UK aid worker may have been killed by US forces

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

.....you sir are a fuck-wit....end of story....it was about oil when the US backed him, it was about oil when the US lap dog turned around and bit the hand that fed him (I'm talking about Saddam btw LM, do try and follow along), its still about oil now.

 

Even if we accept your assertion that the first conflict with Iraq was because of oil and oil alone, how exactly would that make the proposed removal of Saddam (in the early 90s) wrong? Or do you believe he should have got a free pass after slaughtering the Kurds?

[Renton 21626]

.....you sir are a fuck-wit....end of story....it was about oil when the US backed him, it was about oil when the US lap dog turned around and bit the hand that fed him (I'm talking about Saddam btw LM, do try and follow along), its still about oil now.

 

Even if we accept your assertion that the first conflict with Iraq was because of oil and oil alone, how exactly would that make the proposed removal of Saddam (in the early 90s) wrong? Or do you believe he should have got a free pass after slaughtering the Kurds?

 

I'm sure protecting the Kurds wasn't on anyone's list of motives mind.

 

Also what is this obsession about chemical weapons? He slaughtered kurds using world war 1 technology, is that any better or worse than the Hutus massacring hundreds of thousands of Tutus with machetes in Rwanda, something the US or the UK seemingly couldn't give a shit about I might add? Any positive effects the removal of Hussein has had on the people of Iraq is both debatable and a red herring, whatever the motives were they were soley for perceived western interests.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Renton

[LeazesMag 0]

Do try and stop presuming that you know anything about me and what I know and don't know about these events.

 

 

I agree with Leazes.

 

No-one has any idea what he knows on these matters, he's never given any indication whatsoever.

 

 

You're quite right, I haven't. And that's how it's going to stay.

 

Must be a bore to write so much, while saying nothing whatsoever though.

 

how much time do you spend on here ?

[Happy Face 29]

Do try and stop presuming that you know anything about me and what I know and don't know about these events.

 

 

I agree with Leazes.

 

No-one has any idea what he knows on these matters, he's never given any indication whatsoever.

 

 

You're quite right, I haven't. And that's how it's going to stay.

 

Must be a bore to write so much, while saying nothing whatsoever though.

 

how much time do you spend on here ?

 

I'm happy with people knowing what I know or how I know it though. I learn a lot on here, either directly from others or by reading up to reply to them. I find it a valuable learning tool.

 

You don't want to reveal any knowledge of any subject or how you've derived it, or take on board any other views.

 

You just berate people.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

Do try and stop presuming that you know anything about me and what I know and don't know about these events.

 

 

I agree with Leazes.

 

No-one has any idea what he knows on these matters, he's never given any indication whatsoever.

 

 

You're quite right, I haven't. And that's how it's going to stay.

 

Must be a bore to write so much, while saying nothing whatsoever though.

 

how much time do you spend on here ?

 

I'm happy with people knowing what I know or how I know it though. I learn a lot on here, either directly from others or by reading up to reply to them. I find it a valuable learning tool.

 

You don't want to reveal any knowledge of any subject or how you've derived it, or take on board any other views.

 

You just berate people.

 

You don't learn anything on here actually, only the views of others. Which may or may not be accurate.

[Happy Face 29]

Do try and stop presuming that you know anything about me and what I know and don't know about these events.

 

 

I agree with Leazes.

 

No-one has any idea what he knows on these matters, he's never given any indication whatsoever.

 

 

You're quite right, I haven't. And that's how it's going to stay.

 

Must be a bore to write so much, while saying nothing whatsoever though.

 

how much time do you spend on here ?

 

I'm happy with people knowing what I know or how I know it though. I learn a lot on here, either directly from others or by reading up to reply to them. I find it a valuable learning tool.

 

You don't want to reveal any knowledge of any subject or how you've derived it, or take on board any other views.

 

You just berate people.

 

You don't learn anything on here actually, only the views of others. Which may or may not be accurate.

 

Just views and facts.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

"An official Bush era document on how to start war with Iraq under false pretenses is brushed aside like Superman stands up to bullets."

