tubin, as well as mustard gas, are known to have been used, and there is good reason to believe that the nerve agent VX and biological weapons such as anthrax and mycotoxins may also have been employed at different times.

. . .

During the Gulf War and the popular uprisings that followed it, significant stores of Iraqi Baathist government documents and tapes were seized, mostly by the Kurdish Peshmerga. Ample documentation of the plans and the implementation of the poison gas attacks was found, including a tape of a particularly damning speech by the chief architect and executioner of Anfal, Ali Hassan al-Majid. Hassan says of the Kurds, "I will kill them all with chemical weapons. Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck the international community and those who listen to them!"

Every group that has examined this question-the UN, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Physicians for Human Rights, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and others-has come to the same conclusion: that the Iraqi Baathist regime used poison gas on its Kurdish population during the Anfal campaign, in Halabja and at other sites. There simply is no reasonable doubt.

Yet no sooner had the pictures of the dead of Halabja appeared on television screens than the campaign to deny Iraqi responsibility began. The initial impetus for these efforts came from within the U.S. government. To understand how this came to pass, one must examine the Iraq policy of the United States during the 1980s.
<snip>

There's much more, but it reveals that those who deny that Saddam used poison gas against the Kurds to be nothing but little David Irvings.

[dutchdemocrat]

174. Article written by Peter Baker - Conservative

Love the ending...

Ali said he agreed to tell his story "to feel more comfortable" with himself. "The secret has to be out," he said. "Everything I told you, no one knows that, not my wife, nor my family."

His wife is pregnant with their first child, due to be born in another month or so. He has been praying lately. "I ask my God to get a good son. I hope that he doesn't find out who I am."

Right. And of course he spilled to Peter... Anonymous source of course.

Media Matters has http://mediamatters.org/items/200507080007">already pegged Baker as being clearly biased.

I'd like to see some visual evidence of Saddam's 'evil-doing'. Like below. Rather than conservative rhetoric from biased embedded shills/journalists that croak for their DC overlords.



Maybe then you can convince me.

[dutchdemocrat]

164. You forgot this part of the article...

A top-level defector from Baghdad has told British intelligence...

Wonder if his name was Chalabi?

Not to mention the grand finale of the article.

...Britain and the United States are finding it difficult to maintain diplomatic support for the United Nations sanctions imposed on Iraq. Following the successful resolution of a Saudi airliner hijacking in October, Iraq's international image has been given a boost and there have been renewed calls for sanctions to be revoked. There is concern over the humanitarian situation within Iraq.

Britain and the US believe Iraq is using the absence of UN inspectors to hide weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons stored in schools and hospitals.

Kind of reminds me of the tale of Iraqi soldiers killing babies in Kuwait.

[sandnsea]

50. A Bush idealistic Iraq??

Oh yes, I'm sure many of them would prefer the secular democracy that even Bush supported, over the Constitution you describe. But they've got self-determination, so the religious constitution is what they've got. I can only blame that on Bush to the extent that he is incapable of understanding how to implement democratic principles because he doesn't really believe in them. But ultimately, the decision to implement those kinds of laws come from the same self-determination that everybody around here says they support. It wasn't that long ago that DU was saying Bush should butt out and let them have an Islamic country, if that's what they want. Now that they've got it, people are pissing about that too. That's what happens when you kneejerk against everything and never stand FOR the proper solutions.

[LynnTheDem]

57. You just contradicted yourself.

You:

"But they've got self-determination,"

You, post #33:

Self determination??

"I don't know when that will be. But I do know they didn't have it before we got there. I know that they won't have it with Bush in charge. But I also know they wouldn't have it if we left today either."

So which is it?

[sandnsea]

61. That's right

They don't have it now because the country's fucked up. They didn't have it before because the country was fucked up. But, to the extent they DO have it, THEY are voting in this shit that YOU are bitching about. They'll never have true self-determination without a security that protects every individual. I don't know how they're going to get that, but I'm certainly not in the delusion that they had it before we invaded. They're certainly alot closer to it now then they were then.

[geek tragedy]

65. Some people think of Saddam's regime as the good old days.

To them, he gets all of the credit for the good things, but no blame for the bad things that happened under his reign.

Such people are fascists, and are kindly invited to kiss my authentically liberal and progressive ass.

[LynnTheDem]

70. geek one question for ya; Do YOU think Iraqis are better off NOW?

Coz I gotta tell ya, IRAQIS say they are WORSE off now. The UN says they are WORSE off now. The GAO says they are WORSE off now. HRW says they are WORSE off now. AI says they are WORSE off now.

But they're all just a bunch of Saddam lovers and should kiss your ass.

Ya sure do love hurling insults, dontcha! And IGNORE facts and stick to only ONE side of an issue! Wow how LIBERAL and PROGRESSIVE! ;)

[sandnsea]

72. That isn't the issue

Doh. You can be in a bad situation and end up in a worse one, doesn't mean you ought to go back to the bad one. Or pretend the bad one wasn't that bad after all. THAT is abused spouse syndrome. THAT is sticking to only ONE side of an issue.

[LynnTheDem]

79. LOL! No, you can always stay in the worse andgetting worser situ.

As you advocate.

Now I realize you do not understand this thread at all so maybe I can explain it;

FACT, under Hussein's government, the people of Iraq had "unprecedented social programs". Ya don't like that, take it up with CBC, PBS, Unicef, the UN, Global Security et al. ;)

FACT, thanks to bush's invasion and Bremer's "100 Rules", the Iraqi people do NOT have those programs and are not bloodly likely to have them back anytime soon.

THAT is what this thread is about. As it makes you "sick to your stomach", why do you keep posting? :)

[sandnsea]

85. It's the same 1979 FACT, linked over and over and over

Bush said alot of shit 5 years ago too. Praising Saddam's "unprecedented social programs" is like praising Bush waiving Davis-Bacon as revolutionary. Wake up.

[LynnTheDem]

97. In your own words, you don't like it, take it up with PBS.

Not me. ;)

[sandnsea]

99. You're the one doing the linking

Taking the same set of facts that were rewritten in various publications and pretending you've got multiple sources. Worthy of Scooter Libby and Judith Miller.

[LynnTheDem]

147. Don't like it? Take it up with PBS etc.

:)

[geek tragedy]

76. It is not necessary to defend or praise Saddam to criticize the Bush's

war.

That is a subtlety lost on Saddam's supporters here.

[LynnTheDem]

80. NO ONE is defending or praising Hussein. FACTS my dear!

FACTS. With LINKS. SOURCED facts. With such sources as Unicef. UNESCO. CBS. PBS.

FACTS.

No praise.

No defense.

JUST FACTS.

So sorry you don't like those facts, but oh well. :shrug: Gives you an opportunity to hurl more insults though. :rofl:

[geek tragedy]

88. Facts cited out of context are nothing more than lies.

For example:

Citing Saddam's wonderful social programs started in the early 80's, but FLAT OUT REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIS ACTIONS THAT DEGRADED AND DEFUNDED THOSE PROGRAMS is nothing more than David Irving style-apologia.

[LynnTheDem]

94. I posted as much context as DU rules allow that are germaine to the

discussion and I gave the links to the full articles in every case.

The Iran-Iraq war, the sanctions and the Gulf War caused massive deterioration in all aspects of Iraqi life, including all the "unprecedented social programs" Iraq had.

What my entire OP is about is the FACT that they DID have those programs and they NO LONGER have those programs. And in fact Iraq was steadily improving up until bush's invasion. And up until then, those "unprecedented social programs" were still in place and in fact they NO LONGER are.

I don't "cite Saddam's wonderful social programs"...PBS does. And Unicef. And UNESCO. etc. Don't like it, then as sandandsea said, take it up with them. ;)

[geek tragedy]

95. You don't think that the "massive deterioration" in those programs,

the benefits they offered Iraqi society, and the overall quality of life were relevant to the issue you were discussing.

Why is the existence of the programs more important than the actual quality of life they provided?

And you somehow managed to omit the FACT that the UNESCO praise was in 1979.

You IGNORED the 25 years of intervening history.

[LynnTheDem]

98. The programs were still in place. Iraq was steadily improving.

With the programs still in place, there was a chance that with Iraq's improving economy the programs could be refunded.

NOW the programs are GONE. And they ain't coming back any time soon.

And THAT is what my entire OP is about. Period.

[geek tragedy]

103. And those programs may be replaced. Maybe with better programs.

But, those aren't the same programs with the same level of benefit to Iraqis that they were in 1979.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

141. So you think the invasion was a good thing? (nt)

[geek tragedy]

146. No. But propagandizing on behalf of fascists is not something

that progressives do.

