The hypocrisy that sickens the decent opinion of making
 

How about the fact that Bush claimed his attack on Iraq was because Saddam had WMD (he did not, the UN inspections proved this, and only when Bush and Blair were CERTAIN Iraq could not defend itself did they attack)

Yet Bush used chemical weapons (napalm) against Iraqi conscripts, and biological warfare against Iraqi civilians (deliberately destroying water and electricity supplies to make Iraqi cities surrender to them, in other words, causing so many Iraqi elderly and children to die of illness and epidemic that they would have to bow to the American's)

In this war, which is just basically a mugging to steal Iraqi oil supplies, is it not the disgusting hypocrisy of Blair and Bush that sickens any decent human being the most? Worst even than the crime itself almost, is the way they claim they are doing what they believe is right.

Saddam was certainly a brutal and violent dictator, one that America created, armed, supported and turned a blind eye to when he used chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1988. i cannot say that either Bush or Blair are any less evil.

Yawn.

Needs less teen-angst.

Un lots of errors in your statement, and your naivate betrays your understanding of Bush's tactics.

First of all, we found biological weapons in Iraq. Read my thread of what we found in IRaq. So your first claim is wrong.

Second, we fought smart and with minimal loss to Iraqi life. In Iraq under Saddam, there were on averag of 100,000 murders a year. The year that the big bad Bush comes in, Iraq suffered less than 5000 casualties. So why is the year of the American invasion the SAFEST year in recent Iraqi history?

Again, read my thread "who armed Saddam" and you will see that the morally superior France, China, Russia, and Germany ( you know, the ones that violated the UN and sold Saddam weapons for oil) armed Saddam. So again, your argument blows nothing but smoke.

I have a suggestion, how about instead of getting your information second hand from college kids in coffee shops, you do actuall research?

A red flag comes up each time in debate when someone mentions "children and elderly?"

So I guess you would be happier had we followed France and co's suggestion and let 100,000 more per year die in Iraq as opposed to less than 5000 this year and then none next year? Your math, your logic, and your heart are all in the wrong place.

And to add to endymon32's sucinct post:

Napalm is not a chemical weapon, nor is the destruction of infrastructure (which was kept to a suprising minimum) a biological one.

No napalm is not a chemical agent...just tell that to the vietnam vet that lives down the road from you. Also lets see they tried to impeach a president for having sex in the white house, yet they let a man stay as president to a country that is allowing him to run willy nilly around the middle east. i think you ought to do your own research debaser, and come to terms as to why we are really in Iraq and the middle east.
1) to get oil and lots of it.
2) to make sure Dick cheney and all his buddies have enuf in reserve when they finally retire.
3) to spread the christian faith far and wide. saddam did not blow up the world trade center...a man by the name of osama bin laden did. he did do it to piss off or kill americans read this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...interview.html

he wants one thing...for the americans out of the holy land. thats it...nothing else. this whole thing is a fucking religious war. but gw and his gang of thugs are wasting my money fighting the wrong people.....

just my 2 cents

of course Russia sold weapons to Iraq, and France. The UK and America certainly did, and I'm sure China would if they had any that were any good (or they could sell the Russian one's they had at a good price)

The biological weapons found in Iraq was weed killer, and people that died in Iraq in the last 10 years died many because of the US inspired embargo that denied Iraq food and medicine.

It is true that Hussain criminally mis-directed those supplies that were available, increasing the suffering, and I'm also sure Hussain and his forces were responsible for hundreds of state sponsored murders and torturers...

What really is frightening is that the actions of Bush and his British lapdog have almost put a man as bad, as courrupt, and as sadistic, as Hussain in the moral high ground.

I dont think any of us would deny though how much safer Iraq would be if not crippled by the legacy of British colonialist rule, and if the CIA hadnt helped Hussain gain power and helped arm him for 10 years.

Ok, how about I also ask my uncle and my old company 1SG? They will all tell you that napalm is not a chemical weapon. Perhaps you are confusing it with Agent Orange?
Niether of which are impeachable offenses.

I have done a bit of research myself.

