Bush is an absolute idiot

Post-9/11 Era Forum

)





Long Live The Village Idiot post #6 quote:

1. Armed with an unprecidented array of Weapons of mass destruction, 2. previous use of these weapons on innocent civilians, and 3. an active threat to other nations worldwide...you can rest assured that George W. Bush as president of America, will live a pretty long and eventfull life while thousands of innocent civilians and nations are crushed in an imperialist/capitalist march of american "interest" protection. You and your ignorant kind should live in constant shame for the actions of your president and others before him. For you blindly back the actions of one of the most uneducated, stupid and dangerous leaders to inhabit this planet.
Just to remind you of 1: The massive stockpile of M.O.A.B, Daisy cutter bombs, cluster bombs, nuclear bombs etc. that america has used and continues to use in heavily populated cities and states....2: The previous use of Nuclear wepons on the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for which no american appeared in front of war crimes commisions (why?, please answer, I'd like to hear what justification you can give for the eradication of 100's of thousands of civilians in seconds...) and 3: how America can forget, when talking about protecting world peace and other dillusional statements, that countries such as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, Sudan, Palestine, N.Korea exist in this world yet are treated as if these nations have recently risen from the depths of hell will little demons (thugs) and devils (death squads) ruling without mercy and grace.
America is an anti cultural disease of an nation, spreading its " Goddammitt, I couldn't care less" passive, ignorant attitude worldwide. Who needs culture when you can buy McDonalds and Coke worldwide. Who needs eratic camel riding, turban wearing Islamic cronies when you can have free iraqis enjoying a cool refreshing sprite while gleefully tucking into a tasty and delicious flame grilled Whopper.
You are pathetic and history will recall your President as an idiot, so shout it out from the rooftops...Long Live The Village Idiot.

Spot on!!!

The japanese dont resent the US for dropping two nucleur bombs on them? er.......really? hmmmmm. I think there may be a couple of people around the world who may disagree with that statement, just a tad.

oh and by the way.. for your historically corrective reference, Nagasaki resulted in 73,884 deaths, Hiroshima 140,000, give or take 10,000 (according to U.N.) - so more precisely, those bombs killed about 200,000 people which is a lot more accurate than "hundreds of thousands" which implies a range of between 200,000 and 900,000..

Only 200,000. well that changes things, I thought it was loads of people killed by the US WMD.

"Japanese civilian casualties probably approached 500,000 killed and 625,000 seriously injured, plus a considerable number reported as missing after the fire raids and atomic bombings."

How many Civilian casualties did the Japanese inflict on the US again?

Hundreds of thousands does include 200,000, sean.i didnt think it was nescessary to correct guy's info in the way you did, calling his post garbage doesnt score poits either.

I wasnt aiming to score points with sarcasm, i was aiming to keep the focus on american use of wmd and maybe the way people now see america as being a little hypocritical.

And if your intent is to return the thread to it's original direction which I declared was "Garbage", (paraphrasing) the original message is that U.S. has and uses WMD and therefore has no right to attack another country for possession of WMD.

Here's the thing: the U.N. agrees that Iraq should not posess WMD. The U.N. does not agree that the U.S. should not posess WMD. The U.N. does not agree that any number of other countries who hold WMD should not posess them. This war is not about NOBODY should have WMD. It's about Saddam Hussein should not. It's a stupid argument, IMHO..

Of course if that is NOT the point the original author from Ireland was trying to make, then by all means clarify it because it didn't come out right.

personally, I dont think anyone should have WMD, irrespective of what the UN says is OK. Incidentally, the UN also said not to invade Iraq and so the US just pick and choose what suits them. I dont know if that was the original point being made, I can only speak for myself.

I think people often forget that America released a very vast amount of chemical weapons

remember vietnam

Agent Orange was sprayed over 23 , 607 acres of land
and was used to destroy any foliage or vegetation that could be used by opposing troops polluting Vietnam with 500 pounds of dioxin-widely regarded as the most toxic substance in the world.

People are still suffering to this day!

Plus we are the ones who supplied Saddam, Coincidentally it was George Bush Sr. who supplied Iraq when he was director of the CIA

One can clearly see the double standards and hypocrisy of the United States of America

Thankyou America for defending the irish by supplying funds to the IRA terrorists. Familiar with that aamparan?