Anti-fascism is a core progressive value. Apologists for fascists don't get to sit under the progressive tent. Even if they hate Bush.

[LynnTheDem]

160. And hurling insults at DUers is a progressive and liberal thing to do.

:rofl:

YOU decide to label me a "Saddam lover", a "Saddam cheerleader", a "fascist apologist"...not for my OWN opinions, but for the sourced articles such as PBS that I've posted...and YOU get to decide who gets to "sit under the progressive tent".

Well I gotta tell ya, geek, with such a narrow-minded view as yours, I don't want to sit where you sit, because I don't like narrow-minded people. :)

[geek tragedy]

165. When it comes to fascists, I'm narrow-minded. I oppose them and their

supporters.

[LynnTheDem]

170. ROTFLMAO!!! The right calls me a pinko commie, and you call me

a fascist.

And not even because of my OWN opinions, but because I posted sourced articles such as Unicef, UNESCO, PBS...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Too funny!

[geek tragedy]

173. You claim that there is insufficient evidence to establish Saddam's guilt

in gassing the Kurds at Halabja (and presumably, but maybe I'm wrong, in other parts of Kurdistan) and numerous other pro-Saddam posts are what earn you this kind of designation.

That is David Irving territory, and it's off-limits to progressives.

[LynnTheDem]

196. geek, wait for the media to report it.

No nothing is "off limits" to progressives, especially when it's a search for the FACTS and TRUTH and REALITY.

You can close your mind all you like. I won't. MY right to do so, and NOT your right to tell me I can't. :)

[geek tragedy]

201. Yeah, I'm sure that media story is coming up.

Right around the same time as you provide the name of a single credible human rights organization that thinks there's little or no evidence that Baathist Iraq gassed the Kurds.

[LynnTheDem]

152. So you're unaware of Bremer's "100 Rules" then? You're unaware

of the new "constitution" that brings Sharia law to Iraq?

Both items put paid to Iraqi women's rights & freedoms, and to the social programs they had.

But "maybe" the world will go ka-boom and none of it will matter anyways.

Iraqis are WORSE OFF now than they were under Hussein.

[geek tragedy]

89. You consider the LIE that the US greenlighted the invasion of Kuwait

to be a fact.

Therefore, your definition of a fact, truth, and honesty are all invalid.

[LynnTheDem]

100. Whatever ya say, dear.

:)

[geek tragedy]

107. You're the one citing patently false claims as facts.

Do a better job of keeping facts and lies separate, and then you'll have a little credibility on the subject.

[LynnTheDem]

171. LOL!!!

Yes only YOUR OPINIONS are facts, I do keep forgetting that. :rofl:

[sandnsea]

71. They're probably just wore out

I'm sure some people did have it better in Iraq under Saddam. I'm sure others had it bad then, and worse now. It's horrifying what Bush has done in Afghanistan and Iraq. But they're stuck in the middle of the insanity and don't know whether they'll live to the end of the day. To not be in that position and still have no objectivity and idealize Saddam Hussein??? That's just nuts.

[LynnTheDem]

81. You sure do seem to k now what the Iraqis want/think/feel.

Speaking of, there's a new Iraqi poll for you to say I "distorted" :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5136538

[LynnTheDem]

69. So you misspoke in your post #50.

Gotcha.

[sandnsea]

73. Two thoughts at same time

More than ONE side of issue. Ow ow ow, it hurts some people's heads to think so hard. Need an aspirin?

[LynnTheDem]

82. Gee, sure seems to me you contradicted yourself.

But whatever. ;)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

108. "You never deal with what you don't want to hear."

Whoa - I think my irony meter just exploded.

[sandnsea]

120. I'll tell you what's ironic

That I can go to a right wing board and have to use some of Lynn's talking points to try to get them to understand they don't have the god's truth either. I expect it with them, I don't expect it with so-called liberals. But as it turns out, they're both equally pig-headed. I'm just trying to get people out of ideology mode, no matter what the ideology, and into solution mode. Posting the exact same story out of 5 different magazines, and pretending you've got numerous resources, is clearly ideology and not objectivity.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

123. ...

[sandnsea]

128. Ideology

Yeah, it's a really complicated subject. :eyes:

[LynnTheDem]

172. rotfl!!!

:D

[geek tragedy]

44. So, you think that life under the sanctions regime was hunky-dory?

Saddam brought those sanctions on Iraq through his pursuit of wars of aggression.

It's really freaking dishonest to not hold him accountable for incurring those sanctions.

[Finder]

244. Have you ever read articles by Dobson and ilk?

Really...a little perspective is needed here.

The persecution complex is alive and well in Iraq and the US. We have our Tim McVeighs and they have theirs as well. What we did in Waco is not much different than what has happened in Iraq at times. What we did in the past to Native Americans and what has happened to the Kurds is not much different. I think it sucks but...history is written by the victors or those they have aligned with.

[geek tragedy]

47. You are citing facts out of context as part of your campaign

to rehabilitate the image of Saddam.

It's worthy of David Irving.

True or false:

Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait, there would have been no UN sanctions regime against Iraq?

If you say true, then you concede that he is directly responsible for the misery those regimes inflicted on the Iraqi people.

And if you say false, well then you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass.

[LynnTheDem]

68. How many US senators spoke of the lie of incubator babies right

before the vote to go to war or not?

Answer; 7.

By how many votes did the vote for war pass?

Answer; 5.

Who green-lighted the invasion of Kuwait?

Answer; US diplomat April Glaspie.

Who said USA would not become involved in Iraq-Kuwait border dispute?

Answer; James Baker.

Who invaded Iraq in 2003?

Answer; bush. Where are the draconian sanctions against the USA?

When did the world start yearly demanding the lifting of the "draconian" US-enforced sanctions against Iraq because Iraq was in compliance?

Answer; 1993.

What was the US's response every year?

Answer; not lifting sanctions period.

When did the Iran-Iraq war start, and who started it?

Answer; September 4, 1980 when Iran shelled Iraqi border towns, after months of publicly announcing their intention of overthrowing Hussein's secular government and installing an Islamic state.

Who tried several times for a cease-fire?

Answer; Iraq.

Who withdrew from Iranian territory and who carried the war on into Iraq?

Answer; Iraq withdrew. Iran refused to end the war and carried it on into Iraq.

But you go ahead with your one-side-only view. It's your right. Your insults are not, but it's something you apparently can't control.

[geek tragedy]

74. Yeah, yeah everyone's fault but St. Saddam's. I've read Baathist

propaganda before, no need to repeat it for me.

And you're flat out LYING when you say that Gillespie green-lighted the invasion of Kuwait. There was no mention of the invasion of Kuwait during her conversations with her Iraqi contacts. None. She merely stated that she didn't want to get involved in the squabbling between Kuwait and Iraq.

But, Saddam-loving moonbats have seized upon her unwillingness to get involved in a border dispute to be a greenlight for invasion.

Because nothing is St. Saddam's fault.

[LynnTheDem]

90. LOL! You sure do love hurling insults.

In July 1990, only days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein and told him, on behalf of President George H. W. Bush that "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

"The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."

Some analysts believe Saddam Hussein interpreted this as a green light for Iraq to invade Kuwait. Whether it was meant to be a green light or not, what it wasn't was a clear statement that the U.S. opposed such an invasion.
http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/primer4.htm

Saddam's 'Green Light'.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile5.html

UN Security Council Resolution 660
http://www.mideastweb.org/660.htm

Analysing the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/book99/gulfbk.htm

[geek tragedy]

91. That's not a greenlight for an invasion. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Saddam didn't say "We're going to invade and annex Kuwait. You got a problem with that?"

Gillespie did not say "Go ahead and invade and annex Kuwait. We don't care--take the whole fucking country."

He didn't ask for our permission. And we didn't grant any such permission.

Those ARE facts.

There is one person on the entire planet who is responsible for the launch of the Iraq war.

That person's name is Saddam Hussein.

Period.

That can't be denied. It is wholly absurd and idiotic to blame the US for not reading Saddam's mind.

Your boy Saddam invaded Kuwait of his own free will and initiative. And Iraq has suffered the consequences of his crime.

[LynnTheDem]

175. Well gee, you should put those stupid analysts straight!

In July 1990, only days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein and told him, on behalf of President George H. W. Bush that "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

"The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."