1) Yes, we need oil. As the backbone of our nations economy it is vital to our national interest that we have a stable reserve of Texas Tea.
2) Haliburtons conduct in the conflict has been egregiuos to say the least, you will not hear me defend them.
3) This war is not about religion, to suggest so is ludicris.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...interview.html

OBL wants power, nothing more. He has twisted the Muslim faith in an attempt to justify his murderous bloodlust for power in the region. Do not be fooled into thinking that he is looking out for Muslims. Religion is a red herring.
See above.

I agree that Bush should not be impeached. He is not even the legal President of the US, so I am not sure it is even possible?

The only just and sane course now is for Bush and Blair to be dragged before the international court of human rights and be tried as war criminals.

Whethet the punishment for their crimes should be capital or merely life imprisonment should not be made emotionally, but by a sober judgement of the level of their criminality.

Perhaps we should determine their guilt before discussing the sentence.

What exactly are the charges?

That is precisely what I am saying.

They would be charged with prosecuting an unprovoked and aggressive war, for deliberatly attacking civilian targets in this war, for the theft of another countries national resources, and for crimes against humanity. (Camp X-Ray for example)

Strange fellow your posts, and I am sure i will be scolded by the moderators for saying this, are laughable. You site no evidence. I really think you must be joking.

Debaser....you want to talk about a red herring. how about attacking a country on the bases that they have ties to al queda. But maybe its because of oil and the fact the father of the president couldn't do it. We have to look tough. WHY WHY WHY????? What about acting tough in your own country and rebuilding it first.
WHY do we have to be over there?
Why does 87 billion dollars have to be spent there.
Why do i have to fear that my step - brothers kid may be sent over there?

Why do i have to have fear that my govt will start enforcing marshall law here in the country. Don't even get me started on that red herring!!!! yes hitler had his homeland security as well, kinda like ours.

Why don't we attack n. korea, what about Isreal???? Why?

Justified under the ceasefire signed in 1991.
Please cite an example. The US does not deliberately hit non-military targets. Period.
What resources have left Iraq?
Here you may have a leg to stand on, but how is Blair implicated?

Calm down, mate. I don't like the war in Iraq any more than you do, but I can see the good that will come of it. And yes, religion is a red herring. This country is not out to get Muslims...

We attacked Iraq, cause we had the legal right to do so. He was in violation of 17 un resolutions. He failed to provide proof that he destroyed the very weapons he was confirmed to have. He was supposed to comply, with out interference, to inspectors. For 12 years he didnt comply, and accourding to the terms Saddam signed, we took him out.

You are right Mr Buck, it is about oil. Since Saddam had oil, nations like France, China, Germany, and Russia, were willing to let him violate the UN as long as they could sell him weapons for oil, Saddam knew he had all the wiggle room he needed. With France and Co on his side, Saddam could flout the UN ( as France, CHina and Russia are UN security council nations) and continue to interfere with inspections, and attack when he was ready.
The US had the guts to stand up to these Hypocritical Nations and call bullshit on Saddam. We gave him a chance to surrender and he didnt.
So we took out Saddam with minimal loss to life, and infrastructure. Making the year of the war the year with the least violent deaths since Saddam came to power.
Then Bush forced out these hypocritical nations of post Iraqi deals and in responce they forgave Iraqi debts, thus making Iraq and even better place.

And the Kay report clearly shows that Saddam was pursing biological weapons and had a bevy of Frence, Chinese, and Russian ordinance.
So far the only thing Bush said that remanes unfounded is that Saddam had links wo Al queda. But Saddams ties and sponcership of other terrorists is well documented.
Only those out of touch, like Howard Dean, and France, still argue that the Iraq War was a bad move.

Why dont we attack N Korea? Two reasons, China and South Korea. I assume you think that diplomacy is not a good idea? Cause that is what Bush is using. You argue that diplomacy in Iraq but war for N Korea. If your stance only contrairy due to you not liking Bush or do you really think that war is the only option in Korea?
Anyway if we attack N Korea, all the plans show that our allie, South Korea, will suffer civillian causualties in the hundreds of thousands. Is this reason enough for Bush to continue to use diplomacy? Or is the pretense of compassion only used for the 5000 deaths in Iraq ( but not for the 100,000 per year that we stopped due to the war)?
So far, Bush has used every option that cost the fewest lives, while his vocal critics argue for compassion and options that would cost more lives. It just doesnt make sense.