I just found one postive from Bush

He has united the world

but its for a hatred of our country

The Japs deserved to get nuked, better to kill a few hundred thousand than even one of your own. This coming from me, an anti-Iraq-war person. Why? Because that was a REAL WAR, a war against an attacker who posed a REAL THREAT...in that case NUKE'EM...in this case, it's a waste of time, lives and money. War is fine, if waged against a TRUE THREAT that really deserves it...Iraq doesn't qualify. If you don't like Saddam that much, assasinate him, but why BLAST AN ENTIRE COUNTRY to get one guy, who doesn't have WMDs and is no threat...or could it all be a Neocon/Zionist plan with alterior motives and thirst for oil?

you dont have to much to say ireland, look at the turmoil in your own country. The bombings and killings there.

Very well spoken. Bush is definetly the largest threat against world peace.

The US method is clear stockpile and use WMD. Alwas attack a poorly equiped nation that is either of strategic interest or has natural resourses that are of interest. When war is over see to it that someone else pays for it and that only american companies get contracts so all profit can leave the country. Sell american defence systems with massive profits so these can sponsor next election campain.

If US should loose a war, NEVER apologies (for killing 2 million civilions), NEVER give any aid to help the children who are suffering from US chemical warefare, and if possible prevent as many other counties as possible to engage in trade with the country. This should be enough to send the country back 40 - 50 years economicaly. Preferably the country should apologies to the US before any trade can start up after 30 -40 years, after all it was for a good cause that the US in war.

Well for me, the only thing that warms my heart are the reports coming in of US casulties, I usually go to the pub and celebrate with my buddies.

hey guys, don't get on the swede! it's the only way he can get anybody to even notice sweden is there!

Since I posted my message, I've sat back and listened for any real justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I've heard people talk about human life like its irelevant, " give or take 10,000 -sean kelly". We've not heard any justification for the gassing of the Kurds yet we hear plently for Hioshima and Nagasaki. If the Saddam Regime is so evil for what it did than why are the US so good, righteous and morrally correct. Right now, this very minute, the US is engaged in an illegal war headed by the village idiot, Bush. Iraq won the bid to host this war, maybe Iran or N.korea or even Syria might win the next bid. Its always played away from home. I'm not anti-american, I have loads of American cousins, I've been to America, its a nice country. But when these wars take place, away from home, and your leaders tell you that you are right and just in your travels and that the enemy is evil and and immoral, you seem to eat it all up never questioning your leaders. Being patriotic in America has become a dangerous thing. You wave your flags and clap the president because if you don't your unpatriotic, you support his wars and dispise his enemies because if you don't your unpatriotic. The real patriots are people like Michael Moore who accept reality even if it doesn't always vindicate america and its actions both past and present.
Bush is dangerous. He is ignorant of world politics, of world cultures, of actual reality. He is brash, impatient and he trivialises the most serious and complex issues. If you have any sense you'll look behind you for the real danger and leave other countries in peace, real peace.

hmmmmm... I'd prefer to be a toilet cleaner than a national leader, because no matter what you do as a leader you'll be hated by your people and the whole world.

Is there a single president who was loved and recognized as a true leader?

People have different opinions and different views of how to solve things and deal with problems, but the leaders are those who have to chose the way and no matter what they choose, there will always be those who will not approve the decision and go against it. Almost on every leaders's account people have died if not EVERY leader.

ireland...man have you missed the point...
i'm sure it was easy since so many folks went way off track on this thread...

i belive it was sean kelly that made the point about the UN and who's allowed to have WMD's and who isnt....

what about the 17 resolutions concerning the disarmmament of iraq?...thats the point isnt it?....

who the US dropped atomic bombs on in the 40's is irrelevent and you full well know it...it is just another one of those anti-war cries that all of us are tired of hearing....it has no merit in this war...

THE UN TOLD SADDAM TO DISARM!!!... thats the point

on a different note....when i was young my parents told me that i could become president if i wanted to....I took the road that anti-jihad mentioned....not a cleaner of toilets, but i do own a plumbing company, which is probably worse.....
I wouldn't trade with president bush if my life depended on it!!!....he deals with far more crap than i do!!!

you are truly ignorant. you humiliated yourself with that post.

now, tell me this...