Some analysts believe Saddam Hussein interpreted this as a green light for Iraq to invade Kuwait. Whether it was meant to be a green light or not, what it wasn't was a clear statement that the U.S. opposed such an invasion.
http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/primer4.htm

Saddam's 'Green Light'.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile5.html

UN Security Council Resolution 660
Some claim that Saddam interpreted this as a green light to invade Kuwait.
http://www.mideastweb.org/660.htm

Analysing the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
Glaspie did no more than tacitly give Saddam the green light
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/book99/gulfbk.htm

Because of course you know better than they; NO WAY was that a green light, stupid analysts!

[geek tragedy]

185. Uh, your reading comprehension needs serious work.

I will post the key words in caps so you can understand what's going on.

You posted this statement:

"Some analysts believe Saddam Hussein interpreted this as a green light for Iraq to invade Kuwait."

Now, pay attention to this:

"Some analysts believe SADDAM HUSSEIN INTERPRETED this as a green light for Iraq to invade Kuwait."

April Gillespie DID NOT EXPRESS APPROVAL OR PERMISSION FOR AN IRAQI INVASION OF KUWAIT.

It's possible that Saddam Hussein INCORRECTLY interpreted her statement that way.

To put it another way:

A woman wears a short skirt, but declines a man's sexual advances.

The man INTERPRETS her actions and statements as a green light, and has forcible intercourse with her.

The woman has been raped, but under your logic she gave the rapist the green light.



NOTE WELL: Not even the analysts are saying that she gave a green light, only that Saddam perceived it as such.

[LynnTheDem]

208. You are entitled to your own opinion, of course.

July 25, 1990, April Glaspie to Hussein;

‘I have a direct instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq.’

And she emphasized that a formal apology had been offered to Iraq for a critical article that had been published by the American Information Agency:

‘I saw the Diane Sawyer programme on ABC...what happened in that programme was cheap and unjust...this is a real picture of what happens in the American media -- even to American politicians themselves. These are the methods that the Western media employ. I am pleased that you add your voice to the diplomats that stand up to the media....’

"President Bush is an intelligent man. He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq...’;

"I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

"The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."

*********

I would have got the impression that she was saying the US wanted to be better buddies with Iraq, that Poppa Bush wasn't going to go to "economic war" or war-war with Iraq and that the border dispute was Iraq's & Kuwait's business; US wouldn't get involved even as the US knew Hussein's plan to invade Kuwait if the dispute wasn't solved.

I wonder why Glaspie, Dole, Poppa Bush, Baker et al didn't simply say "don't do it". Hmmmmm...smells like a set-up to me. And WHAM there was Rendon with their incubator babies lie. Amazing.

[geek tragedy]

210. Did I miss the part where Saddam asked for permission to invade Kuwait

or where the US stated that it would be acceptable for them to invade Kuwait?

Oh wait, you threw this 'fact' in:

" the US knew Hussein's plan to invade Kuwait if the dispute wasn't solved."

Now, is this a real fact or one of those absurd claims that only you seem to consider a fact?

[LynnTheDem]

215. Hey why dontcha read the UN reports!

WOW what an idea!

And that is the end of me putting up with your snide, rude, nasty little remarks. Buh bye. Have a wonderful life! :hi:

[geek tragedy]

216. It's been fun debunking you. Good luck on your snake oil sales. eom

[LynnTheDem]

218. Alright, I'll help you out, poor thing. LAST TIME though.

So you'll need to learn how to research for yourself. ;)

July 25; Hussein meeting with US Senators lead by Dole; read the transcripts.

July 28; CIA Director William Webster told Poppa bush an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was imminent.

July 31; analysts at both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had reached a consensus that some type of Iraqi military action against Kuwait was imminent.

That should be enough hints to start you off. Have fun! :hi:

[geek tragedy]

232. Did April Gillespie order Iraqi tanks to invade Kuwait?

Funny, I thought that was Saddam.

[LynnTheDem]

252. LOL!

geek quote:

" the US knew Hussein's plan to invade Kuwait if the dispute wasn't solved."

Now, is this a real fact or one of those absurd claims that only you seem to consider a fact?

**********
:rofl:

[geek tragedy]

256. Just say that Saddam bears full responsibility for all of the

harsh consequences his people suffered because of his decision to launch a war of aggression against Kuwait.

Say that, and this discussion is over.

[mom cat]

265. It frankly looks to me like Lynn has the facts and all you have is insults

I thought that the use of personal insults was banned on DU. Please learn to conduct your discussions in a more civilized manner.

[sandnsea]

77. How many devils on the head of a pin?

Answer; a cazillion. What's the point? Bunch of bad people in the world. I don't glorify ANY OF THEM.

[LynnTheDem]

178. Nope you don't, neither do I. But FACTS are something I am very

keen on, whether they demonize someone or whether they do not.

Open-minded.

I prefer it to being a close-minded "I know how you/they will act/think/feel" type.

:)

[geek tragedy]

190. Facts like the fact that the US gave Saddam the green light to invade

Kuwait?

Yeah, we know about your 'facts.'

[LynnTheDem]

102. I do not give a single fuck about Saddam Hussein.

I DO give a big fuck about the fact that WE have made things in Iraq WORSE than they were under Hussein.

PERIOD.

:)

[geek tragedy]

105. Then why are you citing 1979 UNESCO awards for Saddam?

Why not talk about more recent events--like Saddam bringing ruin upon his country through his own illegal wars?

[LynnTheDem]

111. GOOD GRIEF already!

1. I can post about whatever subject and whatever time period I care to. YOU are of course free to start your own thread on whatever recent events you care to.

2. As I have tried previously to explain to you; Iraq HAD those prgorams until bush invaded and Bremer set up his "100 Rules". NOW the Iraqis DO NOT have those programs and are not bloody likely to get them back.

3. ALL sides of an issue should be known and discussed; FACT is, Hussein's government DID IMPROVE the lives of Iraqis with "unprecedented social programs". That's JUST FACT.

4. Iraqis are now WORSE OFF than they were under Saddam Hussein.

5. You know little to nothing about the Iran-Iraq war. Iran started the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq tried diplomatic means, and was told to piss off. Iraq tried to do cease-fires, and was told to piss off. Iraq retreated; Iran carried the war on into Iraq.

6. Kuwait was a very stupid miscalculation on Hussein's part. He was, however, correct in his accusation of Kuwait's slant drilling. Don't forget to include al the US and UK war crimes committed during the Gulf War. No sides were the good guys in any of that shit.

We'll never get anywhere; your mind is shut tight, so I'll say good evening. :)

[sandnsea]

112. We are not fixing Iraq

We are not fixing the tragedies caused by Saddam, the sanctions or the war. We have a bad policy. We need to change course, fix the policy so we can succeed in leaving a stable Iraq; or leave. We don't have to drag Saddam into the mess, he's a distraction to the problems at hand.

[LynnTheDem]

179. No we cannot do OCCUPATION BETTER.

Occupation is occupation.

WE are the problem.

WE need to get out.

The MAJORITY of Iraqis want us the hell out of their country.

I can post any thing I like; you don't like it? Fine, don't read my posts. I like discussing FACTS. Not just facts that demonize someone I think is a demon, but ALL sides of an issue. Don't like it? Don't read my posts.

It's that simple. :)

[sandnsea]

198. So don't complain about the Shia rule

If we're the problem, then don't complain when they determine that they want to live under Shia law. And don't complain that the women have less rights. That's what the Sadr militia was fighting for two years ago when you said we should leave THEM alone to rule their country. What do you want, can they rule their country or can't they? Or should the minority Sunni under a Saddam type leader rule the majority again? So women can have rights? And you can point to a handful of people sharing billions in oil revenue and praise the generosity of their social system?

You want to demonize Bush and you choose any set of facts that come your way in order to do it. That's all.

[LynnTheDem]

214. Apples to oranges.

I "choose any FACTS that come my way"...

What. Ever.

I guess it's a huge step forward that you realize they are FACTS.

And sometimes one must just stop posting to certain people coz it just ain't worth it. :)

[Finder]

245. For the record, I agree with you. n/t

[oblivious]

21. I agree with Lynn that this is not idealising Saddam.

But it provides a needed perspective to counter the vast Western propaganda system that focuses only on Saddam the evil dictator. Obviously Iraq had a vast and fairly competent bureaucracy that produced some impressive achievements in the fields of education, health and women's rights for example. Iraq was much more than Saddam and this sole focus on one man is childish.

[sandnsea]

22. Gosh

Couldn't we just point out the fact that the country isn't being rebuilt, the development fund is being plundered, women's rights aren't being implemented, health care isn't being restored; and leave Saddam out of it altogether.

