Print

[lordvader129]

QUOTE

BOSTON, MA (April 29, 1993) - For the first time ever, scientists have been able to prove the use of chemical weapons through the analysis of environmental residues taken years after such an attack occurred. In a development that could have far-reaching consequences for the enforcement of the chemical weapons treaty, soil samples taken from bomb craters near a Kurdish village in northern Iraq by a team of forensic scientists have been found to contain trace evidence of nerve gas.

The samples were collected on June 10, 1992 by a forensic team assembled by the Boston-based Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and the New York-based Middle East Watch (MEW), a division of Human Rights Watch (HRW). The samples were forwarded to the Chemical & Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) of Great Britain's Ministry of Defence at Porton Down which analyzed them.

Eyewitnesses have said that Iraqi warplanes dropped three clusters each of four bombs on the village of Birjinni on August 25, 1988. Observers recall seeing a plume of black, then yellowish smoke, followed by a not-unpleasant odor similar to fertilizer, and also a smell like rotten garlic. Shortly afterwards, villagers began to have trouble breathing, their eyes watered, their skin blistered, and many vomited--some of whom died. All of these symptoms are consistent with a poison gas attack.

"These scientific results prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Iraqi government has consistently lied to the world on denying that these attacks occurred," said PHR and HRW.

i think the real question about the invasion of iraq is why we didnt do it 10 years ago

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Nov 9 2005, 08:11 PM)

Israel has broken God knows how many UN resolutions, you don't see the US or anybody else throwing there toys out of pram(well apart from Iran).  All the UN asked for was a little more time to clarify the data they had.  If Sadam was indeed in possession of WMD's or creating a vast arsenals the US would have got full support from other nations rather than good will gestures.

[lordvader129]

QUOTE

What do we do with TRAITORS in this country, we execute them.

not always, only if they are found guilty of compromising national security and sentenced to death, we dont just drop gas bombs on their hometown

QUOTE

Chicken Hawks only fight wars that they know they can win

what does that have to do with north korea? unless you are agreeing with me that when faced with a no-win situation someone like kin jong-il will just fire nukes at anyone and everyone

QUOTE

It was still an illegal act period point blank. That is why the UN security counsel didnt approve. Hitler invaded Poland, austria and others it was illegal then and its
illegal now.

you still cant tell us why it was so illegal, the official reason for the invasion of iraq was to remove saddam hussein due to crimes against humanty (see my above post) a perfectly legal and justified reason, hitler had no such justification for his invasion of poland

you can sell your car and say you are doing because you want to get a new car with better gas mileage, but really be intending to use the money to buy a new computer, does that make it illegal? no

as for the UN council, chickenhawk is better than just plain chicken if you ask me

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Nov 10 2005, 02:38 AM)

Really, you stupid fuck, your telling me that anyone, at any level, cares about personal motive, as long as the official motive is justified?  Ahh did your preacher molest you as a child, cause you seem really hung up on this?

[Arvarden]

"I think the real question about the invasion of iraq is why we didnt do it 10 years ago"

Because the US feared there would be a massive cull of American troops and the government feared they would loose public support when the fluff starts hitting the fan.  Britain and a few other nations wanted to go all the way but when the US decided to pull out and leave Sadam in power they had no choice but to pull out with the Americans.  It's a shame the shia uprissing couldn't do the same thing, they where left high and dry by the so called liberators of freedom and democracy.

[lordvader129]

QUOTE

It's a shame the shia uprissing couldn't do the same thing, they where left high and dry by the so called liberators of freedom and democracy.

you really should be a politician, you can turn any statement around

you can criticize the government for liberating iraq in 2003 while at the same time criticize the same government for not doing it in 1993




seriously though, it is a shame we didnt do it when we were already there, we told the shiite and the kurds if they rebelled we would support them, so they did and we left (and thats the reason many citizens dont like us being there now, they dont trust us after that)

[lordvader129]

QUOTE

Going into Iraq would have been more justified in 1993 than in 2003

saying that assumes theres some stute of limitations on crimes against humanity, hes somehow less guilty of the crimes he committed because they were committed 10 years ago

by the same right, is it more justified to arrest and punish a murderer 1 week after he kills someone or 10 years after he does?

[lordvader129]

true, but based on what arvarden is saying it seems he feels we should have never gone back, or that we are not justified going back

im saying we are just as justified taking him down now as we would have been 10 years ago, but we didnt because our new president at the time was more interested in interns than politics

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Nov 10 2005, 12:40 AM)

yeah, abraham lincoln put down the rebellion in the south the same way saddam would have

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE

WASHINGTON - Most Americans say they aren't impressed by the ethics and honesty of the Bush administration, already under scrutiny for its justifications for an unpopular war in     Iraq and its role in the leak of a covert     CIA officer's identity.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
Almost six in 10 — 57 percent — said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says     President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Just over four in 10 say the administration has high ethical standards and that Bush is honest.

QUOTE

Whites, Southerners and white evangelicals were most likely to believe Bush is honest.

At least he still has the hillbilly vote, I am sure the toothless will become a big swing voter demographic.  

[lordvader129]

QUOTE

At least he still has the hillbilly vote, I am sure the toothless will become a big swing voter demographic. 

whats with you and racism?

[xmedia2004]

QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Nov 11 2005, 10:05 PM)

whats with you and racism?

[lordvader129]

QUOTE

Whites, Southerners and white evangelicals

QUOTE

At least he still has the hillbilly vote, I am sure the toothless will become a big swing voter demographic.

maybe raceism isnt exactly the right word, but its still a prejudice generalization, and sad you dont even realize it

[puckSR]

*************ACLU*****************

You like to lob accusations around.

Show me where:

The ACLU tried to ban christmas?
The ACLU tried to ban spanking?
The ACLU tried to ban public farting?

The ACLU is simply making sure that people's rights are respected.
The courts actually decide.
If you mad about the rash of trivial lawsuits..attack the courts
The ACLU does not make money, so they have no reason to file frivolous lawsuits

The ACLU frequently gets branded as being a liberal organization, yet they have defended many conservatives...including people who have spoken out against them

[medievil]

QUOTE(puckSR @ Nov 12 2005, 04:49 AM)

*************ACLU*****************