IN WHAT OTHER COUNTRY CAN ANY PERSON OF ANY RACE,AGE,RELIGION HAVE THE MOST FREEDOM OF ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, THE RIGHT TO STAND UP AGAINST WAR AND BLOCK THE STREETS AND APPEAR ON MEDIA OR THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE ANY RELIGION ALMOST ANYWHERE AND TO BE PART OF LARGE ASSOCIATIONS SPECIFIC TO CULTURES AND ETHNIC GROUPS.

where else are there this many different types of people living in one place? anti-cultural??? are you insane???
god you people make me mad. the funniest part is i'am not even american, i'am russian, originally born in siberia. i have lived in siberia, the u.k, and america. i can tell you, from experience, if you have the nerve to whine about u.s.a as 'anti-cultural' you know nothing.

ik

since you seem so peppy, why don't you discuss the following topics...

-the tons of humanitarian aid we are bringing/will continue to bring/will continue to bring along with aid from other people after securing the country

-this war is illegal but it's o.k for saddam to try out his new chemical toys on HIS OWN PEOPLE ARE YOU RETARDED?? i'am being serious, your stupidity does not fail to amaze me.

-A QUOTE FROM ENCYCLOPEDIA.COM - '(1988) in poison gas attacks on Kurdish villages to quash resistance and in the rounding up and execution of male Kurds, all of which resulted in the killing of some 200,000 in that year alone.' EXPLAIN.

-ireland after replying please do not write anymore. and also, i would like to contact you in 6 months to LAUGH in your face concerning the progress of iraq and the 'illegal war' you talk about as if we our attacks are aimed at civilians.

ik

That was one of the reason to not vote the ambargo .......


Everybody knew that the ambargo would hurt Iraqi people but not Saddam ..... and you should check what is part of the ambargo, quite a long list of food and medics ......

Saddam caused that, right ...

So you justify the "collateral damages" by .... Saddam started that ....

Enigma,
You are not providing facts here,
Iraq was a rich and modern country post Gulf war periods. The breakdown of the Iraqi economy rests soley with the sanctions imposed by the US. While other nations within the UN as well as senior members of the UN, have tried in vain (US VETO) to end these sanctions, the US continued to implement them. Strangely, once this war began senior US Administration officials were publically stating that these sanctions "were not working" but offered the suggestion that toppling the "regime" was the way to go. 4000-5000 children die each month in Iraq due to first hand effects of the sanctions. The UN has stated that the sanctions have resulted in the increased deaths of 90,000 civilians per year. The following are quotes from senior UN officials and Iraqi citizens alike.

1."4,000 to 5,000 children dying unnecessarily every month due to the impact of sanctions, because of the breakdown of water and sanitation, inadequate diet and the bad internal health situation." - Dennis Halliday - previous head of UN humanitarian operations in Iraq.

2."The Oil for Food plan has not yet resulted in adequate protection of Iraq's children from malnutrition/disease. Those children spared from death continue to remain deprived of essential rights addressed in the Conventions of Rights of the Child." UNICEF statement.

3"...the breakdown of the Iraqi economy due to the sanctions has resulted in widespread unemployment, a huge increase in poverty and the collapse of the educational system. The Iraqi dinar has plunged in value, falling from US$3 to less than one-tenth of a cent." - UNICEF statement.

4."It is incredibly hard to get medicine in Iraq. Kids cannot go to the doctor and get inoculations for preventable diseases. What my father died from was treatable. If he had been able to see a doctor on a regular basis he could have lived. Right after he died I lost my mom and sister." - Anwar Najar-Durak - Iraqi citizen

5."What did the Iraqi people do to the world to deserve this? The big powers have always used the Iraqi people to get what they want. They have seen Iraqi children die, but it is not enough. They want to do more and more. It is so painful. One Senator blamed the Iraqi people for their mess. It is like blaming the Jews for Hitler. It is so outrageous." Iraqi citizen (name not given)

Saddam International airport was built pre-war when Iraq was a rich country, when it had a high class education system and some of the best medicines imported and good hospital facilities as well as capable sewage treatment plants and water plants. The US needs to accept responsability for its actions and stop getting away with murder and I mean that quite literally.

Most of that my proof refuted, but I'll assume we cross-posted.

perhaps you should have read it first, because it says that these claims are US propaganda:

March/April 2000
New York Times on Iraq Sanctions

A case of journalistic malpractice

By Seth Ackerman

In a 1998 article (4/23/98), New York Times United Nations correspondent Barbara Crossette critiqued the film Genocide by Sanctions, a documentary produced by a coalition of activist groups opposed to the U.N. sanctions on Iraq. Using footage of dying Iraqi children, the film sought to dramatize Iraq's desperate humanitarian conditions under the U.N. embargo; more than 1.25 million Iraqis have reportedly died from the massive escalation in the mortality rate since sanctions were imposed in 1990 (Reuters, 12/29/99).