[oblivious]

24. Good point. These were Iraqi government programs, not Saddam's.

I imagine Saddam being something like Bush, leaving the planning and running of the country up to the mandarins, while he sat in his palaces writing novels. Who knows what Bush does during his days and evenings, but I doubt it invoves formulating national policy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/24/iraq/main704096.shtml

[sandnsea]

27. These were crony programs

Just like the Bushies. Nothing to praise in them at all. See post #26. Makes me sick to my stomach to see people gush over Saddam Hussein. He ran the country, there was no Iraq separate from him.

[LynnTheDem]

35. Link please.

Unicef praised them. UNESCO praised them. But you of course know better, so if you could provide a credible link, thanks.

[sandnsea]

37. Link please???

You can't be serious. You're denying that Saddam ran the country and ran it for the benefit of his fellow Ba'athists?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LynnTheDem]

39. Link please. Unicef praised Hussein's programs; UNESCO praised

them.

YOU say they were nothing to praise.

Link please, or is that just your own personal opinion?

[sandnsea]

45. Oh for pete's sake

Sabri Zire al-Saadi, an ex-UN employee

"Such phenomena, coupled with the destructive and backward political agenda of Saddam’s regime, were behind the hidden economic crisis of the 1970s, the apparent crisis of the 1980s, and the acute chronic crisis of the 1990s and afterwards1. Since then, Iraq has experienced rapid economic and social deterioration and wasted a lot of its abundant human and natural resources. Since 1980, Iraqis have suffered severe economic hardships, high unemployment, and shortage of public services and essential utilities – reflected in their very low living standards. Between 1980 and 2001, total value of Iraqi oil exports amounted to $192.2bn. However, in terms of GDP per capita, Iraq may be classified as one of the few Least Developed Countries.2 In 1980, GDP per capita was estimated at $2,143 and dropped sharply to only $239 in 20013. It is below the poverty line of $360 annual income. At present, the situation continues to deteriorate and the value of this important indicator is even lower."

http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a46n35d02.htm

[LynnTheDem]

51. Not related to your assertion; any link to back that up?

You asserted that the Iraqi government's social programs were nothing to praise and only benefited Hussein's cronies.

I have several links that back up my sourced OP;

From 1969 to 1979 Saddam Hussein was the vice-president of Iraq and had a profound effect on his country. He nationalized the oil industry. He instituted a nation-wide literacy project...hundreds of thousands of illiterate Iraqi men, women and children learned to read.

He advocated the building of schools, roads, public housing and hospitals. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East. UNESCO gave him an award.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/saddam_hussein.html

As vice chairman, he oversaw the nationalization of the oil industry and advocated a national infrastructure campaign that built roads, schools and hospitals. The once illiterate Saddam, ordered a mandatory literacy program. Those who did not participate risked three years in jail, but hundreds of thousands learned to read. Iraq, at this time, created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East -- a feat that earned Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/war/player1.html

After nationalizing foreign oil interests, Saddam supervised the modernization of the Iraqi countryside, the mechanization of agriculture on a large scale, and the distribution of land to farmers.6 He broke up the large holdings of the landowners and gave land to peasant farmers. The Ba'athists established farm co-operatives, in which profits were distributed in accordance with the labors of the individual peasant and the unskilled were trained.

The government's commitment to agrarian reform was demonstrated by the doubling of expenditures for agriculture development in 1974–1975, a policy that Saddam largely spearheaded. Moreover, agrarian reform in Iraq improved the living standards of the broad strata of the peasantry and increased production, though not to the levels for which Saddam had hoped.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1991/HLD.htm

He also supervised the modernization of the Iraqi countryside, the mechanization of agriculture and the distribution of land to farmers. He affected a comprehensive revolution in energy industries as well as in public services such as transport and education. He also initiated and led the National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy and the implementation of Compulsory Free Education in Iraq.

Hussein, to the consternation of Islamic fundamentalists and the Islamic Republic of Iran, liberated women and offered them high level government and industry jobs.

The Baathist government provided social services to Iraqi people unprecedented in other Middle Eastern country. Under Hussein's auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels, supported families of soldiers killed in war; granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Earlier, Hussein's government had broken up the large landholdings in the first place and redistributed land to peasant farmers.

But the modernizing, socialistic nature of his government also explains Iraq's impressive development, at least before the Iraq-Iran War, the Gulf War, and the ensuing 12 years of santions.
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/biography_saddam_hussein.htm

Saddam's regime was using much of Iraq's burgeoning oil revenue to improve the daily lives of its people. It even won UN humanitarian awards for its literacy programs.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/

Iraqi women say freedoms are slipping away
http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050926-035829-6822r

Iraq's women are among the most well-educated in the Middle East. Many women enjoyed more freedoms than their Middle East counterparts ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3007381.stm

FACT; Iraq had some of the best, most advanced social programs for ALL Iraqis of any nation in the Mid East. FACT; they don't now.

FACT; Iraqi women had more freedoms and rights than most in the ME. FACT; they don't now.

You don't like those facts? Take it up with PBS, CBC, Global Security, Unicef, UNESCO, et al. :)

[sandnsea]

64. You wouldn't care

It's like I said earlier, you're only interested in YOUR set of facts and YOUR adoration of Saddam Hussein. This really is a case of the ENTIRE world knowing that he was scum, except a handful of people at DU. I posted an article from freakin' AL-JAZEERA for chrissake. You're arguing with AL-JAZEERA. That's how totally off base you are on Saddam Hussein.

[LynnTheDem]

84. Ahhh...so you know what I think/feel/care about.

Amazing! You are simply amazing! And here I thought you only know what the Iraqis think/feel/want!

Your al Jazeera article, my dear, is with al Sadr, a very radical Islamic fundamenatlist extremist. Of course he hated Saddam, a secularist. :)

And I am sorry that you are incapable of seeing the FACTS, that as brutal as Hussein undoubtedly was, he IN FACT did improve the lives of the people of Iraq with "unprecedented social programs", and IN FACT those programs are no more and won't be for a very long time.

FACT: Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Hussein. I realize you hate that fact, but... :shrug:

And YOU are arguing with PBS...CBS...Global Security...UNICEF...UNESCO... ;)

[sandnsea]

87. One article, over and over and over

It's called propaganda. You don't look at anything else, it's a logical conclusion that you aren't interested. Just like it's a logical conclusion that those who suffered under Saddam and are suffering under the war are worn out and at their wit's end.

[LynnTheDem]

180. PBS is infamous for their propaganda! As is Unicef and UNESCO.

The bastards!

:rofl:

[sandnsea]

222. No YOU are

They made supposedly legitimate claims about something in 1979. YOU used those claims as a compilation of various resources, when they actually all refer to ONE thing.

[LynnTheDem]

225. Yes they all verify the social programs the Iraqis no longer have.

Thanks to bush's illegal war of aggression.

Now with Sharia law, the Iraqis, especially the women, can kiss any hopes of getting the programs back buh bye.

Iraqis are worse off now, than they were under Hussein. As much as you don't want to admit that.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

114. Maybe you can't handle the fact that most things in life aren't b&w

but we can.

[LynnTheDem]

181. Not just B&W, Commie, but simply the FACTS, regardless

whether they demonize someone or not.

It amazes me that there are so-called progressives who simply shut their minds to anything they do not want to hear; "DON'T TELL ME ABOUT THE GOOD THINGS HUSSEIN DID FOR IRAQIS!"

Simply FACTS; yet to some so-called progressives, even mentioning these FACTS means you're a "Saddam lover"..."Saddam cheerleader"..."fascist".

No...they're JUST FACTS. Bloody unreal.

[mom cat]

266. I don't think that Lynn is trying to paint Saddam as a saint. I think tha

I think that she is bringing up some important points one of the most important of which it is for us to look at the facts not just the US propaganda machine which wants to demonize Saddam without mentioning the fact that the US supported him during the periods of alleged brutality. It is quite clear that this sham trial will lead to an execution, but not to the truth of real responsibility anymore than the trial of Lindy England solved the case about torture in Iraq. I would like to see a genuinely honestly fair open objective trial of Saddam, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Blair, etc. for all the crimes against humanity to Iraq. I am not holding my breath.

[madeline_con]

189. Which is the lesser of two evils?

Saddam was no prince, but Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr (I'll leave off the
"Ayat Allah", it's a matter of opinion) studied in Iran with the Khomeinis. It's radical fundamentalist Islam.

Doesn't this clearly illustrate the way Muslim extremism can be sold to the poor, instead of the money being better spent on programs to help alleviate poverty?

