Iraqis Find Graves Thought to Hold Hussein's Victims

[Bodacious]

NY Times article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/international/middleeast/15graves.html?ei=5065&en=c85059724268b94e&ex=1114228800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&position=)

...the estimated body counts prove correct, the new graves would be among the largest in the grim tally of mass killings that have gradually come to light since the fall of Mr. Hussein's government two years ago. At least 290 grave sites containing the remains of some 300,000 people have been found since the American invasion two years ago, Iraqi officials say.

One of the graves, near Basra, in the south, appears to contain about 5,000 bodies of Iraqi soldiers who joined a failed uprising against Mr. Hussein's government after the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Another, near Samawa, is believed to contain the bodies of 2,000 members of the Kurdish clad led by Massoud Barzani.

As many as 8,000 men and boys from the clan disappeared in 1983 after being rounded up in northern Iraq by security forces at the command of Ali Hassan al-Majid, widely known as Chemical Ali. It remains unclear, however, how the victims ended up in the south.


Screw all that, huh? Wrong place, wrong war, wrong time, right?

*waits for stern's inevitable Albright quote*

[Absinthe]

Screw all that, huh? Wrong place, wrong war, wrong time, right?

*waits for stern's inevitable Albright quote*

What war was that, eh? Certainly not the one that was sold to the American people.

And I still stand by my opinion that the war could have been better handled if we had spent more time planning it and taking care of economic issues at home.

[baxter]

It is dreadful what has been unearthed since the fall of Saddam Hussein. I have never critised the bravery of the combatants in this war and I never will but in the UK we were sold the war on the fact that Iraq was storing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and presented a clear and present danger to world peace.
It appears that this was wrong.
All be it that we are rid of an evil dictator and this type of butchery has been uncovered I feel this war, was started for the wrong reasons.

[jondy]

Screw all that, huh? Wrong place, wrong war, wrong time, right?

*waits for stern's inevitable Albright quote*

I'll bet you can piss further than him, as well. :|

[Bodacious]

Ok, I have a question that I would like a few people to answer, as best you could, please.


Stern brings up the albright quote, the water treatment attack, and our alliance with Saddam in the 80's and points out the US's hipocrisy by attacking Iraq, correct? In other words, what would make Stern and others like him happy, I am guessing, is if the US was consistent in it's foreign policy, correct?

[CptStern]

stop supporting tyrants despots and madmen ..I dont see what's so difficult about that

[Bodacious]

stop supporting tyrants despots and madmen ..I dont see what's so difficult about that


But do you think the US should be consistent with it's foreign ploicy?

[CptStern]

what does that have to do with anything?

[Bodacious]

Answer the question and we will see.

[ComradeBadger]

It is dreadful what has been unearthed since the fall of Saddam Hussein. I have never critised the bravery of the combatants in this war and I never will but in the UK we were sold the war on the fact that Iraq was storing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and presented a clear and present danger to world peace.
It appears that this was wrong.
All be it that we are rid of an evil dictator and this type of butchery has been uncovered I feel this war, was started for the wrong reasons.
Yeah, it was wrongly sold.

[CptStern]

Answer the question and we will see.

just spit it out, I wont be led like a horse to water

[Razor]

Stern and Bodacious, i think your arguments have gone well past political rivalry and onto personal problems with each other, please, keep it in pms.

My stand on the Iraq war is that politically, the war was wrong, the war was sold to the British people as a tyrant amassing wmd to be used against the west by terrorists, yet there was no concrete evidence or intelligence posted that supported this claim beyond a reasonable doubt. It was also done without the UN consent, which in my view was wrong. However, Saddam was a bad, bad man that needed to be gotten rid of, that is why i support the war and support our troops over there. Saddam is gone, imprisoned and never to be heard from again, and the Iraqi people know have a chance at Democracy.

[Gray Fox]

Bodaciouse I do not understand the point of this thread, I mean you support it when your government does something similar, but think it is awful when saddam does it. This just makes you look hypocritical, or really really dumb.

[Foxtrot]

Bodaciouse I do not understand the point of this thread, I mean you support it when your government does something similar, but think it is awful when saddam does it. This just makes you look hypocritical, or really really dumb.
It doesn't matter who does it so much, but why. And the who only matters if it isn't the US, that isn't being arrogant that is being realistic.

