Dan Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 (edited) This is a good Christmas present. indeed, for the fundamentalist christians, of course... but wait, isn't iraq a muslim country? INDEED.... a christmas present for muslims.. maybe they will soon be recommanded (sic) to convert to christianity... Edited December 14, 2003 by Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Anybody else feel as if this cowardly idiot wanted to be arrested, captured alive? I don't mean just recently but all along. Could he not have hidden somewhere else, another country, other than his native city? Besides, it is reported that he had a loaded pistol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 He is trying to make some sort of anti-US rhetoric. I read that paragraph and realise oh Gee ... Sadam DID in fact have WMD! Hellooooooooo? How come so many seem to be ignoring this FACT and taking the side of this "under dog" against the bad-boy US just like they would in a freaking sports game? This is real life ... How rediculous is this "Booo hooo hooo ... we didn't find WMD in Iraq ... how horrible for Sadam". It's rather disturbing how anyone can throw out terms like "bady", "costly", and the like to make a point that isn't really there to be made. http://armenians.com/forum/style_images/1/icon8.gif What kind of logic is this? You can not ask someone to prove he is innocent, you must prove he is guilty... you have not seen any WMD, so in any court even if you highly think the other party is guilty, you still have no evidence... and you are the one that tells that you are unbiased? Come on Sip... The only way for the US to know that Iraq had WMD for sure would be if the US has actually provided WMD to Iraq. If that is the cases the US must be judged as well for such action. How would Saddam be judged? Will he be judged for the Iran Iraq war and how he commited crimes against humanity with the support of the US which was providing them arms? Tell me more about this Sip... how can you judge a dictator which has commited most of his crimes with the support of the country that want to judge him... would this judgement have any legitimity at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Anybody else feel as if this cowardly idiot wanted to be arrested, captured alive? I don't mean just recently but all along. Could he not have hidden somewhere else, another country, other than his native city? Besides, it is reported that he had a loaded pistol. i don't think he's an idiot at all. if he's gonna be tried, he's gonna drag all those who took part in it (including many Americans and Brits) with him.. other than that, i hope he rots in prison, along with his buddies bush, blair, milosevic, and many many others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
America-Hye Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Yes, my friends Saddam was a VERY BAD man. This war, however, has little to do with 9/11. It all has to do with June 1, 1972, when Saddam stole President Bush's daddy's oil interestas in Iraq. The REAL target should be Osama Bin Laden, but his family is MUCH TOO tight with the Bush family. I will admit something here. As much as my family were pained by those members we lost, they and the families they would have had in the 87 years hence can NEVER be brought back. BUT, our MANSIONS, BANK ACCOUNTS AND VAST ACREAGES can possibly be retrieved. You see I understand the "little boy" in the White House very well. He is standing up for his daddy's interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 A-H, ... yes yes, you are right about the oil interests... and what's this whole thing about 9/11 and saddam? we might have a revolution in our justice system.. how innovative can the U.$ government get! my my... you're guilty until proven innocent. would save a lot of time and money, and it's actually very simple to understand for the majority of the world that is stupid enough to buy into the U.$ propaganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 I will admit something here. As much as my family were pained by those members we lost, they and the families they would have had in the 87 years hence can NEVER be brought back. BUT, our MANSIONS, BANK ACCOUNTS AND VAST ACREAGES can possibly be retrieved. You see I understand the "little boy" in the White House very well. He is standing up for his daddy's interests. Someday I am going to write a book on America-Hye-isms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Guilty until proven innocent - back to before the Roman age! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 What kind of logic is this? You can not ask someone to prove he is innocent, you must prove he is guilty... you have not seen any WMD, so in any court even if you highly think the other party is guilty, you still have no evidence... and you are the one that tells that you are unbiased? Come on Sip... The only way for the US to know that Iraq had WMD for sure would be if the US has actually provided WMD to Iraq. If that is the cases the US must be judged as well for such action. How would Saddam be judged? Will he be judged for the Iran Iraq war and how he commited crimes against humanity with the support of the US which was providing them arms? Tell me more about this Sip... how can you judge a dictator which has commited most of his crimes with the support of the country that want to judge him... would this judgement have any legitimity at all? Yeap, like I said before - hand someone a package of cocaine and then hold the gun to his head, "You're under arrest." =D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Guilty until proven innocent - back to before the Roman age! Guilty since US kept the receipts About giving a package and holding a gun ... that is somewhat accurate but not entirely. Think of Sadam as the dealer for US being the drug lord. He went and had a party with the cocaine the US provided him and decided to make his own drug empire ... well that's when the big boss gets mad and decides to teach the puppet a lesson in who is really boss. The problem is Sadam got carried away and forgot who really put him in place and why. So let's not beat around the "bush" ... There is no doubt Sadam was guilty. How guilty was the US ... that's a completely different animal and I will not argue on that. But I find this "oh poor innocent Sadam" and "big bad US" lines of arguments very childish. Domino ... to answer your last question about how he will be judged, I think he is beyond death penalty ... so I hope a soldier "accidentally" trips with his finger on the trigger and puts and end to this pathetic rediculous