Neither one of these guys was all that benevolent.

[geek tragedy]

202. Sadr is much less powerful, therefore he is the lesser evil. eom

[madeline_con]

204. But Saddam's in jail...

;)

[geek tragedy]

206. Ya, Saddam's a bit down on his luck right now.

But, back in his day he was the ultimate power in Iraq.

[Finder]

242. Sort of like Roy Moore from Alabama

railing against Clinton and the godless government.;-)

[geek tragedy]

248. What a morally grotesque comparison.

If you seriously see Roy Moore's antics in defying the US constitution as the same as religious leaders defying the brutal fascist who oppressed them, well then I just have to shake my head.

[Finder]

249. Shake it baby!!! n/t

[cantstandbush]

14. The US has been more of a terrorist in Iraq than Saddam

At least Saddam didn't bother you if you didn't try to overthrow his government. Now EVERYONE in Iraq is at risk thanks to the Bush-neocon-PNAC cabal.

[LynnTheDem]

20. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but more Iraqis suffer daily

from terror now, be it the Shia militia, the radical Shia, tribal revenge, US bombing, US raids, Kurd cleansing, huge increase in violent crime, kidnappings, "honor" killings...than they ever did.

And how many 911s have we so far perpetrated on the Iraqis, taking into account per capita? Last time I worked it out, it was the equivalent of 43 911s. But we demand the Iraqis settle down like good little children. :eyes:

[geek tragedy]

16. How much are dues for the Saddam fan club?

And do they offer a package deal with the Baath party?

[LynnTheDem]

17. So sad how some people simply cannot face FACTS.

So sad how some people can ONLY see one side of an issue; black-white think.

Fact is, the benefits under the Hussein government are now gone under bushCabal; fact is, the Iraqis are worse off. If you are unable to discuss the issue, feel free to carry on to some other thread. :)

[geek tragedy]

40. Unlike you, I'm aware of a fact called "time."

Such as the fact that Iraq circa 1982 bore little or no resemblance to Iraq in 2001.

Or is it your claim that the effect of sanctions on Iraq were vastly overstated?

[LynnTheDem]

182. Oh I see, I didn't realize there is a time limit to topics for discussion

on DU. I missed that in my reading of the rules. Thanks!

[geek tragedy]

186. No, time as in 1979 UNESCO praise not being relevant in 2004.

Context is everything.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Havung a problem with the facts?

Sadamn also engaged in mass murder, genocoide and a couple other beauties... but the population had some things that are even lacking here, such as universal health care.

Granted the lack of an abilty to ciritize the government IS a problem... but as much in life things are not black and white.

Wnat me to educate you on our child survival rates compared to those of oh I don't know CUBA?

[LynnTheDem]

19. Oh sure, pick CUBA! That's so not fair!

:D

[sandnsea]

23. See #6

"Under ensuing governments, Sadr City's Shia made up to a third of Baghdad's population, but held few positions of power and were disproportionately represented in Iraq's unemployment rolls, prisons, and the frontlines of its wars."

Like I said, take your complaints to al-jazeera, not me, they wrote it.

[countryjake]

25. From the very article you've so eloquently quoted...

Fresh martyrs

Down a beaten mud alley, where black banners announce the recent deaths of martyrs, Ali al-Muraidi, a retired porter, sits looking at photos of his two dead sons Husayn and Qasim.

The young men were typical al-Sadr followers.

Impoverished porters like their father, they stood for hours in the market leaning on pushcarts, waiting to be paid a few dinars to move goods.

With no money in their pockets and no weapons in their hands, they rushed into the street at the first sound of gunfire.

"My sons were poor and all they had left was heaven," says Ali, weak-eyed and fiddling with their ID cards.

His voice is hoarse and broken. "They didn't even have guns and the army opened fire on them randomly. But we know that the martyr who stands up to the unjust one goes to paradise with the prophets on a level near God".

The unjust one Ali speaks of is not Saddam Hussein, nor did his sons die in the 1999 protests.

Husayn and Qasim died on 5 April 2004 in a new protest over several days of armed clashes with US occupation forces in the heart of Sadr City and across other Shia neighbourhoods and cities.

The clashes were triggered by the forced closure of al-Sadr's newspaper and had led to the death of more than 100 Iraqis and scores of US occupation troops in Sadr City alone.

Tough lessons

When the US military first entered Baghdad, Ali and the people of al-Sadr City hailed them as heroes and liberators.

But a year later, this sentiment has reversed and a new saying is heard in the streets: "The student left and the teacher came."

Al-Sadr City officials, Iraqi police and residents complain that US forces launched a campaign of arrests of youth and men of religion, raids, curbs on freedom of expression, random killings, and oppression reminiscent of Saddam Hussein.



http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D58B4A08-5E73-4A57-B8A3-2E478F0B6DAD.htm


(Bold emphasis mine) (edited to add link)

[sandnsea]

26. And so?

I never said we haven't fucked the place up. I said it wasn't a paradise when we got there, not for the majority of the country. If we used New Orleans for comparison, it's the equivalent of gushing over the Garden District and forgetting the 9th ward. It's sickening.

[countryjake]

32. Study this for awhile!

Surely you must have seen this:

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html



When exactly is enough, enough? When will the people of Iraq be allowed the self-determination that is the bedrock of all Freedoms?

If you'd investigate the history mentioned in that little flash piece, you might find that the simple reason our country so desperately wanted someone exactly like Saddam Hussein to rule Iraq back then, was to maintain proper suppression of all those folks who held that revolutionary ideology your article spoke of. The Iranian Revolution was seen as a major threat and derailing it by any means possible, including drumming up the religious fervor that eventually did sidetrack what was accomplished when the Shah was driven from the Middle East, and ruthlessly oppressing those elements who sympathized within Iraq, was considered to be OUR best interest!

Don't ya think it's high time we started minding our own business, the conditions in NOLA being an excellent example?

[sandnsea]

33. Self determination??

I don't know when that will be. But I do know they didn't have it before we got there. I know that they won't have it with Bush in charge. But I also know they wouldn't have it if we left today either.

Mind our own business? You can unplug your power to help us on the way. On our own, we wouldn't have enough energy to supply all our little tools and gadgets. It'd be nice if it was all as simple as minding our own business, but there have been trade wars since the first person wacked somebody with a rock and stole all the furs that were supposed to keep his village warm for the winter.

[countryjake]

36. So now you want to talk about the genocide of Native Americans?

Let me assure you, you don't want to go there, those were my own people that good-ole-time USA Imperialism wiped from this continent! Let's do unplug the power; on your own, you wouldn't have a homeland!

[sandnsea]

41. I have no problem with that

None whatsoever. Give me a ticket back to France.

But if you really want to get into a discussion on Native Americans, I'm sure we could include some discussion on the wars between the Sioux and the Crow, Mohawk and Huron, etc. Fights over resouces have gone on forever. Nobody is innocent.

[nadinbrzezinski]

241. Yuo took what you wanted from what I posted

reality is they had some thigns we don't, and will not unless we are willing to fight them... (national health care)

I DID SAY that Sadamn was no saint, and genocide does come to mind... but you are only choosing to see things in black and white... me I can see the shades of gray.... in some respects they are closer to black and in others they are closer to white. The balance is a dark shade of gray... but I am not blind to the good, (which you are) the bad (you are not) or the ugly, (which you tend to emphasize)

Now I will state somethign else that will make you VERY UNCOMFOTABLE.. the casus belli for the war was WMDs, no WMDs, this war is a violation of internatlonal law and all kinds of treaties we have signed. We are no less a rogue nation than Iraq was after it went after Kuwait... the difference we are armed to the teeth and then some... so we have NO MORAL AUTHORITY to even talk about the gray zones in Iraq right now

What is more, the trial of sadamn is victor's revenge, not Nuremberg. If it were nuremberg he woudl be on the docket at the Hague... and he woudl be able to request the testimony (and later conviction) of his parters in crime, who include the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld.

[oblivious]

30. Yes, the point was to point out the parallel between the US and Saddam.

Both randomly shot demonstrators.

Part 1: He used to chant: 'No, no to Satan, no, no to the unjust one!' And everyone knew that what he meant by Satan was Saddam."

Part 2: His voice is hoarse and broken. "They didn't even have guns and the army opened fire on them randomly. But we know that the martyr who stands up to the unjust one goes to paradise with the prophets on a level near God".

The unjust one Ali speaks of is not Saddam Hussein, nor did his sons die in the 1999 protests.