[Absinthe]

Oh yay. More "tricks" for Bodacious in an effort to make his opposition seem stupid. :rolleyes:

[baxter]

OK Bobacious, the suspense is killing me; yes I think the US should be consistent with its foreign policy

[OCybrManO]

do you think the US should be consistent with it's foreign ploicy?I would say we should only be consistent if being consistent proves to be a good thing. For example, trusting unreliable sources to give you good intelligence as a basis for starting a war and not listening to estimates of the number of soldiers necessary to make the invasion and subsequent occupation go smoothly are two things that we, as a country, have done that should not be repeated... but there are also some obviously good things that we have done that should be repeated if the next similar case requires it. Being consistent for the sake of being consistent is stupid. You have to take things on a case by case basis and learn from your mistakes.

We could tell everyone in the military to just charge straight at the enemy no matter what the situation... in that case, consistency would be a bad thing. On the flip side, it is good to train everyone.

[Raziaar]

Heh. Funny how so many people were sold simply on WMD. DIdn't care much about the brutality of Saddam.

I was sold more on the removal of an evil man who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people and more in his own country for such petty things as disagreeing with him, etc.

[RakuraiTenjin]

What war was that, eh? Certainly not the one that was sold to the American people.

And I still stand by my opinion that the war could have been better handled if we had spent more time planning it and taking care of economic issues at home.
I disagree. Clearly stated in the State of the Union preceeding the war were descriptions and reasons against the tyranny of Hussein. I felt they outweighed the other arguements at least in how much they were pressed, but WMD was just used to follow through with the UN, since there was no UN "official" resolution for deposing him for "killing all who oppose him"

This goes along with what Congress voted on, too. Before the war I wasn't hearing as much of an arguement dealing with WMD's as I was until after it started and the opposition latched onto that and sort of brushed the other things under the carpet.

[T.H.C.138]

Heh. Funny how so many people were sold simply on WMD. DIdn't care much about the brutality of Saddam.

I was sold more on the removal of an evil man who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people and more in his own country for such petty things as disagreeing with him, etc.

Quoted For Emphasis x100

[Absinthe]

Heh. Funny how so many people were sold simply on WMD. DIdn't care much about the brutality of Saddam.

I was sold more on the removal of an evil man who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people and more in his own country for such petty things as disagreeing with him, etc.

I didn't see your camp protesting in the streets for his removal pre 9/11.

But that's just the issue, Raziaar. If Bush hadn't tried to throw out every reason to invade Iraq (regardless of their legitimacy), then I'd probably be a bit more supportive. But no, I initially supported the war because every time Bush or one of his cronies appeared on the television, it was nothing but talking about WMD's and connections to Al Qaeda. Deposing Saddam because he was a tyrant was always came up minimally and seemed very much like an after-thought in an attempt to add some kind of moral justification to invading.
I don't like being lied to, and I don't like sending troops to fight and die on false pretenses. And hey, if Bush couldn't rouse up support for the war on human rights issues alone, then tough shit. He's supposed to serve the people, and so he can serve us by not invading places we don't want to invade.

[Absinthe]

This goes along with what Congress voted on, too. Before the war I wasn't hearing as much of an arguement dealing with WMD's as I was until after it started and the opposition latched onto that and sort of brushed the other things under the carpet.

Well, I don't know how things were where you live, but I always found that human rights took a backseat.

[Calanen]

I don't like being lied to, and I don't like sending troops to fight and die on false pretenses. And hey, if Bush couldn't rouse up support for the war on human rights issues alone, then tough shit. He's supposed to serve the people, and so he can serve us by not invading places we don't want to invade.

Are you a US citizen in Switzerland or is your location just a joke?

[Raziaar]

Are you a US citizen in Switzerland or is your location just a joke?

He's just doing that which he despises the US of doing. Butting into other countries affairs.

[Absinthe]

He's just doing that which he despises the US of doing. Butting into other countries affairs.

I am an American, so I'm not exactly butting into foreign affairs. And there is a world of difference between commenting on the actions of others and directly intervening. So don't try to paint me as a hypocrite.

Calanen, I'm a US citizen with residence in Switzerland.

[kmack]

Screw all that, huh? Wrong place, wrong war, wrong time, right?



Still the wrong place, look at hmmm, anywhere in Africa, the mass graves from the multitude of genocides that have taken place there make Iraqi (alleged like their "wmds") genocide burial grounds look like candy land

[Absinthe]

Still the wrong place, look at hmmm, anywhere in Africa, the mass graves from the multitude of genocides that have taken place there make Iraqi (alleged like their "wmds") genocide burial grounds look like candy land

Very true. If the conservatives are so concerned about human rights issues around the globe, then I await their invasions of locations that are far worse than Iraq.