After noting that the coalition "produced a graphic videotape of dying children in Iraq, asserting that they were killed by sanctions," Crossette accused the video's producers of using Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's words out of context: "The video juxtaposes shots of [Albright], speaking in a different context, calling the sanctions policy 'worth the price,'" Crossette wrote. But the accusation was false. In fact, the documentary ran a straightforward clip from Albright's 1996 interview with 60 Minutes' Leslie Stahl (5/12/96):

Stahl: We have heard that over half a million children have died. I mean, that's more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Albright: I think this is a very hard choice. But the price-- we think the price is worth it.

Clearly, Albright was not speaking "in a different context," as Crossette claimed, but in the context of dead children. (See Extra! Update, 6/98.)

But taking quotes out of context does seem to be an issue for Crossette. Since December 1998's Operation Desert Fox, the U.S. and Britain's four-day bombing campaign against Iraqi targets, the Times-- and Crossette in particular-- has devoted plentiful attention to the "oil-for-food" program in Iraq. The United Nations administers the program, which allows Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil to pay for food and medicines while it remains under tight economic sanctions. According to Crossette's reporting, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime have been deliberately withholding these desperately needed foods and medicines from the Iraqi people, in a cynical effort to sabotage the U.N.'s relief efforts.

In the year following the U.S.-British airstrikes, Crossette and her paper have reported these charges again and again. The specific allegations closely echo those of the U.S. State Department, which has been waging a determined public relations campaign to shore up the embargo's frayed international support. The blame for Iraq's ongoing humanitarian disaster, the State Department argues, lies not with the U.S.-backed embargo but with Iraqi government policy.

Upon close examination, the Times' allegations bear almost no resemblance to reports by United Nations officials who administer and monitor Iraq's humanitarian program. Ironically, in misreporting the story, Crossette has resorted to the same type of deceptive tactics that she (falsely) accused anti-sanctions activists of using in their video documentary two years ago.

State Department spin

For example, to support her contention that the Iraqis have been "faced with evidence that they have stalled" parts of the oil-for-food program (8/24/99), Crossette quoted from the U.N. Secretary General's most recent progress report on the program: "Large quantities of essential materials remain in storage," Crossette cited the text as saying.

But Crossette took the quote wildly out of context. Readers might have drawn quite a different conclusion from that sentence-- which actually dealt only with water and sanitation supplies-- had she included the passage that immediately followed: "The main explanation" for the backlog, the report said, "is the substantial decline in staff with sufficient skills to verify, transport and use the inputs ordered. The distribution rates are unlikely to improve without a program of in-service training."

The oil-for-food program in Iraq is a complicated bureaucratic endeavor tasked with contracting, importing and distributing scarce foods and medicines to 22 million people in a country crippled by infrastructure devastation and international isolation. As the U.N.'s periodic progress reports show, such a program is prone to an endless array of logistical problems. But, following the State Department, the Times has consistently advanced convoluted and farfetched interpretations of these reports in an effort to portray straightforward logistical problems as evidence of sinister Iraqi manipulation.

In August (8/13/99), Crossette reported on a just-released United Nations Children's Fund study which documented that the mortality rate for young Iraqi children had risen dramatically since the embargo was imposed in 1990. The researchers concluded that if Iraq's child mortality rate had continued at its pre-sanctions trend, "there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under five" since 1991.

But this dramatic statistic never made it into Crossette's article. Instead, her lead paragraphs twisted the study's findings to fit the State Department's spin:

The first major survey of child mortality in Iraq since the Persian Gulf war in 1991 has found that in areas of the country controlled by President Saddam Hussein, children under 5 are dying at twice the rate they were before the conflict, UNICEF said today. But in Kurdish areas in the north, where United Nations officials run food and medical programs, the health of children appears to have improved a bit.
Indeed, Crossette's interpretation of the UNICEF report strayed little from comments by State Department spokesman James Rubin, quoted in the article: "The fact that in northern Iraq the mortality rate is improving with the same sanctions regime as the rest of Iraq," Rubin said, "shows that in places where Saddam Hussein isn't manipulating the medicines and the supplies, this works."

The article's headline, "Children's Death Rates Rising in Iraqi Lands, UNICEF Reports," echoed this view that Saddam Hussein's misrule-- rather than the embargo-- is causing the suffering. The word "sanctions" did not even appear until the article's fifth paragraph.

