"Saddam was a bad guy, but ...."

Patrick said:
Every time they find one of these, I am reminded of the appeaser cant.
Click to expand...
You mean this?
16.jpg
 
from the article...

He believes they were probably killed in early 1988, though it might have happened in late 1987.

that's pretty important to point out that the grave was 26 years old.

but then again so is this from the CNN article...

Human rights groups believe about 300,000 people were killed during Saddam's 24-year rule, which ended when U.S.-led forces toppled his regime in 2003.

yep, Saddam was a bad guy but...

we killed over 10,000 Iraqis the first year there so at least were keeping up Saddam's pace of killing.

signed,
an appeaser.
 
HarryKeogh:
"He believes they were probably killed in early 1988, though it might have happened in late 1987.
that's pretty important to point out that the grave was 26 years old."

Which country was Saddam's best buddy in 1987-88?
The same country who was best buddies with him when he had gassed thousands of Kurds?
Mmmmm...tough one, isn't it?


If the mass grave at Hatra does date from Saddam's time and its victims were killed by Iraqi forces, then what?
Is it today's explanation of why we went to war?
To punish Saddam's regime for long-ago atrocities that were no great problem for many members of Bush the Son's White House when they served Bush the Father and the Great Communicator, Reagan?

How many mass graves have we created in Iraq so we can disinter these corpses? Who'll be exhuming them in 20 years' time with noble words about ensuring those responsible face justice? How many dead in the bombing, how many dead in the violent aftermath, how many from the lack of clean water? How many have died since 1991 from the effects of DU and how many will die in the next 10, 20, 50 years? What's happened to the infant mortality rate in the last 18 months, how many lives have been snuffed out before they barely got started? Think we'll ever know any of this?
Think the US will be setting aside millions upon millions of dollars to catalogue the numbers of our victims with the same enthusiasm it's expending on Saddam's?
 
HarryKeogh said:
Human rights groups believe about 300,000 people were killed during Saddam's 24-year rule[/B]
Click to expand...

Hmmm. If you do the math, that works out to an average of 1.5 killings per hour. Not bad for an evil dictator. That should make the people who complain about the world's exponentially exploding population happy.
 
HarryKeogh said:
from the article...

He believes they were probably killed in early 1988, though it might have happened in late 1987.

that's pretty important to point out that the grave was 26 years old.

but then again so is this from the CNN article...

Human rights groups believe about 300,000 people were killed during Saddam's 24-year rule, which ended when U.S.-led forces toppled his regime in 2003.

yep, Saddam was a bad guy but...

we killed over 10,000 Iraqis the first year there so at least were keeping up Saddam's pace of killing.

signed,
an appeaser.
Click to expand...

You killed 10,000 Iraqi civilians. Including military personnel - only those killed during the open fighting until May 1st - the death count is probably closer 40,000 to 45,000.
 
BPSCG said:
You mean this?
16.jpg
Click to expand...

I have serious doubts about this picture.

There is no way the text on the placard can be sharper than the faces of the people, unless the image was tampered with.

Just a word of caution: Don't frig with me when it comes to digital forgery. Hm?
 
Patrick said:
They just turned up another of Saddam's victims' mass graves in Iraq, this time with women and children:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/

Every time they find one of these, I am reminded of the appeaser cant.
Click to expand...
So far we've failed to turn up any sites of weapons of mass destruction.

Sorry, but this wasn't the reason we went after him. There are people being killed in great numbers right now in Darfur. You don't see us sending a $200 billion package of regime-toppling troops over there, do you?

I hate to sound callus, yet we have so far failed to credibly act as the world's policeman. The issues that took us to Iraq seem to have been entirely personal to a few people, and not at all about ending the regime of a bloody dictator who is not at all unlike other bloody dictators we've openly and proudly supported in the past. You cannot shame people into silence over this cluster-f*** with a few tear-jerker images. We will be fortunate indeed that we don't leave Iraq in worse shape than it was when we started this.
 
CFLarsen said:
I have serious doubts about this picture.

There is no way the text on the placard can be sharper than the faces of the people, unless the image was tampered with.

Just a word of caution: Don't frig with me when it comes to digital forgery. Hm?
Click to expand...

it's a real picture all right. just a sarcastic jab at the anti-war people.
 
CFLarsen said:
I have serious doubts about this picture.

There is no way the text on the placard can be sharper than the faces of the people, unless the image was tampered with.

Just a word of caution: Don't frig with me when it comes to digital forgery. Hm?
Click to expand...

1) Well if the camera was focussed on the placard it would be sharper wouldn't it?

