Really cool link

More on mass graves:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Saddam Hussein's government is believed to have buried as many as 300,000 opponents in 263 mass graves that dot the Iraqi landscape, the top human rights official in the U.S.-led civilian administration said Saturday.

Sandy Hodgkinson said the administration has been sending forensic teams to investigate those grave sites reported to U.S. officials. So far, the existence of about 40 graves has been confirmed.

"We have found mass graves with women and children with bullet holes in their heads," she said.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/680

My point to all this? It's pretty evident that Sadamm was complete evil and had to be removed. After reading all this, I don't see how anyone could feel any different! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

My point to all this? It's pretty evident that Sadamm was complete evil and had to be removed. After reading all this, I don't see how anyone could feel any different! :rolleyes:

---

I easily feel different.

Saddam was never the worst cat on the block (see: Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, Umar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, etc). Nor was he ever the most threatening to the United States (see: Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, etc).

This war was for U.S. economic and political gain, pure and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhallg2k

I easily feel different.

Saddam was never the worst cat on the block (see: Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, Umar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, etc). Nor was he ever the most threatening to the United States (see: Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, etc).

This war was for U.S. economic and political gain, pure and simple.

---

I suppose...if you're not Kurdish, Shi'ite, or Jewish, why should we give a fuck? :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

I suppose...if you're not Kurdish, Shi'ite, or Jewish, why should we give a fuck? :eek:

---

When didn't care while they were being slaughtered. Only now, after the fact. We didn't care when Pinochet, Milosevic, et al were committing genocide. We don't care about the tens of thousands being killed in Darfur or the hundreds of thousands being killed in East Timor.

What makes Iraqis better than them?

It's not what we're doing that's totally wrong. It's our motivation and our hypocrisy. Not to mention the lies that got us there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhallg2k

When didn't care while they were being slaughtered. Only now, after the fact. We didn't care when Pinochet, Milosevic, et al were committing genocide. We don't care about the tens of thousands being killed in Darfur or the hundreds of thousands being killed in East Timor.

What makes Iraqis better than them?

It's not what we're doing that's totally wrong. It's our motivation and our hypocrisy. Not to mention the lies that got us there.

---

Pinochet: Arrested by the British on a case started in Spain.
Milosevic: Ousted by the U.N.
Darfar: Aren't the French suppose to be handling this one? Go figure!!! :mad:
East Timor: Islamic terrorists roving in gangs killing Christians....by the way, the Australians are signing new oil deals with East Timor... :confused:

Iraq: France, Germany, Russia, and China dirty palms from "Food for Oil"

WE'RE in it for the oil? The U.N. and associates took down other world leaders that have no oil but France, Russia, Germany, and China wanted Sadamm left alone for the OIL! THIER companies in Iraq, THIER dirty deals with Sadamm. Now the U.S. and Great Britian are the bad guys cause we take down Sadamm? Why? :confused:

I think you're missing my point.

The U.S. did nothing to stop any other acts of atrocity around the world, even if it meant going against the will of the larger global community like we did in Iraq. Meaning, if France/the U.N. is failing in Darfur/East Timor, why haven't we intervened? We intervened when it was said that sanctions failed in Iraq. And why didn't we stop Pinochet and Milosevic before they finished killing millions of people? What made them so special as to allow the outsourcing of their rescue? I mean, we couldn't just leave Iraq to the U.N.

Speaking of rescue, the U.S. actually did very, very little to stop the acts of atrocity Saddam committed against his own people; we came in way after the fact. And besides Iraq nowadays isn't exactly the bastion of freedom it was supposed to be after Saddam was toppled. We're told again and again that it's going to take time. But when? And why is it getting worse?

(Off the point, but still important: where's all that oil money that was supposed to finance Iraqi recontruction? Why are we still paying for it? And why do those expenditures not show up in the budgets submitted to Congress?)

Beyond that, the original rationale for invasion was that Saddam was a grave threat to our own national security. That has been proven false and moreover it has been shown that the Bush administration actively falsified the intelligence used to make that argument to the world and most importantly, to American citizens. I believe that if a Democrat had done the same thing, not only would he have been impeached, I would've wholeheartedly supported it. I will not abide lethal lying by any chief executive, regardless of their political affiliation. This isn't just Bush-bashing.

I said this was about politics and economics, not oil specifically. Do I think W. wants all the oil in Iraq? No. But he does want a large U.S. role in the region for so-called "stability?" Absolutely. Is it worth American lives? It's debatable. But I say no, it's not. There are far safer, better and more noble ways to decrease our dependency on foreign oil.

However, I must say that if any president truly decides he or she wants to spread democracy to oppressed peoples around the world - not just the places where American economic interests are at stake - I will be the first one the join the fight. That is just and noble and worth lives, including my own. It's also something that could bring back the greatness of America in the eyes of the world.