 

All that proves is that Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney were willing to start the war on false pretences. It doesn't negate a lot of the moral arguments for the invasion. The socialist Kurds couldn't care less under what pretences Saddam was removed.

 

I didn't support the war at the time because I did not believe Saddam had WMDs and I thought the evidence presented by the U.S./UK governments was either a complete fabrication or highly exaggerated at best. As I grew older I came to understand the true nature of Saddam's regime towards his own people, the surrounding region, and the dangers he presented to the world at large. I remember Bush giving all his speeches when he'd say. '9/11...... Saddam! 9/11..... Saddam!' and of course I knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11... he did have contact with Al Quaeda though as I came to learn later (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was one of the Al Quaeda higher-ups at the time - now dead - went to Baghdad in 2002). Given Saddam's record of supporting terrorism financially this was not something to be taken lightly.

 

I still don't support the invasion because it has been such a disastrous effort in terms of strategy, and it had very negative effects on the mission in Afghanistan. The cost has been too high. The society in Iraq was imploding under Saddam's regime (as it does under any totalitarian/fascist system ultimately), and it was obvious that staging an invasion with no plan as to what to do after the Baathists fell was going to result in catastrophe. Add to that the Al Quaeda/Iranian elements bringing terror to Iraq and stirring up sectarian violence and this has only exacerbated the problem. It has turned out that our forces were ill-equipped to deal with a conflict in the Mid East anyway, lack of translators and lack of experience (had forgotten the lessons learnt in N.I.) dealing with counter-insurgency of this nature has been terrible.

 

A problem I have with a lot of the anti-war movement is they behave as if their opponent's arguments had absolutely no merit whatsoever. It should be obvious to any rational person that any plan involving the removal of Saddam Hussein from a position of power has some merit and should not be blindly shot down 'because its about the oilll mannnn'. It is a good thing Saddam is dead, it is no secret he sat on huge oil reserves and it's not a bad thing that he doesn't have control of them anymore. Getting control of his oil is a positive.

 

Ultimately Saddam was going to have to go at some point. In hindsight we can say after the Kuwait invasion. If he had stayed till the end of his reign and Uday took over or another of his sons; if there was a battle for power within Iraq between the numerous warring factions, that would most likely have resulted in a situation where intervention was necessary again. Saddam may have even obtained some chemical/biological weapons again, certainly that was his desire. To sum up, it was an unteneble situation long-term and it should have been dealt with earlier, and in a better fashion.

 

I have to laugh at people like Tooner who think they're really on to something. 'yoo mann the oiiilllllll'. Yes it was a real secret that Saddam had oil reserves. 'hey mann youve been watching CNN so the US could be aggressive after 9/11 mannn' No shit they were aggressive after 9/11, what the fuck did you expect, tea and biscuits?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

.....you sir are a fuck-wit....end of story....it was about oil when the US backed him, it was about oil when the US lap dog turned around and bit the hand that fed him (I'm talking about Saddam btw LM, do try and follow along), its still about oil now.

 

Even if we accept your assertion that the first conflict with Iraq was because of oil and oil alone, how exactly would that make the proposed removal of Saddam (in the early 90s) wrong? Or do you believe he should have got a free pass after slaughtering the Kurds?

 

I'm sure protecting the Kurds wasn't on anyone's list of motives mind.

 

Also what is this obsession about chemical weapons? He slaughtered kurds using world war 1 technology, is that any better or worse than the Hutus massacring hundreds of thousands of Tutus with machetes in Rwanda, something the US or the UK seemingly couldn't give a shit about I might add? Any positive effects the removal of Hussein has had on the people of Iraq is both debatable and a red herring, whatever the motives were they were soley for perceived western interests.

 

Yes it is worse than the massacre in Rwanda, that was a conflict within the country, Saddam invaded a sovereign state and slaughtered its citizens. The obsession with Saddam and his weapons is based on the fact he had contact with various terrorist groups exporting terror around the world and he supported them financially and through other means.

 

You've seemingly missed my point. Even if the motive behind an action was not to protect the Kurds, if it did protect the Kurds then that is not negated by the original motive.

[Happy Face 29]

Interesting posts kunt.

 

There may well be a lot of Kurds happy at his removal. However, in 20 years of power Saddam was responsible for almost 2 million deaths....100,000 a year.

 

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

 

In 7 years since his removal it's been reported the Iraq situation has created 1.36 million excess deaths....almost 200,000 a year.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

 

You don't get an omlette without breaking a few eggs....but that's probably what Saddam would have said too.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

Do try and stop presuming that you know anything about me and what I know and don't know about these events.

 

 

I agree with Leazes.

 

No-one has any idea what he knows on these matters, he's never given any indication whatsoever.

 

 

You're quite right, I haven't. And that's how it's going to stay.

 

Must be a bore to write so much, while saying nothing whatsoever though.

 

how much time do you spend on here ?

 

I'm happy with people knowing what I know or how I know it though. I learn a lot on here, either directly from others or by reading up to reply to them. I find it a valuable learning tool.

 

You don't want to reveal any knowledge of any subject or how you've derived it, or take on board any other views.

 

You just berate people.

 

You don't learn anything on here actually, only the views of others. Which may or may not be accurate.

 

Just views and facts.

 

liberal views yes, but how do you know that you know all the facts ? You certainly don't accept anything which isn't anti-American

 

You think a black man being escorted away from a demonstration in New York is "shocking" yet you seem to think we should have allowed Saddam Hussein to continue gassing his own people and building up his chemical and nuclear arsenal - to attack Israel - insisting the reason for the removal of him was about oil and nothing else for the use of the evil west. Laughable, considering he had invaded another country, was killing its citizens, posed an obvious threat to the stability of the region and flouted the terms of the ceasefire including the deliberate obstruction of the weapons inspectors for years.

[Guest]

I love the fact that anyone who points out the fact that he's a daft racist cunt to him gets called a do-gooder or accused of being an overly P.C wanker

 

do you also love the fact that you need to show you are obsessed with following me around ?

 

How many carling's did you have in Ibiza

 

 

None, I didn't see any on sale. I was drinking San Miguel when I was drinking lager, now I know it's foreign, but I'm not a completely pointless racist twat so it wasn't an issue for me.

[LeazesMag 0]

Interesting posts kunt.

 

There may well be a lot of Kurds happy at his removal. However, in 20 years of power Saddam was responsible for almost 2 million deaths....100,000 a year.

 

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

 

In 7 years since his removal it's been reported the Iraq situation has created 1.36 million excess deaths....almost 200,000 a year.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

 

You don't get an omlette without breaking a few eggs....but that's probably what Saddam would have said too.

 

You don't get rid of a tyrant and a threat to peace by letting him get on with it either

[LeazesMag 0]

I love the fact that anyone who points out the fact that he's a daft racist cunt to him gets called a do-gooder or accused of being an overly P.C wanker

 

do you also love the fact that you need to show you are obsessed with following me around ?

 

How many carling's did you have in Ibiza

 

 

None, I didn't see any on sale. I was drinking San Miguel when I was drinking lager, now I know it's foreign, but I'm not a completely pointless racist twat so it wasn't an issue for me.

 

you're just an idiot then

[NJS 4386]

Yes it is worse than the massacre in Rwanda, that was a conflict within the country, Saddam invaded a sovereign state and slaughtered its citizens.

 

"Kurdistan" sovereign? - better tell Turkey.

[Guest]

I love the fact that anyone who points out the fact that he's a daft racist cunt to him gets called a do-gooder or accused of being an overly P.C wanker

 

do you also love the fact that you need to show you are obsessed with following me around ?

 

How many carling's did you have in Ibiza

 

 

None, I didn't see any on sale. I was drinking San Miguel when I was drinking lager, now I know it's foreign, but I'm not a completely pointless racist twat so it wasn't an issue for me.

 

you're just an idiot then

 

 

Excellent.

[Happy Face 29]

Interesting posts kunt.