2) Mind you someone not in sympathy with the demo could have sneaked the placard in to create a subversive image;

3) You could of course be right, as these days a picture is only worth a thousand keystrokes.


A sceptic should always be open to alternative hypotheses;)
 
CFLarsen said:
I have serious doubts about this picture.

There is no way the text on the placard can be sharper than the faces of the people, unless the image was tampered with.
Click to expand...
And the shadows on the Apollo pictures are all wrong! :p

It is real though. Just visit the webpage mentioned at the bottom of the sign. You'll see that it is a sign by a group of rightwingers who like to annoy peace protestors. Nie Trink Wasser has repeatedly linked to their site.
 
He believes they were probably killed in early 1988, though it might have happened in late 1987.

A completely fatuous remark - Saddam was killing people 20 years ago, 19 years ago, ...... right up till liberation. The rape, torture, and execution squads never stopped - and would still be going on except for the invasion.
 
Which country was Saddam's best buddy in 1987-88?
The same country who was best buddies with him when he had gassed thousands of Kurds?
Mmmmm...tough one, isn't it?

Well no, a stupid one. This appeaser wingnut puffball was first dealt with in a chartroom maybe five years ago. Calling saddam a U.S. "best buddy" is the most simple-minded of slurs. The U.S. held its nose and aided saddam to keep iraq from being overrun by the islamists from iran during the iran/iraq war, which would have resulted in an islamic superstate, with all that that implies. This is a page right out of the realpolitik manual of the cold war euros, who always castigated the "unsophisticated" americans for not playing footsie with communist regimes when that would presumably better things strategically in the world.
 
Sorry, but this wasn't the reason we went after him. There are people being killed in great numbers right now in Darfur. You don't see us sending a $200 billion package of regime-toppling troops over there, do you?

"the reason we went after him" isn't the subject of this thread. The appeasers have been hyper-psychotic for two years because the coalition hasn't been able to find WMDs, even though the intelligence agencies of ALL the major countries said they were there. Then the appeasers ignore the immensely salutary result of removing one of the worst dictators since WWII, so they can fixate on their irrational Bush hatred - some of them, even in this thread, taking their delusions so far as to actually try to minimize the death and destruction created by Saddam.

Yes we aren't sending troops to Darfur - because we don't have any more to send. Who you don't see sending any and COULD send some is the euroweenies, whose troops are relaxing in their barracks while the U.S., alone as usual except for the brits, takes out the world's dictators. My guess why is I read Sudan is emerging as an oil source, and the last thing euros ever want to do is create blood when they could get oil from a dictator.
 
HarryKeogh said:
from the article...

He believes they were probably killed in early 1988, though it might have happened in late 1987.
Click to expand...

Reagan/Bush were pretty friendly with old Saddam round about then, weren't they?

Never mind though. It's all black and white. Saddam was bad, so we had to invade his country. Cause you know what's right is right etc. etc.
 
Patrick said:
Which country was Saddam's best buddy in 1987-88?
The same country who was best buddies with him when he had gassed thousands of Kurds?
Mmmmm...tough one, isn't it?

Well no, a stupid one. This appeaser wingnut puffball was first dealt with in a chartroom maybe five years ago. Calling saddam a U.S. "best buddy" is the most simple-minded of slurs. The U.S. held its nose and aided saddam to keep iraq from being overrun by the islamists from iran during the iran/iraq war, which would have resulted in an islamic superstate, with all that that implies.
Click to expand...

That would be the same Iran that they were cutting secret arms deals with.
 
Patrick said:
Sorry, but this wasn't the reason we went after him. There are people being killed in great numbers right now in Darfur. You don't see us sending a $200 billion package of regime-toppling troops over there, do you?

"the reason we went after him" isn't the subject of this thread. The appeasers have been hyper-psychotic for two years because the coalition hasn't been able to find WMDs, even though the intelligence agencies of ALL the major countries said they were there.
Click to expand...

They said they thought they were there. Bush's people said they knew for a fact that they had mobile weapons labs, cylinders that were part of a major nuclear program, were trying to get their hands on uranium (which is all that they supposedly needed to to complete a nuclear weapon), etc.

There was a tremendous amount of exaggeration on the part of Bush and his people to justify their war, and now the US is paying the price for it.
 
Patrick said:
My guess why is I read Sudan is emerging as an oil source, and the last thing euros ever want to do is create blood when they could get oil from a dictator.
Click to expand...


Please. You're going to call out the Euros for this? And meanwhile in your warped view of reality we're the noble US, making it our business to rescue the world from evil dictators like Saddam?
 
The existance of Hitlers distacts us from the existance of Dresdens. They're both bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom