Speakeasy forum

General discussion

mass grave found in irag

by Mark5019 / October 13, 2004 2:21 AM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: mass grave found in irag
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: mass grave found in irag
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) And we're the bad guys
by Diana Forum moderator / October 13, 2004 2:45 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) But sanctions and inspections were working right? :((
by Evie / October 13, 2004 3:19 AM PDT
Collapse -
Re: (NT) But sanctions and inspections were working right? :
by Glenda / October 13, 2004 3:48 AM PDT

And I am sure SOMEONE will find a way to blame President Bush:(
Glenda

Collapse -
Re: (NT) But sanctions and inspections were working right? :
by Mark5019 / October 13, 2004 4:00 AM PDT

shure whe should have gone in sooner

Collapse -
The bodies were buried in the 80s
by Josh K / October 13, 2004 4:18 AM PDT

That's at least a few years before sanctions were put in place and inspections began, so neither has anything to do with this.

Collapse -
Re: The bodies were buried in the 80s
by Mark5019 / October 13, 2004 5:23 AM PDT

but he was still in power so josh how many more mass graves will he have dug if we didnt go in and remove him?

Collapse -
We invaded because of WMDs, remember?
by Josh K / October 13, 2004 5:38 AM PDT

At least that was the reason given at the time. It changes weekly, I realize, and it can be hard to keep up. I forget what reason Bush gave during the last debate. Tonight it might be something else entirely.

Collapse -
Actually there were several reasons ...
by Evie / October 13, 2004 5:47 AM PDT

... and you really ought to read the Deulfer Report in its entirety to understand the implications that not going into Iraq would have born out. Oil for Food was funding Saddam and his allies to the tune of billions whilst the true "coalition of the bribed" (France leader) profited. Had inspectors been allowed to "finish their job" sanctions would have been lifted and Saddam was at the ready to reconstitute his programs -- only this time without as much international scrutiny.

Heck, don't bother listening to me. Listen to your candidate and his running mate. THEY used far stronger language in advance and even in the beginnings of the war re: Saddam.

Collapse -
The reasons change almost daily it seems
by Josh K / October 13, 2004 6:24 AM PDT

The reason we gave the UN was that Saddam had a stockpile of chem/bio weapons that presented an immediate threat to the safety of the US and other countries. We did not try to make a case for what he might do in the future if sanctions were lifted. I think I heard Bush use that rationale for the first time during the debates. What's he going to do, keep throwing reasons against the wall until one sticks?

Collapse -
The reasons given were MANY ...
by Evie / October 13, 2004 7:27 AM PDT

... WMD was prime amongst them because AT THE TIME, EVERY GOSH DARNED COUNTRY INCLUDING HIS ARAB NEIGHBORS (AND EVEN HIS OWN ADVISORS) THOUGHT HE HAD THEM, and that was an unacceptable risk to take post 9/11 for him to remain playing the game. Your guys were on the exact same page as Bush, and if you look at their "chest beating" posturing pre-war, were even MORE strident than the administration re: his WMD. Still ... other reasons remained. If you want to look at only the "no WMD" parts of reports, fine. But the rest is where the meat is that justifies TO THIS DAY even knowing WHAT WE KNOW NOW, ridding the world of the WMD known as Saddam Hussein.

Collapse -
Re: Actually there were several reasons ...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / October 13, 2004 10:36 PM PDT

Hi, Evie.

>>Heck, don't bother listening to me. Listen to your candidate and his running mate. THEY used far stronger language in advance and even in the beginnings of the war re: Saddam.<<
Yes, but they didn't vote for war -- they voted to give Bush the optionj of war AS A LAST RESORT. We now know from the O'Neill, Clarke, and Woodward books that war was Bush's "plan A," and anything but a last resort. His attitude towards war reminds me of the ever-changing arguments in favor of circumcision -- as one gets disproved, the advocates drop back to a new benefit. Certainly there's no real evidence that the world is better off now than it was before Saddam was removed, and if there's civil war or Iraq becomes an Iran clone, it won't even be a close judgement.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!


-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Read the resolution they voted FOR
by Evie / October 13, 2004 10:37 PM PDT
Collapse -
Off subject WMDs
by billzhills / October 14, 2004 12:26 AM PDT

I know that WMD have not been found and the paper trail supports this. But....

If a country with freedom of speech can keep a bomb shelter secret for 35 years
http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/gimme_shelter/

And a country with no freedom of speech and a land mass of 437.029 sq km are we sure that their is no WMD.
-----------------------------------------------------

Saddam scared the Middle Eastern leaders, if not no invasion. Remember Afghanistan chased the Russians home.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

-----------------------------------------------------

What I think I am trying to say is whatever the excuse the goverment had no choice. Some people you can talk to. Others you have to beat over the head to get their attention. Non violent reaction to 9/11 would have lead to more bombings.

Collapse -
He wasn't Hitler,...
by James Denison / October 13, 2004 11:37 AM PDT

...the dead weren't Jewish, so it doesn't matter.

Collapse -
We fight to protect everybody
by Dan McC / October 13, 2004 11:50 AM PDT
In reply to: He wasn't Hitler,...

As long as they're in the Oil Ministry building.

Dan

Collapse -
Saddam's crimes ...
by Evie / October 13, 2004 5:50 AM PDT

... extended throughout his reign. Or do you not believe those six men that were fitted with new hands by the good doctors from Texas, the videos released of prisoners being tortured, mamed and killed in the most brutal ways. Heck, I guess even the release of CHILDREN from prisons doesn't convince you that what our President and AMERICA did was right and justified. And you wonder why the left is labeled anti-American??

Collapse -
Re: Saddam's crimes ...
by Josh K / October 13, 2004 6:14 AM PDT
In reply to: Saddam's crimes ...
And you wonder why the left is labeled anti-American??

Yup.

Your post suggested that these killings were an example of the failure of sanctions and inspections. I was merely pointing out that this is impossible since the killings happened long before either began.
Collapse -
Look at the big picture for a change Josh ...
by Evie / October 13, 2004 7:30 AM PDT

... when you continue to parse everything -- as in 9/11 wasn't DIRECTLY related to Saddam so I'm gonna plug my ears and not listen to anything relating Saddam to terror or Al Quaeda more generally -- you lose credibility.

The left never seems to take the side of this country on any issue. It would be nice if it did, at least occasionally, do so.

Collapse -
Re: Saddam's crimes ...
by Mark5019 / October 13, 2004 8:48 PM PDT

and josh all you people keep saying is let the un handle it well if we let the un handle it all the people in iraq will be dead.


and before some jerk says i want that please read this i said if we didnt invade that sub human sadam whould have made more mass graves.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

FALL TV PREMIERES

Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!