[KoreBolteR]

Still the wrong place, look at hmmm, anywhere in Africa, the mass graves from the multitude of genocides that have taken place there make Iraqi (alleged like their "wmds") genocide burial grounds look like candy land

its the right place to be, even if there is more attention needed in africa.

they/the UN/anyone else should send trrops to the much needed areas.

[kmack]

its the right place to be, even if there is more attention needed in africa.

they/the UN/anyone else should send trrops to the much needed areas.

but why Iraq first?

[KoreBolteR]

but why Iraq first?


gotta start somewhere.

[kmack]

gotta start somewhere.

true, but why not start in a place that is in much more trouble? a place where the world would maybe support us?

[Bodacious]

Ok, my point is to show that, people who are anti-war, in general, want the US to be consistent in their foreign policy, IE, quit setting dictators up and knocking them down; if this war was for humanitarian reasons as well, then we should have gone to and should go to a lot of other places, stuff like that.

These people most certainly support Pope John paul II when he said the war in Iraq is wrong. However, their demand for consistency is flawed when they are not consistent themselves. They support the pope when it comes to denouncing the war in Iraq, however when it comes to Abortion, the Schiavo Case, or condom distribution they are inconsistent.

[kmack]

Ok, my point is to show that, people who are anti-war, in general, want the US to be consistent in their foreign policy, IE, quit setting dictators up and knocking them down; if this war was for humanitarian reasons as well, then we should have gone to and should go to a lot of other places, stuff like that.

These people most certainly support Pope John paul II when he said the war in Iraq is wrong. However, their demand for consistency is flawed when they are not consistent themselves. They support the pope when it comes to denouncing the war in Iraq, however when it comes to Abortion, the Schiavo Case, or condom distribution they are inconsistent.

and the Bush administration loves how the Pope is against abortion (a fact that came up A LOT in the days following his death) but they also say nothing about his stance on the death penalty ( he was against it) and his stance on the war.
Your assessment is correct, but it goes both ways im afraid.

[qckbeam]

These people most certainly support Pope John paul II when he said the war in Iraq is wrong. However, their demand for consistency is flawed when they are not consistent themselves. They support the pope when it comes to denouncing the war in Iraq, however when it comes to Abortion, the Schiavo Case, or condom distribution they are inconsistent.

So if you agree with somebody on one issue you have to agree with them on every issue or your credibility goes out the window? That doesn't make any sense.

[T.H.C.138]

how many hundreds of years has the same shit happened in these places?

and they still won't stop screwing around...

they would much rather kill half the population than pave a goddamn road in most of these places..farming? whats that?

I think my country should stay out of it all and tend to itself..we have hungry/needy people here..

if the iraqis/africans want to kill each other,let them..not our business..they apparently don't want/need any help anyway...

maybe if the insurgents didn't screw around and just layed low we would have left(I hope) and then they could come out of the woodwork and screw around..

but then the politics forum would wither away..which might be a good thing..

:cheers:

[gh0st]

THC. You are a complete asshole, and your post is completely incorrect: Its been THOUSANDS of years.

[T.H.C.138]

you are correct sir!! it has been going on for 1000's of years..and it still hasn't stopped or changed things has it?

I wasn't cheering the deaths of these people like some people have here..not you that I am aware of,but some people do..

so I'm an asshole for speaking my mind? then so is everyone else here,right?

or was it the comment on the politics forum withering away? ;)

again I say :cheers: (ya know,to say no hard feelings and such!)

[gh0st]

you are correct sir!! it has been going on for 1000's of years..and it still hasn't stopped or changed things has it?

I wasn't cheering the deaths of these people like some people have here..not you that I am aware of,but some people do..

so I'm an asshole for speaking my mind? then so is everyone else here,right?

or was it the comment on the politics forum withering away? ;)

again I say :cheers: (ya know,to say no hard feelings and such!)
I was being sarcastic about you being an asshole. All else of what you speak is right.

[T.H.C.138]

:D right on,I was confused!!"what did I say wrong this time??",running through my head

[Bodacious]

So if you agree with somebody on one issue you have to agree with them on every issue or your credibility goes out the window? That doesn't make any sense.