excuse of a human being. I think we have MUCH better things to do than to sit around and figure out how Sadam should be judged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Guilty since US kept the receipts About giving a package and holding a gun ... that is somewhat accurate but not entirely. Think of Sadam as the dealer for US being the drug lord. He went and had a party with the cocaine the US provided him and decided to make his own drug empire ... well that's when the big boss gets mad and decides to teach the puppet a lesson in who is really boss. The problem is Sadam got carried away and forgot who really put him in place and why. So let's not beat around the "bush" ... There is no doubt Sadam was guilty. How guilty was the US ... that's a completely different animal and I will not argue on that. But I find this "oh poor innocent Sadam" and "big bad US" lines of arguments very childish. So, Sip, what arms has US given to Iraq according to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Sip, i can't see any "poor innocent Saddam" lines here... so what are you talking about? attacking U.S policy is not the equivalent of arguing that Saddam is innocent... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 BTW, ain't no American troops going home yet. That he had been hiding all along makes it clear that the civilian resistance was not directed from the top in any stretch of imagination. On a side note, it should be interesting if they could make Milosevic and Saddam sit side by side, or at a table, having coffee. "So how many people did you kill? Wow...!" http://www.student.yorku.ca/~shoghig/dan/rofl.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 14, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 MJ, I don't know. I am playing along with the allegations being made here and back in Iran. The popular "jokes" back there when we were sitting around at night watching the missile-works light up the new year sky (persian new year) courtesy of uncle sadam was that no matter what was happening on the ground, in the air, russian-made missiles were crossing US made missiles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 "So how many people did you kill? Wow...!" lol Stormy, yes, that's exactly what i had in mind when i said that.. http://www.student.yorku.ca/~shoghig/dan/rofl.gif oh yes, anyone who thought it was Saddam's loyals who were killing U.S. troops must've been very delusional OR blinded by the U.S media... it's about national pride (i.e. coming into one's country and stealing one's oil, colonising one's land, and playing with one's dignity) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 Ah, for those who would like to find out about the know-how transfer Uncle Sam made to Saddam in the 1980's, please refer to Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. as a starting point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 MJ, I don't know. I am playing along with the allegations being made here and back in Iran. The popular "jokes" back there when we were sitting around at night watching the missile-works light up the new year sky (persian new year) courtesy of uncle sadam was that no matter what was happening on the ground, in the air, russian-made missiles were crossing US made missiles Sip, I am just inviting you to look at the issues with a little bit more seriousness (not that I am insinuating non-seriousness from you.) There were two highly televised wars wit Iraq in the last decade or so. Did you see any US made weaponry in Iraq's possession or would you think that anytime the cameramen came across them, they turned the camera away" Just a rhetoric question to make a point. From all the reports I have seen, prior or around early 80s, US has sold some very limited number of helicopters to Iraq and no one has presented any other statistics or evidence on the opposite so far. Perhaps this is enough from psychopaths to experience verbal diarrhea. I would say, just let it go. This forum is steadily turning into a Trash Bin, and apparently that is its future. Edited by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 MJ, for your entertainment: A PBS Frontline episode, "The Arming of Iraq" (1990) detailed much of the conventional and so-called "dual-use" weapons sold to Iraq. The public learned from other sources that at least since mid-1980s the US was selling chemical and biological material for weapons to Iraq and orchestrating private sales. These sales began soon after current Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad in 1985 and met with Saddam Hussein as a private businessman on behalf of the Reagan administration. In the last major battle of the Iran-Iraq war, some 65,000 Iranians were killed, many by gas. Investigators turned up new scandals, including the involvement of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), the giant Italian bank, and many of the very same circles of arms suppliers, covert operators, and policy makers in and out of the US government and active in those roles for years. The National Security Council, CIA and other US agencies tacitly approved about $4 billion in unreported loans to Iraq through the giant Italian bank's Atlanta branch. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. By late 1992, the sales of chemical and biological weapons were revealed. Congressional Records of Senator Riegle's investigation of the Gulf War Syndrome show that that the US government approved sales of large varieties of chemical and biological materials to Iraq. These included anthrax, components of mustard gas, botulinum toxins (which causes paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing and is often fatal), histoplasma capsulatum (which may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules), and a host of other nasty chemicals materials. http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html and Published on Sunday, September 8, 2002 by the Sunday Herald (Scotland) How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas. The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning. One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986. The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US. The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.' This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'. Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.' Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'. It is thought the information contained in the Senate committee reports is likely to make up much of the 'evidence of proof' that Bush and Blair will reveal in the coming days to justify the US and Britain going to war with Iraq. It is unlikely, however, that the two leaders will admit it was the Western powers that armed Saddam with these weapons of mass destruction. However, Bush and Blair will also have to prove that Saddam still has chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. This looks like a difficult case to clinch in view of the fact that Scott Ritter, the UN's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United Nations destroyed most of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and doubts that Saddam could have rebuilt his stocks by now. According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were des troyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'. Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. 'We have seen none of this,' he insists. 'If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.' He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance. The UN's former co-ordinator in Iraq and former UN under-secretary general, Count Hans von Sponeck, has also told the Sunday Herald that he believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons program. Von Sponeck visited the Al-Dora and Faluja factories near Baghdad in 1999 after they were 'comprehensively trashed' on the orders of UN inspectors, on the grounds that they were suspected of being chemical weapons plants. He returned to the site late in July this year, with a German TV crew, and said both plants were still wrecked. 'We filmed the evidence of the dishonesty of the claims that they were producing chemical and biological weapons,' von Sponeck has told the Sunday Herald. 'They are indeed in the same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999. There was no trace of any resumed activity at all.' http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm and Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam' Declassified papers leave the White House hawk exposed over his role during the Iran-Iraq war Julian Borger in Washington Tuesday December 31, 2002 The Guardian The Reagan administration and its special Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against Iran, it was reported yesterday. US support for Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq war as a bulwark against Shi'ite militancy has been well known for some time, but using declassified government documents, the Washington Post provided new details yesterday about Mr Rumsfeld's role, and about the extent of the Reagan administration's knowledge of the use of chemical weapons. The details will embarrass Mr Rumsfeld, who as defence secretary in the Bush administration is one of the leading hawks on Iraq, frequently denouncing it for its past use of such weapons. The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says. Intelligence on Iranian troop movements was provided, despite detailed knowledge of Iraq's use of nerve gas. Rick Francona, an ex-army intelligence lieutenant-colonel who served in the US embassy in Baghdad in 1987 and 1988, told the Guardian: "We believed the Iraqis were using mustard gas all through the war, but that was not as sinister as nerve gas. "They started using tabun [a nerve gas] as early as '83 or '84, but in a very limited way. They were probably figuring out how to use it. And in '88, they developed sarin." On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq. However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war. In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations. Mr Rumsfeld has said that he "cautioned" the Iraqi leader against using banned weapons. But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting. Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave" attacks. A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department. Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare. The only occasion that Iraq's use of banned weapons seems to have worried the Reagan administration came in 1988, after Lt Col Francona toured the battlefield on the al-Faw peninsula in southern Iraq and reported signs of sarin gas. "When I was walking around I saw atropine injectors lying around. We saw decontamination fluid on vehicles, there were no insects," said Mr Francona, who has written a book on shifting US policy to Iraq titled Ally to Adversary. "There was a very quick response from Washington saying, 'Let's stop our cooperation' but it didn't last long - just weeks." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html so, is THAT trash as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 (edited) .... But anyhow, for those who are interested in reading, here's something important: The Riegle Report U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html Edited by Sasun Edited December 16, 2003 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 14, 2003 Report Share Posted December 14, 2003 There were two highly televised wars wit Iraq in the last decade or so. Did you see any US made weaponry in Iraq's possession or would you think that anytime the cameramen came across them, they turned the camera away" Just a rhetoric question to make a point. that highly televised war did not show any pics of mass graves of Iraqis... so why should i believe that it showed ANYTHING correct at all? Viewer discretion advised: http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt_index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armo77 Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 http://www.spr0g.com/Pics/Never.jpg Thank you US troops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 Thank you US troops. Armo77, yes, yes, we know that you're thankful, but this is a thread for discussion about Saddam's arrest/Iraq war, not about thanking U.S. troops. Moreover, that picture belongs to the Humour thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Something caught my eye when they finally displayed Saddam and I don't know if anyone else noticed it. The man doesn't dye his hair!!! For god's sake to be in that condition at age 66 must be something of a miracle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armo77 Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 (edited) Yes he does dye his hair... .And it was wearing off when they captured him. In fact all of the Baath members dyed their hair. They felt grey hair showed weakness.. So no.. Me I wish not to look like Saddam when I am 66. Edited December 16, 2003 by Armo77 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahumyan Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 so what? nothing changed for people nothing changed for bombings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.