 

There may well be a lot of Kurds happy at his removal. However, in 20 years of power Saddam was responsible for almost 2 million deaths....100,000 a year.

 

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

 

In 7 years since his removal it's been reported the Iraq situation has created 1.36 million excess deaths....almost 200,000 a year.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

 

You don't get an omlette without breaking a few eggs....but that's probably what Saddam would have said too.

 

You don't get rid of a tyrant and a threat to peace by letting him get on with it either

 

But you take over the killing and increase it twofold?

 

[Guest alex]

Can't help thinking the failed rescue of the aid worker provides a metaphor for US military intervention in general.

[Meenzer 15531]

Interesting posts kunt.

 

There may well be a lot of Kurds happy at his removal. However, in 20 years of power Saddam was responsible for almost 2 million deaths....100,000 a year.

 

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

 

In 7 years since his removal it's been reported the Iraq situation has created 1.36 million excess deaths....almost 200,000 a year.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

 

You don't get an omlette without breaking a few eggs....but that's probably what Saddam would have said too.

 

You don't get rid of a tyrant and a threat to peace by letting him get on with it either

 

But you take over the killing and increase it twofold?

 

 

Darkies don't count. Only a liberal do-gooder would think otherwise.

[Happy Face 29]

liberal views yes, but how do you know that you know all the facts ? You certainly don't accept anything which isn't anti-American

 

No-one can know ALL the facts. I base my views on the facts i know, as we all do. I've asked for details of how the efforts in the middle east are having or have had a positive effect and got nothing back.

 

You think a black man being escorted away from a demonstration in New York is "shocking" yet you seem to think we should have allowed Saddam Hussein to continue gassing his own people and building up his chemical and nuclear arsenal - to attack Israel - insisting the reason for the removal of him was about oil and nothing else for the use of the evil west. Laughable, considering he had invaded another country, was killing its citizens, posed an obvious threat to the stability of the region and flouted the terms of the ceasefire including the deliberate obstruction of the weapons inspectors for years.

 

You've confused so many issues, so many posters, so many views, so many events and so much propaganda it's hardly worth repeating things, but....

 

1. I thought the abuse the black man received was shocking.

 

2. We'd already stopped Saddam gassing his own people and building up a nuclear arsenal. The threat was exagerrated. And he was not flouting any terms. Inspections had eliminated the nuclear and chemical weapons programs, and evidence of their reconstitution would “have been eminently detectable by intelligence services”. Hussein welcomed back inspectors and promised complete cooperation with their demands. Experienced IAEA inspection teams were already back in Iraq but got withdrawn prior to the invasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion...faulty_evidence

 

3. I've never said it was "about oil and nothing else"

[Renton 21626]

.....you sir are a fuck-wit....end of story....it was about oil when the US backed him, it was about oil when the US lap dog turned around and bit the hand that fed him (I'm talking about Saddam btw LM, do try and follow along), its still about oil now.

 

Even if we accept your assertion that the first conflict with Iraq was because of oil and oil alone, how exactly would that make the proposed removal of Saddam (in the early 90s) wrong? Or do you believe he should have got a free pass after slaughtering the Kurds?

 

I'm sure protecting the Kurds wasn't on anyone's list of motives mind.

 

Also what is this obsession about chemical weapons? He slaughtered kurds using world war 1 technology, is that any better or worse than the Hutus massacring hundreds of thousands of Tutus with machetes in Rwanda, something the US or the UK seemingly couldn't give a shit about I might add? Any positive effects the removal of Hussein has had on the people of Iraq is both debatable and a red herring, whatever the motives were they were soley for perceived western interests.

 

Yes it is worse than the massacre in Rwanda, that was a conflict within the country, Saddam invaded a sovereign state and slaughtered its citizens. The obsession with Saddam and his weapons is based on the fact he had contact with various terrorist groups exporting terror around the world and he supported them financially and through other means.

 

You've seemingly missed my point. Even if the motive behind an action was not to protect the Kurds, if it did protect the Kurds then that is not negated by the original motive.