Husayn and Qasim died on 5 April 2004 in a new protest over several days of armed clashes with US occupation forces in the heart of Sadr City and across other Shia neighbourhoods and cities.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

46. lol, true

"sure an inability to criticize the government and genocide and mass murder and torture are flaws, but he had a great health plan" to be one of the unintentionally funniest lines of comment ever.

Along with, he only gassed 5,000 people...

[geek tragedy]

48. He only gassed 5,000 people . . .

at Halabja. Iraq under Saddam used poison gas against a whole hell of a lot more than that.

Never mind the other grotesque human rights abuses and attempted genocides.

After all, he had some good programs before he tried to conquer the Mideast!

[LynnTheDem]

52. So which links are "dishonest bullshit"? PBS? Unicef? UNESCO?

CBC? Global Security?

[geek tragedy]

53. Dishonest bullshit is not acknowledging that Saddam's pursuit

of war against his neighbors led to the ruin of Iraq.

That those social programs were bankrupted and rendered ineffective due to decades of warfare and sanctions.

But you're only interested in ways to praise and defend Saddam, not ways to criticize and hold him accountable.

Which is the dodge of the apologist and hagiographer, not a person interested in the truth.

[LynnTheDem]

54. Nothing to do with what my OP is about. YOU said my OP is

"dishonest bullshit".

As my OP is sourced, which links are you calling "dishonest bullshit"?

[geek tragedy]

56. You're saying that Bush destroyed Saddam's social welfare state.

He didn't. Saddam destroyed his own social welfare state by pursuing wars of conquest and aggression. Iraqis suffered the pain and cost of Saddam's wars--not to mention his corruption and oppression. War and sanctions wiped out all of the benefits you're now praising.

To put it another way:

You said there was free hospitalization under Saddam before the invasion.

If that's so, how did the sanctions kill so many people?

[LynnTheDem]

58. Yes there was indeed free hospitalization for all Iraqis until bush

invaded.

Why did sanctions kill so many? Read the HRW reports you love so much, they tell ya why; because Iraq couldn't get the meds or the equipment they needed due to sanctions.

The world but for the USA wanted sanctions lifted from Iraq by 1993; America said nope, not lifting them no matter what.

War & sanctions did not wipe it all out; the benefits of the programs deteriorated because of war & sanctions, yep. But the programs were still in place, and if you go back and read UN and HRW and AI reports from 2000-2002, you'd find that Iraq was steadily improving, despite sanctions.

Now, thanks to bush, ALL Iraq's social programs are gone and women have now and will continue to have fewer rights and freedoms.

HRW praised those programs; Unicef praised those programs; UNESCO praised those programs. I posted sourced info to those programs. Gee, me and PBS and Unicef and UNESCO and CBC and Global Security et al are just "Saddam cheerleaders"!

:eyes:

[geek tragedy]

62. Saddam's wars and their consequences, including the sanctions,

ruined Iraq. Ruined it.

Trying to give him credit for programs but not holding him accountable for their almost complete degradation is Baathist bunk.

[dutchdemocrat]

149. Let's turn this one around

You're saying that Sadaam destroyed America's Budget Surplus?

Edited on Sun Oct-23-05 05:42 AM by DD

He didn't. Bush destroyed his own Budget Surplus by pursuing wars of conquest and aggression. Americans suffered the pain and cost of Bush's wars--not to mention his corruption and oppression. War and conquest wiped out all of the benefits you're now praising.

To put it another way... You should read Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid

[geek tragedy]

162. I don't think we disagree. The only difference is that Bush is wiping

out the good programs started by someone else.

Bush is directly responsible for the effects that the Iraq invasion has on the United States and its people. Saddam is directly responsible for the effects that the invasion of Kuwait had on the people of Iraq.

[rinsd]

267. This is so simple...

This......

"Sadamn also engaged in mass murder, genocoide and a couple other beauties... "

Outweighs this....

"but the population had some things that are even lacking here, such as universal health care."

to the point it is not worthy of disucssion.

If anything, I think people would be pleading for these social programs NOT to be associated with Saddam.

[JohnnyCougar]

28. My old roommate was from Baghdad...and he can personally attest to that.

I should get him to post on here about life under Saddam Hussein. He didn't really have any problems over there, except for the sanctions, but those weren't really Saddam's fault anyways. He said Saddam wasn't the best president, but he was no way near what Bush made him out to be. Life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a LOT better before we invaded.

Bush is the real terrorist and tyrant. If he wants to rid the world of terror, I suggest he take a long walk off a short pier.

[LynnTheDem]

31. What a very excellent suggestion, JohnnyC!

Lovin' it! :)

[geek tragedy]

43. If Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, there wouldn't have been sanctions.

So, they were very much his fault.

Your former roommate sounds like a Baathist bootlicker.

[Terran1212]

60. You blame Saddam for the deaths of Iraqis due to US?

You can't blame the victims.

[geek tragedy]

63. Logic lesson for you: Blaming Saddam does not equal blaming the victims

Saddam led Iraq into those wars. That means he's responsible for the consequences of those wars.

Just like Bush is responsible for the consequences of the war he started.

[sandnsea]

67. Let's think that through

If remotely possible.

Daddy gives Buffy a trust fund. Buffy has a little boy named Skip. Buffy blows the trust fund money on jaguars. Daddy makes Buffy see an accountant for the money. Buffy gives the accountant blow jobs and continues to spend the money on jaguars.

Skip is hungry. It's Daddy's fault?

[JohnnyCougar]

224. Well....

Kuwait was stealing Iraq's oil.

And my former roommate was not part of the Baath party. He is a Shi'ia Muslim.

But I adore how you presume to know stuff about my old roommate. Where did you go to psychic school?

[geek tragedy]

231. I didn't know that theft justified military invasion. Thanks for

letting me know the proper criteria for military action.

All hail Saddam!

[JohnnyCougar]

233. Nothing justifies military invasion.

I'm just letting you know why it happened, whether justified or not.

Can your binary mind handle that, or is the string of digits too long. Try thinking in hexidecimal first....then later you can think in true color.

All Hail President Bush and his trusty DLC!!!:sarcasm:

[geek tragedy]

234. What the Kuwaitis were doing is completely irrelevant to my point.

My point, to those who have trouble following along:

It is dishonest and misleading to praise Saddam for the programs he set up in 1979 without also taking into account the fact that his foolish, immoral, and criminal actions brought ruin upon his own country and degraded and defunded those very same programs.

In other words, Iraq was ruined by the aftermath of Saddam's wars. The programs that UNESCO was praising in 1979 were ruined by Saddam's military aggression.

Mentioning April Gillespie and Kuwaiti horizontal drilling are IRRELEVANT to that point. People raising those points have one agenda: to defend Saddam.

[JohnnyCougar]

235. You fell for the strawman

Saddam being evil is simply a distraction from the real argument...the US government put him into power, encouraged and sponsored his wars with chemical weapons, gave him military intelligence, etc.

Who is really guilty....Al Capone, or the people who do his dirty work?

Well, both, obviously. But getting rid of Al Capone is the real solition, not blaming the second rate criminals he hired.

[geek tragedy]

236. Do you know who gave Saddam most of his weapons?

Can you name the top three?

I'm guessing not.

[JohnnyCougar]

237. Another strawman. We were doing it, whether we were in the top 3 or not.

Why are you angry at a two bit hired crook, when we should be focusing our anger at Al Capone?

[geek tragedy]

238. Are you talking about the US, the French, the Chinese, or the Russians?

Saddam's crimes are a stain on the world's great powers, not just the US.

[JohnnyCougar]

239. Yes, you are right!

And who is the most powerful of those powers?

Who wanted to go to war before the inspections were complete?

[geek tragedy]

243. Well, the Russians, the Chinese, and the French gave Saddam

far more weaponry than the US did--the French even helped him start the Iraqi nuclear program (which trumps our mere supplying of chemical weapon precursors).

Saddam was no one's stooge--he played the great powers against each other to benefit himself.

[JohnnyCougar]

251. And then we bombed his citizens to get back at him.

And made Iraq a worse place to live. And empowered the Islamic fundies.

The point is, when people like you limit the discussion to "Iraq was an absolute hellhole 100% of the time under Saddam Hussein" then you automatically justify our invasion by saying we have to have made it better. That is simply not the case. Saddam Hussein was evil, but not EVERYTHING in Iraq was bad under him. Now that we completely trashed the government and infrastructure over there, we made it much worse.

[geek tragedy]

255. No, saying that things were miserable under Saddam isn't a justification

of the invasion.

Some of us can oppose the invasion and imperialism without trying to polish Saddam's justly soiled reputation.