But what UNICEF actually reported was quite different. Anupama Singh, the head of UNICEF's Iraq office, directly contradicted the New York Times/State Department interpretation, as the London Financial Times reported (8/13/99):

The U.N.'s direct role in the north did not account for the widely different results in infant mortality, especially since the oil-for-food deal went into effect only in 1997. [Singh] suggested that differences could be explained partly by the heavy presence since 1991 of humanitarian agencies helping the Kurdish population, a factor that helped improve malnutrition rates. According to Ms. Singh, the oil-for-food money going to the north includes a cash component, allowing the UN, for example, to train local authorities and more effectively implement and monitor programs. In the center and south under Iraqi regime control, no funds are allocated to ministries for fear they would be used for more sinister purposes.
(The "fear" mentioned by the Financial Times is that of the U.S. and Britain, the driving forces behind the U.N.'s sanctions policy in Iraq. The three other permanent Security Council members, along with the U.N.'s humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, have all indicated that they favor lifting the embargo.)

Lost in translation

The divergence between the Times' versions of the oil-for-food program and accounts given by the U.N. officials charged with supervising and evaluating the program is a constant feature of the paper's coverage--amounting to a serious case of journalistic malpractice.

For example, Benon Sevan, the executive director of the oil-for-food program, explained at a July 22 briefing to the U.N. Security Council that he had advised Iraqi officials to find more reliable contractors and suppliers. Sevan explained that

many suppliers with whom Iraq had long-standing commercial dealings have become reluctant to supply goods under the 986 [oil-for-food] program, given the lengthy delays in contracting and approval. As a consequence, Iraq is obliged to procure through less reliable brokers. This further reduces the likelihood of compensation when sub-standard supplies and equipment are received.
But in an August 10 article by Crossette, Sevan's point was translated this way:

In recent months Iraqis have complained that many of the imports for which they have contracted are of inferior quality. United Nations officials and Western diplomats say this may be because Iraq has often put political considerations ahead of quality when choosing contractors. Moreover, monitors in Iraq say, brokers designated by Iraq to handle contracts appear to be paying kickbacks. Mr. Sevan told the Security Council that he had advised Iraq to get rid of middlemen and buy directly from reputable companies abroad.
In the same article, advertising an oil "windfall" for the Iraqi government (8/10/99), Crossette reported: "But despite the windfall…medical supplies remain stockpiled in warehouses. Mr. Sevan said he had asked the Iraqi Government on a recent trip there to take an inventory and explain why goods had not moved."

What Crossette did not mention is that Sevan went on to add that experts from the World Health Organization "have already started working with the authorities" to catalogue their inventories. He also praised the Iraqis for their "openness to share information" about the undistributed supplies and he listed several legitimate reasons for the backlogs: the need to maintain buffer stocks for emergencies; supplies that failed quality testing; defective equipment; and items lacking necessary components. All of this explodes the sinister portrait of Iraqi "stockpiling" that the Times and the State Department were trying to paint. Yet it was ignored by Crossette.

Inaccurate quotation

Believing that the issue had been badly misrepresented in the press, the U.N. official in charge of the program in Iraq, Hans von Sponeck, flew to U.N. headquarters in New York for an October 26 briefing with reporters. Sponeck pointed out that his office "had just published a report on available stock, showing, sector by sector, what had arrived, what had been distributed, what had been kept in stock and why."

Sponeck then listed the same reasons for the undistributed goods that Sevan had mentioned, noting that "the major portion" of Iraq's inventories consisted of buffer stock, which is kept for emergencies. Sponeck provided an example of why some other goods had remained in warehouses, noting that "a supply of IV fluids could not be distributed because there were no syringes."

Despite having lavished so much attention on the State Department's charges about Sponeck's program, the New York Times did not report his defense. But one week later (11/3/99), it ran an article about Sponeck's dispute with the State Department, reporting the department's accusation that he had personally "allowed the Iraqi Government to stockpile large quantities of supplies urgently needed by the Iraqi people." (The State Department's charges were part of an unsuccessful effort to have Sponeck fired following his call for a lifting of the embargo.)

