Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Friend of the Left

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Friend of the Left
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 13, 2005 01:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Why are all those the radical left attempt to shield and protect mass murderers? Also the memory of those dear departed.

Lenin
Stalin
Ho Chi Minh
Pot Pol
Mao-tsi-tung
Kim Jong-Il
Kim Il Sung
Fidel Castro
Saddam Hussein

Monday, June 13, 2005 12:07 p.m. EDT
Saddam's Holocaust

Top House Democrat Charlie Rangel still refuses to apologize for comparing President Bush's alleged "deception" over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to Hitler's extermination of 6 million Jews.

But if Rangel is looking for evidence of the real Holocaust in Iraq, he need only pick up a copy of last Sunday's Hartford Courant.

Relying on congressional studies as well as reports from an array of human rights groups, the Courant put together a frightening list of Saddam's atrocities.
A few highlights:


The Iraqi dictator executed as many as 1 million Iraqis during his 24 years in power.

17,000 Iraqis were "disappeared" during the same period.

Saddam had 40 of his own relatives murdered.

Human Rights Watch estimates that Hussein's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and as many as 100,000 - in attacks that used chemical and nerve agents on 40 Kurdish villages. The largest attack was on Halabjah, which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths.

A total of 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during Saddam's blitzkreig.

In 1998 alone, 4,000 prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib.-

3,000 prisoners were executed at the Mahjar prison from 1993 to 1998.

2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997 and 1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign."

At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.

Saddam committed sixteen violations of the Hague and Geneva conventions during his 1990 invasion of Kuwait, according to a Pentagon report, including torture by amputation, electric shock, rape, forced self-cannibalism and dismemberment.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/13/121441.shtml

IP: Logged

Johnny
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Egypt
Registered: Apr 2010

posted June 13, 2005 09:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Johnny     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah, anyone who is an assassin before they become a dictator is bad news, IMO.

IP: Logged

Tranquil Poet
unregistered
posted June 13, 2005 10:01 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
LOL @ newsmax

------------------

Gemini sun, Cancer rising, Taurus moon

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 15, 2005 10:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You need to work on reading with comprehension TP. Those statistics came from a story in the Hartford Courant.

Now TP, are you disputing the facts of the story?

Johnny Yeah, socialist dictators murder their way to the top.

IP: Logged

Tranquil Poet
unregistered
posted June 15, 2005 11:23 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
hey jwhop. You seem to love the word left so much.


Why don't you just tatoo it on your a$$.


------------------
Gemini sun, Cancer rising, Taurus moon

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 15, 2005 11:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm not into personal body art TP.

I would rather tattoo the words leftist moron on leftist foreheads. That way we would all know who they are without having to listen to their leftist drivel.

IP: Logged

Johnny
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Egypt
Registered: Apr 2010

posted June 15, 2005 03:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Johnny     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
But, Jwhop, don't you think that would probably violate some kind of federal ordinance or something?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 15, 2005 03:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You're probably right Johnny but I'm willing to take that chance How about you?

IP: Logged

Johnny
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Egypt
Registered: Apr 2010

posted June 15, 2005 03:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Johnny     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, I still think we ought to get a permit.

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted June 18, 2005 11:01 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Saddam is going to be tried on charges that date back to bush sr's support for him throughout the 80's when he killed with mass executions...and from the 91 uprising that bush sr directly called upon the iraqi people to perform...the largest mass graves uncovered so far came from this 91 uprising.....this report was written over a year later....when bush sr and his secretary of defense dick cheney were still in office allowing saddam to continue with his cheat and retreat tactics......


************

ENDLESS TORMENT

The 1991 Uprising in Iraq And Its Aftermath

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
Copyright June 1992 by Human Rights Watch

All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Card Catalog Number: 92-72351

ISBN 1-56432-069-3

Summary

Saddam Hussein's record of brutally suppressing even mild dissent is well-known. When the March 1991 uprising confronted his regime with the most serious internal challenge it had ever faced, government forces responded with atrocities on a predictably massive scale. The human rights repercussions continue to be felt throughout the country.

In their attempts to retake cities, and after consolidating control, loyalist forces killed thousands of unarmed civilians by firing indiscriminately into residential areas; executing young people on the streets, in homes and in hospitals; rounding up suspects, especially young men, during house-to-house searches, and arresting them without charge or shooting them en masse; and using helicopters to attack unarmed civilians as they fled the cities.

One year later, the fate of thousands of Kurds and Shi'a who were seized during the suppression of the uprising remains unknown. While many are believed to be in detention, the government has provided little information about their location and legal status.