 

Genuinely interested in Saddam's contact and financial support of terror groups around the world, I've never seen a shred of evidence for this and it doesn't particularly fit the profile of him from what I know. Got any credible links to back this statement up?

 

I would say the main reason he was removed is because he was seen as an unstable influence on the region. Trouble is, the region is more unstable than ever now, and more people are dying now than did before. No conspiracy over oil imo, just a good old fashioned cock up orchestrated for that shit for brains, Bush jnr.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

There may well be a lot of Kurds happy at his removal. However, in 20 years of power Saddam was responsible for almost 2 million deaths....100,000 a year.

In 7 years since his removal it's been reported the Iraq situation has created 1.36 million excess deaths....almost 200,000 a yea

You don't get an omlette without breaking a few eggs....but that's probably what Saddam would have said too.

 

As I said the cost has been too high. The incompetence that has marred this conflict has been truly shocking, perhaps forseeable if you look at Bush's cabinet. He was surrounded by a swamp of inept and unscrupulous characters.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Guest]

Interesting posts kunt.

 

There may well be a lot of Kurds happy at his removal. However, in 20 years of power Saddam was responsible for almost 2 million deaths....100,000 a year.

 

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

 

In 7 years since his removal it's been reported the Iraq situation has created 1.36 million excess deaths....almost 200,000 a year.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

 

You don't get an omlette without breaking a few eggs....but that's probably what Saddam would have said too.

 

You don't get rid of a tyrant and a threat to peace by letting him get on with it either

 

But you take over the killing and increase it twofold?

 

 

Darkies don't count. Only a liberal do-gooder would think otherwise.

 

 

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

"Genuinely interested in Saddam's contact and financial support of terror groups around the world, I've never seen a shred of evidence for this and it doesn't particularly fit the profile of him from what I know. Got any credible links to back this statement up?"

 

 

 

His financial support for elements of Hamas is well documented.

 

“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.8

 

 

As I wrote in another post 'Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was one of the Al Quaeda higher-ups at the time - now dead - went to Baghdad in 2002'.

 

 

Saddam granted shelter to several well known terrorists.

 

Muhammad Zaydan (December 10, 1948 - March 8, 2004) also known as Abū ‘Abbās http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Zaidan

 

"Despite American requests for the extradition of Zaidan from Yugoslavia, he was not extradited due to Yugoslav relations with the PLO. He then flew to Aden, South Yemen and from there to Baghdad where Saddam Hussein sheltered him from extradition to Italy. He remained in Iraq and commanded the P.L.F. (reunited in 1989) until Saddam was deposed by coalition forces in 2003."

 

 

"This is Abu Abbas, former secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Front. He masterminded the October 7-9, 1985 hijacking of an Italian cruise ship whose name, sadly, is now synonymous with terrorism. The Achille Lauro was on a voyage across the Mediterranean when four Palestinian terrorists seized it on the high seas. They held some 400 passengers hostage for 44 hours.

 

At one point, they segregated the Jewish passengers on board. One of them was a 69-year-old New York retiree named Leon Klinghoffer. He happened to be confined to a wheelchair. Without mercy, Abu Abbas’ men shot Klinghoffer, then rolled him, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean."

 

I'm eating my breakfast so I'll refrain from dredging up any further material, it's all out there though.

[Happy Face 29]

"The administration pressed its case for war most emphatically by arguing that U.S. national security was imperiled by Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda. The argument had the obvious virtue of playing to the public's desire to see the war on terrorism prosecuted aggressively and conclusively. Yet, scant proof of these links was presented. The record showed a small number of contacts between jihadists and Iraqi officials. This was treated as the tip of an unseen iceberg of cooperation, even though it fell far short of anything that resembled significant cooperation in the eyes of the counterterrorism community—as it always had. No persuasive proof was given of money, weaponry, or training being provided."

 

-Former National Security Council counterterrorism directors Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon

 

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/855525

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

"This was treated as the tip of an unseen iceberg of cooperation"

 

One should not underestimate the potential deadly force of this iceberg, given that Saddam had displayed he had no qualms about funding/training/sheltering terrorists whatsoever.