Times reporter Christopher Wren went on to cite some of the comments Sponeck made at his New York press briefing. But instead of reporting Sponeck's detailed rebuttal to the State Department's charges of "stockpiling," Wren brazenly mischaracterized Sponeck's words: "Briefing reporters at the United Nations last Tuesday," Wren wrote, "Mr. Sponeck said it was important to take concerns about human welfare out of the mainstream of political discussion." Sponeck had actually said that it was "important to take the [U.N.'s] humanitarian program out of the mainstream of political discussion." A letter from FAIR demanding a correction received no response from either Wren or Times foreign editor Andrew Rosenthal.

As for Crossette, despite having covered the State Department's "stockpiling" charges for many months, she has still not once quoted or mentioned Sponeck's repeated and unequivocal rejection of those charges-- even though Sponeck is personally responsible for supervising the oil-for-food program on the ground.

Selective sourcing

What makes the Times' failure to report challenges to the State Department's spin all the more inexcusable is Sponeck's outspoken predecessor, Denis Halliday. Since his resignation from the U.N.'s humanitarian program in September 1998, Halliday has traveled around the United States giving speeches, writing articles, and issuing press releases about the sanctions. He has declared that "the some 150 U.N. observers throughout Iraq" who worked under him "have not reported any maldistribution of food and related items (cooking oil, soaps, etc.) during the entirety of the oil-for-food program," and that "for anyone to imply that the men and women of the Baghdad government, Ministry of Health in particular, deliberately withhold basic medicines from children in great need, is monstrous and says more about the unhealthy mind of the accusers than anything else." (Press release, 9/20/99)

Although Halliday has tried, with some limited success, to garner media attention for his views on the embargo, he has been completely ignored by Crossette and the New York Times. It is useful to compare Crossette's utter lack of interest in Halliday, who quit the U.N.'s humanitarian program in protest, to her fleeting fascination with Scott Ritter following his August 1998 protest resignation from the U.N.'s disarmament program in Iraq. Ritter, a leading U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, left the program to protest what he called a lack of seriousness about disarming Iraq.

In the four months between his resignation in August 1998 and the U.S. bombing of Iraq in December, Ritter-- with his dramatic revelations about tracking down Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction—became a favorite source for Crossette, appearing in 11 of her articles. By contrast, although Halliday appeared in a few Crossette articles before he left his post, she has completely ignored him since he began speaking out against sanctions.

Enigma
I'm sorry but you are completely missing the facts here,
Senior UN officials are telling us that it is the sanctions imposed by the US that is killing these children. These sanctions have also resulted in the ban on chlorine which is used in the treatment of water. The sanctions have also prevented the Iraqi government from re-building damaged infastructure which includes water treatment facilities. These are facts. Other facts include the use of depleted uranium by US forces. I have attached photographs of the resultant use of this to back up previous statements on US actions and their legality. The pictures are disturbing but I implore you to see the evidence of these crimes.

pic.1: Fadel, 7 years old, came from Basra, South of Iraq. Depleted uranium, with it metal toxicity and radiation, has damaged her liver and kidneys. A needle was injected into her body to draw out the abdominal dropsy. She died soon after the painful injection.

pic2: Juwad has lost 550g in four month since his birth. His parents were unable to buy milk for him. He suffered from heavy diarrhea due to malnutrition. The hospital had almost no antibiotics available. Babies with low resistance are highly susceptible to infectious disease. Many fail to escape death.

pic3: Baby born with anencephaly. His shocked mother disappeared from the hospital.

Why does this not appear on Fox News or CBS News or even the BBC. Why are we told the US are fighting and have previously fought a righteous war and morally correct war. Look at these pictures, see the results of US decisions to use depleted uranium tipped shells (in use today). See the first hand results of US imposed sanctions. Then, talk to me about righteousness and morality.

I know the US uses depleated uranium shells, and I know the problems they have caused, that's why I'm not arguing with you on that issue.

What I will argue with you on however is that the UN sanctions are responsible for the modern-day economic conditions in Iraq. I just showed you that Saddam is denying his people medical and food supplies that he has available, yet you say it is the US who is starving them and denying them health care. I showed you that Saddam is pocketing large proportions of his countrys revinue, which should belong to the people, yet it is the US that keeps Iraq poor. Who then is "missing the facts". You might be interested to know that these facts I have presented come from named "senior UN officials", and you can readily find that information if you look for it.


Oh, and GuyFromPakistan, if I had read all that before posting it, wht I was replying to probably would've been three pages back before I posted. I've already looked into this issue, and I don't feel like reading it all again right now. If you want to sort through it all yourself, look up some more links, get the facts, and draw your own conclusions.

how in hell did this thread get off subject so ****ed fast? seems none of this has to do with Bush being an idiot, just Ireland for going off subject in his first post. maybe it should be renamed.....