I agree. And in fact, in the past 15 years no other nation has done more to PROTECT muslims.

We led a colition in Kosovo and stopped a muslim genocide.
We defended Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Saddam Two nations chocked full of guess what? Muslims.
We tried, and failed, to capure an Al Queda Operative, in Somlia thus preventing mass starvation.
We took out Saddam, who killed about 3 million muslims.

Wow, we saved a lot of muslims. What can Bin Laden claim? Other than hoaring billions while his fellow muslims starve?

do you know, for example, that the UK tried to sell nuclear arms to Iraq? (evidence - see the Scott report)

all major military powers sell weapons to anyone who will buy them, including France, America, Russia, anyone else.

Bush also should be called to account by the American people of course, for electoral fraud.

What do I call the American tageting civilians? Maybe cutting off water supplies to punish civilians with epidemic? Maybe road blocks of US soldiers that gun down innocent people because they get scared?

Significant amounts of art and historical artifacts were pillaged by Americans, the property of the Iraqi govt seized by soliders, Iraqi oil is already being stolen by America.

1 We sold weapons to Iraq, but not after they landed a spot on the list of rogue nations, unlike France, CHina, Russia which still sold them weapons.

2 Yes we sell weapons to any nation. As long as they are not on the rogue nations list, again as long as you are not CHina, France, and CHina.

3 We didnt target civillians. You are floundering on this one.

4 that report that 100,000 artifacts were stolen from the museams was retracted. So far less then 10 artifacts are unacounted for. And they may have been gone before the war even started. So again, you are compltely in error.

5 The meme about the electoral fraud is just that, a fraud.
As the BBC reported, there is no evidence of fraud in the florida elections. You can click on this link http://www.mooreexposed.com/swm.html and read the section called "election 2000" to learn why the election is legal and without fraud. But something tells me you wont bother, as then you wont have something to shout about.

You are wrong on ever point you posted.

BTW...destroying the water pumping system and electrical supply is NOT biological warfare.

Second, I am a mod here Strange Famous
and you might not realize being a rookie that we mods prefer that a thread keep on topic.
Especially within Politics
It's hard enough to control this forum.

Either talk about your original topic,
or make another thread complaining about the 2000 election.

But please stay consistent.
And this goes for everyone else, as they well know. ;)

Oh yeah...and no trolling (provoking an arguement for the hell of it)

Rogue,

1 - I am sorry to have not fully complied with the rules of the forum. I think it is closely connected though. The thread is about the immorality I see in the attack on Iraq, when this attack is ordered by a "president" who many believe was not democratically elected, this is a factor, that the person leading America into war may well not really be entitled to lead that country at all. I will try to keep this part of the argument out of the thread though

2 - I call deliberately and maliciously inflicting disease and epidemic on a civilian population to be biological warfare. When you cut the water off, you do it for one reason, to prever sanitation and safe drinking water being available, you do this intentionally to cause sickness (and death) in your enemy, in this case the very civilians America claims to want to protect from (the undoubtably brital) Hussain and his Baarth faction.

This is a military source inflicting sickness on an enemy, on purpose, to force them to submit. This is how I believe a "biological attack" is defined.

Strange Famous

Your two points are absoultly wrong so why are you still talking? I am sure you didnt even reaq the links and articles i posted. Why argue since you clearly dont wish to learn?

I'm sorry, I dont agree. I dont believe you have given me any reason to doubt the two points I made.

As I define it, America used biological attacks on Iraqi women and children (cutting water and power supplies to force towns to surrender)

America used napalm, which is a chemical, and which is an extremely inhumane weapon - I call this chemical weaponary.

America also used cluster bombs, which are illigal...

America has not found ANY WMD in Iraq, whatever evidence of things that might be linked to them, NO WEAPONS HAVE BEEN FOUND.