This isn't jenny from the block having an opinion and agreeing with her one thing and not another. This is the pope's opinion. People picking and choosing to follow what he says just to follow party lines and make their opposition looks bad ends up making both sides looking bad.

[Kebean PFC]

Still the wrong place, look at hmmm, anywhere in Africa, the mass graves from the multitude of genocides that have taken place there make Iraqi (alleged like their "wmds") genocide burial grounds look like candy land
Africa is totaly different. What would be accomplished by say, US invasion of the Congo? Or anywhere else? Only US deaths for no purpose. Africa cannot offer anything on the World Market yet, and until they are able to, no one will care.

I support the war in Iraq on the grounds that this guy could have cuased some serious problems in the future. Maybe this preventented a larger war later? I don't know, nor do i pretend to know, exactly what is going on over there, but i think it will all add up to a more peaceful Middle East in the future. But it will take time, and everyone wants it to be over, and have the US pull out. The Iraqi's think that becuase they have a security force and a president that they can fend for themselves. They cannot yet, and if we pulled out, the region would most likley descend into chaos.

What is it you anti war protestors want us to do? Pull out now, leaving what is left of Iraq to go back to small tribes fighting each other. They sit on one of the last large oil fields. ould you like to see that destroyed? Most of you don't even realise what you would lose as a result of that oil dissapearing. We will be in Iraq for a long time. There is nothing we can do now without harming the situation.

[Absinthe]

These people most certainly support Pope John paul II when he said the war in Iraq is wrong. However, their demand for consistency is flawed when they are not consistent themselves. They support the pope when it comes to denouncing the war in Iraq, however when it comes to Abortion, the Schiavo Case, or condom distribution they are inconsistent.

You assume that every body against the Iraq war agrees with everything the Pope says. That's ridiculous, and surely you should have recognized that.

[qckbeam]

This isn't jenny from the block having an opinion and agreeing with her one thing and not another. This is the pope's opinion. People picking and choosing to follow what he says just to follow party lines and make their opposition looks bad ends up making both sides looking bad.

Why exactly do you assume all people are forming their opinions on war in Iraq based off what the pope says? That doesn't make any sense at all.

[Bodacious]

You assume that every body against the Iraq war agrees with everything the Pope says. That's ridiculous, and surely you should have recognized that.

The only assumptions I make are that some people complain that the US should be consistent with it's foregn policy. I also assume that these same people agree with the former pope's opinion about the war in Iraq being wrong.

How can they demand consistency when they themselves are inconsistent? May he who without sin cast the first stone, no?

[qckbeam]

The only assumptions I make are that some people complain that the US should be consistent with it's foregn policy. I also assume that these same people agree with the former pope's opinion about the war in Iraq being wrong.

How can they demand consistency when they themselves are inconsistent? May he who without sin cast the first stone, no?

Bodacious, that doesn't make any sense, at all. Just because my opinion on one single matter, the war in Iraq, happens to fall in line with the one held by pope John Paul II does not mean I have to agree with him on every other issue or risk becoming a hypocrit. I don't have the slightest clue where your logic is coming from, but it's flawed. It's like saying that since Hitler and I both agree on chess being a fun game to play, I should also agree that the Holocaust was great fun. Perhaps if I along with everyone else who thought the war was wrong looked to the pope as a moral leader, you would have some sort of an argument. As it stands I don't, and I'm certain that's true for many anti-war people beyond myself. It's not even close to being a valid or fair assumption on your part.

[CptStern]

Ok, my point is to show that, people who are anti-war, in general, want the US to be consistent in their foreign policy, IE, quit setting dictators up and knocking them down; if this war was for humanitarian reasons as well, then we should have gone to and should go to a lot of other places, stuff like that.

k, you're not really fooling anyone, your comments are aimed at me ...so far so good ..but here's where you make a gaint leap:


These people most certainly support Pope John paul II when he said the war in Iraq is wrong. However, their demand for consistency is flawed when they are not consistent themselves. They support the pope when it comes to denouncing the war in Iraq, however when it comes to Abortion, the Schiavo Case, or condom distribution they are inconsistent.


that makes little sense ..actually that makes no sense. There are millions of people who disagree with the war in iraq from all walks of life (not just lefties as you've been so kind to point out by mentioning the pope) ..it doesnt mean I agree with them on everything ..that would be kinda hard cuz I dont know them all personally ...and it'd probably take me a lifetime to meet them all. No time for chit-chat just a quick hello and off to the next person ..what with there being millions of people