A valid point. Next time I will.

Agent Orange was NOT designed as a weopon. It is a defoliage agent used to clear the battle ground.
It so happens that it is also toxic to humans. Including American GIs. This includes both me and my brother and yes, people are still suffering.
This doens't change my views on whether Saddam has WMD. The odds of him using them on Iraqis and other countries outways the fact that he actually has them.

come on. if i wanted to ask this question without first having to ascern every single country that allows this freedom or that freedom, my posts would be very long.

first of all i have lived in siberia, england, and 3 states in the u.s [california, florida, and maryland]. yes, i'am cultured. of course i realize that there are other countries liberal in their human/citizen [whatever you want to call it] rights. most european countries have comprehensive democracies and much of the same rights as we do here in the u.s. please understand i'am not oblivious to this.

the point lies not only in the amount of freedom [i.e, for the most part our rights' limits lie far ahead of those related to the same rights in other countries], but most importantly, the recognition of these freedoms withstanding amongst a population that is so much more massive than anywhere else, so much more eclectic, so much more varied in any sense. there is no argument here.

how did i know i was going to have people down my throat because i failed, in return to mentioning america's freedom, mention every single other country that has the combination of the rights we do. i accept this, and i hope this post will clear up the assumption that i know only about the u.s.a

please, i beg you, if you're going to criticize this war, do so in the context of the current administration.

what good does it do to keep pointing out america's support of iraq back in the 80's, or their support for afghanistan during their conflict with the russians. obviously these elements have shaped the situation to what it is now. it's a shame that things turned out that way. but, it does no good to bring them up now, since there is nothing that can be done about them.

what can be done involves this administration, this president, and this relationship with saddam which, thankfully, has come about.

as for depleted uranium shells, yes the m1a1 abrams utilize such shells. i'am not exactly sure what the point of you mentioning that was.

finally, i know that almost all of the middle east as well as fair amounts of the rest of the world are currently ruled in a similar fashion as the people of iraq.

the question is not if other countries are doing it, the point is to weigh certain factors to conclude which of these systems is most detramental to their particular society.

there can be no argument that saddam hussein is not the most motivated, the most prominent, the least concerned by someone like the u.n telling them what to do, the most likely to attack the united states or, much more likely i'd say, countries around him.

quite frankly, what does it matter. i just don't see how you can ***** about the underlying motives of a war when the ultimate outcome, no matter what the reasons, could very well be a new nation, a new societal structure with liberty, with human rights, with millions upon millions given the opportunity to create an habitable and great country.

again, i ask, ultimately who cares about the reasons. we will probably never know exactly why this war was initiated. but the civilian casualties now are very very small in comparison to the eventual outcome of the rising of a nation out of sick, disgusting oppression.

in case you have forgotten my most important point in this post, let me introduce it once more: saddam is a greater threat, a greater burden on his people, and basically the only one with balls big enough to attack anyone he wishes, including the u.s. and, the reasons for this war have no significance when compared to the likely result. none. zero. zilch.

'there can be no argument that saddam hussein is not only the most motivated, most prominent, most present leader of the middle east [and probably the rest of the world]. he's also the least concerned by someone like the u.n telling him what to do and definitely the most likely to attack the united states or, much more likely i'd say, countries around him.'

I just wanted to applaud scott c for his last comments, put more precise and to the point than anyone so far, myself included.

failure of diplomacy my ***. more like failure of a fundamental function of the u.n.

good lord, if we weren't up the u.n's *** telling them saddam has bombs they'd just sit around.

what 'typo' are you talking about. by 'most present' what i meant is that no other leader is so prominent and famous for his tyrannical rule. saddam hussein is a feared name everywhere in the middle east. that is what i meant. if you thought it was a typo, you may be dyslexic.

and don't talk about a typical, american view. i'am not american, i'am russian.

anyway, let me hear your brilliant plan. let me hear how you can stop hussein from having kuwaitee children decapitated and thrown into trash bins in the streets without forcing him with some kind of military force. let me hear how the u.n will do it's ****ing job and find weapons. let me hear how you would have accomplished what is happening now: iraqi villages greeting the troops and thanking them for driving the militia out, cheering and bringing down saddam landmarks, without any worry about being executed.

i'am sure you have a fantastic plan.