Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
May 3rd, 2005  
gladius
 
You're right the media simply lacthed on to the no WMD's in Iraq because thats the only thing that they could make stick.

The ultimate threat was Saddam himself, he didn't exactly have a good track record of being a nice guy. The fact the media doesn't latch on to the mass graves is because it make a good case for the President. It all about media perspective, don't anyone tell me they are not biased.

There must be some really hard core hatin' of Bush to ignore the mass graves of hundreds of thousands.
May 3rd, 2005  
Arclight
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
Actually what he stated for his reasons to Congress on March 18, 2003 was this:

Quote:
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030319-1.html

The part about the WMDs was not part of his statement to Congress but was in his warning to the American people in his State of the Union speech on January 29, 2003. An excerpt follows:

Quote:
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves.

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.

Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why?

The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...tu.transcript/

So WMDs was a part of the reasoning for war with Iraq. It was never the only reason or even the main reason but the media and those opposed to the war would have you think otherwise. The main reason was Saddam's threat to the security of the nation, the Middle East, and the world. WMDs were only one aspect of that threat.
We went in to uphold United Nations Security Council resolutions without the support of the rest of the council. I don't see the logic in upholding a resolution of an organization we disregarded to invade. I may be wrong, but wasn't one of those resolutions concerning WMD's?

About the terrorist issue. Why Iraq? I'm fairly certain there are countries in the Middle East that do a better job of sponsoring terrorists.

Quote:
There must be some really hard core hatin' of Bush to ignore the mass graves of hundreds of thousands.
I don't hate President Bush. I just do not like the fact that he failed in his reasons to invade Iraq and then starts make these claims of liberating the people to hide that.
May 3rd, 2005  
gladius
 
If you don't hate him as you say, then you must agree that the discovery of these mass graves deserve priority from everyone including the media.

Whatever Bush did is now moot concerning the severety of this find.
--
Boots
May 3rd, 2005  
Jack_Mordino
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTop
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_Mordino
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7.62
The dirty . I've heard of a few thousand dead but 400,000.......you just don't hear about this in the news.
Heh, that's about the number of citizens killed by the U.S. bombs in the first Iraqi war. But the CNN never discloses such kinds of figures. Shhhhhhhh..........
Let me put it this way. You cannot post things like that without posting a verifiable source (link, book, etc.).
If you want hard facts then you give me first some hard facts about the nuclear and biological weapons that Hussein was "about" to launch on the West. Undoubtlessly Hussein was a dictator, but this is not a reason to invade and kill all the while in other parts of the world (my country included, period 1967-1974) dictatorships were nurtured and maintained by the CIA. Need facts on that? read "The CIA and the cult of intelligence" by Victor Marchetti and John Marks, ex-CIA agents. (There was a lawsuit filed by the CIA against the authors to forbid its print but it was finally printed with a number of lines deleted).

It's all so clear: Western economies depend on oil. Nobody wants a gung-ho dictator jeopardizing the largest reserve on earth. Let's teach him a lesson and have the added benefit of selling Coca-cola, McDonalds and Marlborough to the locals. Can't do it the easy way? No problem, we have the F16s and the M16's for the job. Fear of political cost? Persuade everyone that the mad dictator is about to kill everyone on the planet and that your invasion is a crusade to save the world. Smart huh? It's no wonder most folks fell to this folly as media in most countries are indirectly government-controlled. Let's put it another way: would you think that those billions of dollars spent for the last war and the occupation are spent for the liberation of the locals? Don't think so... Such kindness has never happened in the history of mankind...

And about the US bombing: On the 1990-1991 war the total bomb tonnage that fell on Iraq was more than that of the Vietnam war, which was more than the total (all countries) of WWII! And those bombs didn't fall in the middle of the desert I assure you... I don't say that the innocent killings were done intently but I doubt that any US official cared the last bit if this torrent of bombs killed innocents or not. Surely it was a war and in war innocents die too. What REALLY bothers me is this constant bombardment of the message "we are the good guys that went there to teach them democracy and save them". It has started to look like Christianism, on whose name some of the worst crimes and mass killings have happened in history. At least Hussein never pretended to be "the good"...
May 3rd, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Nice Rhetoric .....Looks good on ya. So are we to assume you cannot provide the facts to lend creedence to your claim of 400,000 civilian causalties during the air phase of Desert Shield/Desert Storm?
May 3rd, 2005  
Jack_Mordino
 
 
Glad you "liked" what I said. We are discussing here, instead of just "rhetorizing" me why don't you put up your views on the matter? Perhaps it's hard to face the truth sometimes but that's the way it is.
My credence about the bombings is as much as your president's about the existence of WMDs in Iraq. What do you have to say about that?
And one more thing about credences and "hard facts": It is a proven fact (in England for example, refer to Tony Blair's trial records for hard facts since you crave for them so much) that news and events can very easily be forged. This is a common policy of all western media, which are controlled by governments that try to lead the population into a certain belief. This importance of media control was understood after the conclusion that the Vietnam war was lost mainly because of the political backlash and low morale that was caused by uncensored reports of losses and various other hard-to-swallow war facts. The biggest trial on that was the "Desert Shiled/Storm" where censorship was paramount and everyone thought he was watching the war on his TV set whereas what he was watching was only what the US government allowed him to see. The conclusion: I will not accept as a hard fact a CNN or other Network (TV or internet) report on something. It will still be "news" for me but not hard fact, not unless it is confirmed by an independent network or organization.
May 3rd, 2005  
DTop
 
 
Jack, this is the second time I'm asking you for sources for your information. Read the rules on this forum, specifically rule 6. PM me if you have further questions.
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...pic.php?t=9654
May 3rd, 2005  
Jack_Mordino
 
 
I have no direct access to the records that state about the 400,000 deaths in the first Iraqi war. However, the guy that gave me the information is a well informed politically-aware person and if you allow me some time then I will provide the facts. Perhaps I'll have to do some digging...

About the forum rules: Red-font warning me is not the way to go. I didn't insult anyone. Perhaps it is annoying to see views such as mine but this is supposed to be an international forum. If views different than the ones that sound good to american ears cannot be posted then by all means state it. The hard fact situation is in fact so complicated that in the very core of it the only hard fact one can have about an event is to be there and see it by himself.
May 3rd, 2005  
DTop
 
 
I'll tell you what Jack, I'll moderate and you can research your information before you post. How's that sound? Obey the rules here and you can have a respectful discussion, create your own rules and you can post elsewhere. It's your choice.
I use the red font to differentiate these comments from a normal post. Don't like it? Complain to the admin (Redleg).
May 3rd, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Sometimes the question I have is why is everyone so carried away by WMDs? Remember that was not the only reason to go to Iraq. Why are the other successes coming from Iraq completely ignored? If these mass graves are the last of their kind in Iraq, wouldn't have it been worth it, even just a little?