[JohnnyCougar]

257. You keep trying to make it personal with Saddam

Like I am trying to defend him, or say that he is not evil.

Wrong.

We are beyond how evil Saddam was. We are discussing the differences in Iraq before and after the invasion. Got it?

[geek tragedy]

258. I agree. Which is why attempts to talk about 1979 Iraq make no freaking

sense and contribute nothing to the debate.

The overriding goal should be for the US to get the hell out. Benchmarks for withdrawal and an ironclad promise to not have a permanent military presence there should be the start.

[JohnnyCougar]

259. Who brought up 1979 Iraq? It wasn't me.

My roommate lived there until the late 90's. His parents still live in Baghdad. What I hear from him is 20 years past 1979.

The only people I see bringing up 1979 Iraq is people talking about Hussein gassing people.

But Saddam being evil is a strawman. Yes, he is evil, but that doesn't mean conditions in Iraq were more terrible under him than they are today.

As far as I can see, we both agree on what should happen now that the past is the past. The whole debate on this thread has consisted of people considering people like me Hussein apologists, which is a baseless and groundless accusation. But those accusations seem to have passed, and I am willing to wrap this discussion up.

No matter whose fault the killing is in the past, we might as well work to stop it. Since Bush was such an idiot, though, our options are limited.

[geek tragedy]

260. Wasn't accusing you of apologism--sorry if you got that impression.

Cheers.

[Finder]

240. Not irrelevent to the points you are trying to make....

nor the accusation that anybody who understands what was going on in Iraq pre 9/11 or doesn't think Saddam was evil incarnate is automatically an apologist.

Fact is they were a secular and in many ways socialist country before we meddled. Yes, Saddam was a strong arm leader against the religious fundamentalists(who tried to overthrow him and were treasonous during the Iran/Iraq war)but like the US, GW has liberated the nutcases. Now only the freethinkers, non-muslims, women, democratic Iraqis will be oppressed.

[geek tragedy]

247. If you don't want to be accused of being a Saddam apologist, don't

offer apologia on his behalf.

"Yes, Saddam was a strong arm leader"

Apologist shorthand for murderous dictator.

"against the religious fundamentalists"

Apologist shorthand for Shiites and Kurds

"(who tried to overthrow him and were treasonous during the Iran/Iraq war)

Yes, like those Jews and Communists were treasonous for defying the Fuhrer.

[Finder]

250. Well we defended the "communist " side militarily in WWII...

if you recall. The US and Soviet Union were allies. We encouraged the religious shias and kurds to overthrow Saddam and then didn't lift a hand to help.

Do you really wanna play ball here?

[geek tragedy]

254. Stalin was a murdering pig, just like Saddam was.

I'm not going to offer apologia for either, and shame on anyone who does.

[mom cat]

270. Bush is a murdering pig. Do you defend him?

[mom cat]

269. There have been a lot of unfounded accusations in this thread. Thank you

for giving a perspective from somebody with more knowledge about the situation that most of us.

[mom cat]

268. Thanks.. I think that it is time to look at facts and not US propaganda.

Saddam was no saint, but over demonizing him while ignoring the brutality of US sanctions does not serve the cause of human rights or the truth. The truth here is not going to fit into neat little black and white boxes, but I think it should be clear by now that between sanctions and war and depleted uranium that the United States has killed far more people in Iraq that Saddam Hussein ever did or in fact was ever reputed to do. The United States has a lot of guilt on its hands regarding Iraq and Afghanistan just to name a few. It should be quite clear by now that Saddam will be found guilty and executed for his crimes. I doubt that the same will happen to Bush!

[cantstandbush]

29. The entire Wikipedia article about Saddam is worth a read.

Very enlightening. Talks about "slant drilling" US arming Saddam ...

[FreedomAngel82]

34. It's so sad

:cry: Thanks asshole Bush! I'm sure Iraq is so thankful of you! Ugh!!!! I hate him even more!

[EstimatedProphet]

66. That's why freepers hate Saddam so much

Because he was LIBUREL!
Unfortunately there's more truth to that than a snide remark deserves. Saddam had a working government over 3 disparate groups that were trying to kill each other, and a standard of living that was better than the rest of the middle east combined. Freeptards will point to that and say he was liberal, and that's why he tortured people. And conveniently miss the fact that we entirely destroyed the country, rather than "liberating" it as they claim.

[geek tragedy]

78. Saddam was in no way a liberal. He was a fascist.

People who praise Saddam are praising a brutal fascist. Not a liberal.

[EstimatedProphet]

83. Yes, he was

Should have used the sarcasm tag...
Just trying to point out that freepers would avoid discussing that maybe Iraq isn't better under anarchy and fundamentalism, and claim that Saddam was a communist in their attempt to justify our being there.

[dutchdemocrat]

184. You mean this fascist?

Which one is the fascist? Or are both?

[geek tragedy]

188. The one on the right is a fascist. The one on the left very possibly

has aspirations to be a fascist.

[hiley]

263. "aspirations to be a fascist"

bullshit Rumsfeld is a fascist.

[pox americana]

110. This may have been mentioned already

but much of Saddam's reputation for savagery was invented by the PR firm of Hill & Knowlton in 1990, under the direction of Bush crony Craig Fuller, and mostly paid for by Kuwait:

"How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf"

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

[geek tragedy]

117. Did they bribe the suriviors of Halabja and HRW as well?

How about all of the human rights activists that were decrying Saddam's crimes before he invaded Kuwait?

[pox americana]

122. Possibly. I'd need more information than that to make a judgment. (n/t)

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pox americana]

132. I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion, not a food fight. (n/t)

[geek tragedy]

137. Sorry, but people who entertain the possibility that the entire

international human rights community is part of a neo-con plot can't expect to be taken seriously.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

138. Nice straw man. See my observation below. (nt)

[pox americana]

143. NGOs have been known to take bribes. Look into it. Good night. (n/t)

[geek tragedy]

155. HRW hasn't. eom

[LynnTheDem]

192. Wouldn't be any need to bribe HRW; they take info from people;

if the people were bribed, then HRW gets their info wrong.

Like HRW got the incubator babies story wrong and had to apologize. Like HRW changed their Anfal story 4 times, drastically.

COuld be people lied; could be people were bribed; could be people were intimidated by others...who knows.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

134. "much of" and "all" are different things.

She said the first, but you answer as if she said the second. Why?

[geek tragedy]

142. People who believe that the survivors of Halabja

and HRW have been bribed to libel Saddam are as low as the scum under David Irving's toenails.

It's not even something sane people can disagree on.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

150. Let me ask you a question about a better known episode.

Babies being thrown out of incubators. What do you think of THAT?

[geek tragedy]

153. Based on much flimsier proof. There are MOUNTAINS

of evidence supporting the contention that Saddam gassed the Kurds.

Not only at Halabja--but at other places.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

159. Wow. You get the "Understatement of the Week" award.

"Based on much flimsier proof." HA! What about "Thoroughly proven to have been made up out of whole cloth ages ago"?

Now who's whitewashing?

[geek tragedy]

168. There was evidence--albeit flimsy and fabricated--regarding

the incubators.

The evidence regarding Baathist Iraq's use of poison gas against the Kurds is much more substantial.

It is not an apt comparison. Just like the fact that some incidents of racism are hoaxes doesn't mean that the Jim Crow South was a figment of people's imaginations.

[oblivious]

203. Better change that last comment while you can still edit it.,

I mean about a 'fabrication' being evidence.

Re gassing the Kurds, I wonder if we'll ever know the truth. Flashback.

Published on Friday, January 31, 2003 by the New York Times
A War Crime or an Act of War?

by Stephen C. Pelletiere

...immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-08.htm

NO PROOF SADDAM GASSED THE KURDS!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3703558

[geek tragedy]

207. Pelletiere was a policy flunky under Poppy Bush

back when Poppy was supporting Saddam against Iran. He's stuck to his story rather than admit that he was paid liar in service of the Republican establishment.

The author cited in the second link is an extremist wingnut who worships Ronnie Raygun (Saddam's best friend).

People who believe his line of crap are swallowing warmed-over Republican bullshit.