On the other hand, America used illigal weapons against Iraq.

ok you are then you are officially the wackiest liberal on these boards. Congradulations!

I wouldnt call myself a liberal, more like a communist.

Communist? You mean that form of government that killed over 125 million people this century? Why not align with the Nazis, they have a lower body count.

We did not target such things, any destruction was an accidental byproduct of the war, guerilla attacks by the Feydayin Saddam, or the result of looting.

Napalm is not a chemical weapon. It warks via combustion, rather like gunpowder. Are bullets chemical weapons too?
Cluster bombs are legal and very effective.
R&D and chemical and biological precursors were found, both of which was prohibited under the '91 ceasefire.
See above.

Maoism, Stalinism, Pol Pot.. are not communists.

I would not decribe bullets as chemical weapons

The facts I have seen suggest that cutting off water and power was a deliberate attack used by the Americans

Cluster bombs are anti-personell weapons, they are used to kill people, not "destroy infrastructure"

I dont believe it can be proven that what was found was intended to create WMD

You are in denial. Yes they are. You can make inaccurate statments all you want, but that only proves how unwilling you are to open your eyes, and how willing you are to embarress your self on this board.

This post is inrefernce to Maoism, Stalinism, and Pol Pot not being communists.

Finally some sanity from you.
Where did you see this? In the time it would take to reduce even a moderate town by seige, we took the entire country. There is no political or military reason the US would have done this, and therefore they didn't.
Correct, and they are not illegal.
Whether it was intended for that purpose or not, it was illegal for the Iraqis to possess it.

I'm imagining a mobius loop thread, with Endymon32 and Strange Famous arguing until judgement day.

I agree sparhawk, i just do not understand why we must be over there at all. and no debaser i am not going to calm down. This whole thing is wrong. I said earlier why we don't attack n.korea or isreal. I don't want to attack them, but if we took out iraq then why not them as well? in fact why not take out china as well, they all treat there people as poorly as iraq has and they have WMD's ...well maybe not Isreal, but china and n.korea and hey, how many jobs have gone to china.

I do not want to be in any war...if i am a called a liberal wimp....fine i don;t care. just stop the senseless killing of american soldiers and get the fuck out of other peoples business and worry about our own....like the economy is in a slump and why 200 people lost thier jobs in the community i work in.....sorry i'm getting off topic. But i am sick and tired of the ingorance in this country.

mr b

I answered why we dont Attack North Korea, but you ignored it. Why not attack China? Cause sometimes its not worth the cost, and CHina is turning towards capitalism slowly, so just like the Soviet Union, waiting out China might be the best option.

As far as Israel, you have a point, a big point. I am not a fan of Israel's actions and behaviors.

PS we are not in a slump, we are in the best economic growth in decades.

I'm gonna get yelled at here and if so i'm sorry but i could not resist. Best economic growth in decades.....yeah i guess you are right....the people i know that are losing jobs must be just my imagination....my mutual funds that are losing money must just be my imagination. the fact that the mortgage are the lowest in who knows how long must just be something that is good for the country. Oh yeah and how is the dollar holding in other countrys these days? Best growth in decades huh????

Look at Europes slowing markets, Japan's and compare it to Americas. And my stock portfolio is growing, after bottoming out two years ago.

the job loss??? don't you think that alll that money being spent on our military would be better spent in this country instead of now having to rebuild a country we have destroyed???

Different threats call for different reactions. I think we should take out North Korea, they have been far too much of a pain in the ass for far too long. Israel and China are not prevented from having the weapons they have.
It is OK to be pissed off, just be pissed at the ineffective and weak policies that failed to resolve this issue in 1991.

/sigh its people who make stupid comments on both sides and repeat the SAME topcis over and over (dead horse beating please!) that really makes politics tired and boring now :(

its also the people who just stand by and watch the govt rule the people instead of the people ruling the govt.

That's exactly how it's supposed to be. You don't vote on everything your country does, you vote on who you think can best make those decisions themselves.

If you're so much against the government then go vote next year. Don't sit and whine because your candidate isn't the most popular.