[mom cat]

271. Thanks for the post. Here is an interesting short excerpt:

Packaging the Emir
US Congressman Jimmy Hayes of Louisiana - a conservative Democrat who supported the Gulf War - later estimated that the government of Kuwait funded as many as 20 PR, law and lobby firms in its campaign to mobilize US opinion and force against Hussein.72 Participating firms included the Rendon Group, which received a retainer of $100,000 per month for media work, and Neill & Co., which received $50,000 per month for lobbying Congress. Sam Zakhem, a former US ambassador to the oil-rich gulf state of Bahrain, funneled $7.7 million in advertising and lobbying dollars through two front groups, the "Coalition for Americans at Risk" and the "Freedom Task Force." The Coalition, which began in the 1980s as a front for the contras in Nicaragua, prepared and placed TV and newspaper ads, and kept a stable of fifty speakers available for pro-war rallies and publicity events.73

Hill & Knowlton, then the world's largest PR firm, served as mastermind for the Kuwaiti campaign. Its activities alone would have constituted the largest foreign-funded campaign ever aimed at manipulating American public opinion. By law, the Foreign Agents Registration Act should have exposed this propaganda campaign to the American people, but the Justice Department chose not to enforce it. Nine days after Saddam's army marched into Kuwait, the Emir's government agreed to fund a contract under which Hill & Knowlton would represent "Citizens for a Free Kuwait," a classic PR front group designed to hide the real role of the Kuwaiti government and its collusion with the Bush administration. Over the next six months, the Kuwaiti government channeled $11.9 million dollars to Citizens for a Free Kuwait, whose only other funding totalled $17,861 from 78 individuals. Virtually all of CFK's budget - $10.8 million - went to Hill & Knowlton in the form of fees.74

The man running Hill & Knowlton's Washington office was Craig Fuller, one of Bush's closest friends and inside political advisors. The news media never bothered to examine Fuller's role until after the war had ended, but if America's editors had read the PR trade press, they might have noticed this announcement, published in O'Dwyer's PR Services before the fighting began: "Craig L. Fuller, chief of staff to Bush when he was vice-president, has been on the Kuwaiti account at Hill & Knowlton since the first day. He and Dilenschneider at one point made a trip to Saudi Arabia, observing the production of some 20 videotapes, among other chores. The Wirthlin Group, research arm of H&K, was the pollster for the Reagan Administration. . . . Wirthlin has reported receiving $1.1 million in fees for research assignments for the Kuwaitis. Robert K. Gray, Chairman of H&K/USA based in Washington, DC had leading roles in both Reagan campaigns. He has been involved in foreign nation accounts for many years. . . . Lauri J. Fitz-Pegado, account supervisor on the Kuwait account, is a former Foreign Service Officer at the US Information Agency who joined Gray when he set up his firm in 1982."75

In addition to Republican notables like Gray and Fuller, Hill & Knowlton maintained a well-connected stable of in-house Democrats who helped develop the bipartisan support needed to support the war. Lauri Fitz-Pegado, who headed the Kuwait campaign, had previously worked with super-lobbyist Ron Brown representing Haiti's Duvalier dictatorship. Hill & Knowlton senior vice-president Thomas Ross had been Pentagon spokesman during the Carter Administration. To manage the news media, H&K relied on vice-chairman Frank Mankiewicz, whose background included service as press secretary and advisor to Robert F. Kennedy and George McGovern, followed by a stint as president of National Public Radio. Under his direction, Hill & Knowlton arranged hundreds of meetings, briefings, calls and mailings directed toward the editors of daily newspapers and other media outlets.

Jack O'Dwyer had reported on the PR business for more than twenty years, but he was awed by the rapid and expansive work of H&K on behalf of Citizens for a Free Kuwait: "Hill & Knowlton . . . has assumed a role in world affairs unprecedented for a PR firm. H&K has employed a stunning variety of opinion-forming devices and techniques to help keep US opinion on the side of the Kuwaitis. . . . The techniques range from full-scale press conferences showing torture and other abuses by the Iraqis to the distribution of tens of thousands of 'Free Kuwait' T-shirts and bumper stickers at college campuses across the US."76

[rman]

212. Not to mention Saddam was in full compliance

with the vast majority of the weapons inspections.

So says the guy who headed those inspections.

Democracy Now
Friday, October 21st, 2005
Scott Ritter on the Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258

<snip>

"Public perception is that the Iraqis were confrontational and blocking the work of the inspectors. In 98% of the inspections, the Iraqis did everything we asked them to because it dealt with disarmament. However when we got into issues of sensitivity, such as coming close to presidential security installations, Iraqis raised a flag and said, “Time out. We got a C.I.A. out there that's trying to kill our president and we're not very happy about giving you access to the most sensitive installations and the most sensitive personalities in Iraq.” So we had these modalities, where we agreed that if we came to a site and the Iraqis called it ‘sensitive,’ we go in with four people."
-- Scott Ritter

<snip>

[LynnTheDem]

219. The UN said he was in full compliance in 1993.

USA said they were not going to lift the draconian killing sanctions period.

[sandnsea]

221. They passed 1441 in 2002

Not to mention, Scott Ritter didn't say he was disarmed in 1998 either, this is what he said on Sept 3, 1998:

"Iraq today is not disarmed, and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace. Those American who think that this is important and that something should be done about it have to be deeply disappointed in our leadership."

"But what I can say is that we have clear evidence that Iraq is retaining prohibited weapons capabilities in the fields of chemical, biological and ballistic- missile delivery systems of a range of greater than 150 kilometers. And if Iraq has undertaken a concerted effort run at the highest levels inside Iraq to retain these capabilities, then I see no reason why they would not exercise the same sort of concealment efforts for their nuclear programs."

"Iraq has not disarmed, and they've lied across the board about not just VX, but once we get to the bottom of the VX issue, we'll find it exposes additional lies, which cause concern for a number weapons issues. When that issue became public in June of 1998, I believe that the administration was forced to endorse the findings that indeed there was weaponized VX in Iraq today"

"We must go forth and find these weapons that Iraq is hiding. And that could go on a very long time, especially given the level of Iraqi obstruction today."

"They're -- Iraq has positioned itself today that once effective inspection regimes have been terminated, Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months."

http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/ritter.htm

[wryter2000]

229. No wonder we had to take him out

He was making the US look bad by comparison. :evilgrin:

[jzodda]

246. You post is MISLEADING

The real story in all this is that there are NO winners here. They lived in a repressive dictatorship that killed and murdered people at will before and now they live in an unstable country that is probably destined to spit apart once we leave.

You know Hitler also built up roads and industry and higher education, Stalin did also, but at what cost? Sometimes the cost of development is too HIGH.

You say the gov supported Iraqi soldiers families? You mean like the Republican Guard? Yeah they sure did take care of that class. The murdering class. The notion that you put forth that the former gov was doing right by the people of that country is disgusting. It makes me want to vomit.

Besides murdering men, women and children at will he also committed his country to 2 major wars. Between the war against Iran that he started and the war against Kuwait and aftermath the losses of people killed in those wars goes into the MILLIONS. Did you read that correctly? MILLIONS.


Now....having said that there is no winners in this thing. I was against this invasion and the war because I do not believe in being the worlds policeman. Not when we have such problems right here at home. The cold hard fact is the people of Iraq suffered before and continue to suffer. If they wind up living under Sharia thats tragic, but anything is better then the millions of lives lost due to that brutal mans rule.

This is a discussion that I can not believe we are even having. Hussein is on record as having Stalin as his role model. The video of him smiling and smoking his Cigar as he accuses Baath party members of treason and then having them led out of the room for execution is just chilling. You must have done very very little true, hard reaearch into the history of Husseins rule because if you had you would never post garbage like this.

[LynnTheDem]

253. *I* don't say shit;

It's not MY OPINIONS.

It's FACTS.

You don't LIKE the FACTS? TOUGH.

Iraqis are WORSE OFF NOW than they were under Hussein.

FACT.

[GreenArrow]

262. I don't think they like facts.

.

[jzodda]

272. ***I SAY FAR LESS SHIT THEN YOU*****

You "opinions" and your dubious research methodology is obvious. Anybody can get the info you dug up in 10 min of google. Take a few articles and then spin them out of context. You should work for Rove. I do not need to look at the PHD on my wall to see through you. You know little nor care little for facts. For you its all politics, period.

Facts are only convenient when they suit your political world view. I stand by MY facts, yours are opinions. Iraqis had it bad before and have it bad now. It takes little intelligence to be able to understand that much, but its obviously beyond you.

[countryjake]

273. All she is saying...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5139859&mesg_id=5146186

Just the facts, ma'am! Why shoot the messenger here?

Doesn't general world opinion count in any of this? You can spend the hours googling, too, and say the opposite if you like, but don't condemn someone who has already done it! Most here appreciate the material provided on this site by diligent posters, and opening our eyes to "contrary" opinions is not exactly what I'd call "misleading".