The rebels also committed gross abuses during the uprising, summarily executing suspected members of the security forces, including many who were in custody. Middle East Watch also condemns these abuses, though we note that they were not so systematic and sustained as those committed by the government.


The revelations began during the very first days of the revolt and have continued since. When rebels seized government buildings, they freed prisoners and captured huge amounts of documentary evidence of past abuses. Later, the flight of refugees beyond the reach of Saddam made it possible for an unprecedented number of Iraqis to speak publicly about past abuses. Since then, continuing rebel control over much of northeastern Iraq has enabled Kurds and foreigners to travel extensively through the Kurdish countryside for the first time since the Baghdad regime depopulated and sealed it off.[13]

Human rights workers are only beginning to sift through the mounds of documents, videotapes and material evidence captured from Iraqi security agencies.[14] Forensic experts are examining several mass graves that may finally provide answers to the fate of tens of thousands C Kurdish sources estimate the number at 182,000 C of Kurds who disappeared during the late 1980s in the so-called Anfal Operation, Saddam's campaign to depopulate the Kurdish countryside.[15]

The refugees interviewed for this report provided ample testimony about past abuses. It was difficult to find a Kurd who had not lost one or more relatives during the Anfal. In the refugee camps in Iran, MEW also encountered survivors of the 1988 chemical gas attack on the border town of Halabja in which 5,000 persons are thought to have died. Many had fled from repression before, and a 35-year-old accountant interviewed by MEW was surely not the only three-time refugee: he fled in 1975 during clashes between Baghdad and Mullah Mustapha Barzani's pesh merga (Kurdish rebels), in 1988 when Iraqi jets dropped chemical gas on Halabja, and again in 1991 after the defeat of the uprising in Suleimaniyya.

The 1991 uprising was the most serious internal challenge Saddam Hussein has had to face during his twelve years in power. Every major city in the north and south of the country except Mosul fell into the hands of rebels and their sympathizers. Iraqi soldiers, confronted with a popular uprising immediately after being routed in the Gulf war, deserted or defected by the thousands. The survival of the regime was very much in doubt for about two weeks until loyalist troops, led by the elite Republican Guard, began finally to extinguish the insurrection city by city. By the time it was over, thousands of civilians and government forces had been killed[74] and countless atrocities had been committed by both sides.

Once the loyalist troops regrouped and mounted their counteroffensive, only massive foreign assistance or intervention could have saved the ill-equipped and inexperienced rebels. With little more than Kalashnikovs, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and a few captured tanks and artillery pieces, the Shi'a and Kurdish rebels were almost defenseless against helicopter gunships and indiscriminate mortar and artillery barrages. They had few anti-tank weapons and even fewer surface-to-air missiles.

The civilian toll was high throughout the country. Thousands of unarmed civilians were killed by indiscriminate fire from loyalist tanks, artillery cannons and helicopters; and later, when security forces rolled into a city and executed persons on the streets, in homes and in hospitals. The violence was heaviest in the south, where a smaller portion of the local population had fled than in Kurdish areas, owing partly to the danger of escaping through the south's flat, exposed terrain. Those who remained in the south were at the mercy of advancing government troops, who went through neighborhoods, summarily executing hundreds of young men and rounding up thousands of others.[78]

Iraqi authorities have long encouraged soldiers to keep goods they seize during their operations. Officers tell their subordinates, "The heads of the people are for me, their property, for you," ("Ru'ous al-nas ilayya, wa'amwaalihum ilayka") according to a 22-year-old Kurd from Sayyid Saddiq. Whether apocryphal or not, this motto seemed to have inspired soldiers in much of post-uprising Iraq. Their plundering of stores and homes was likened by several refugees to the looting of Kuwaiti private property by Iraqi soldiers during the early days of the occupation of that country.[88]

U.S. Policy: "You Broke Saddam's Leg and Told Us To Break His Head"[91]

With bewilderment and bitterness, many of the refugees asked MEW interviewers why the U.S. administration failed to support the uprising after having incited Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. The answer remains a matter of speculation. The contradictions of U.S. policy may have reflected a lack of sufficient concern for the consequences of the call to rebel; it may have been due to miscalculation; or it may be attributable to a preoccupation with political considerations unrelated to the well-being of the residents of Iraq. Whatever the reasons, the Bush Administration contributed to the making of a tragedy that left thousands of civilians massacred by Saddam's troops and nearly two million forced to flee their homes.

The strongest signal of U.S. support for a popular rebellion came toward the end of the air war, when President Bush declared on February 15; "[T]here's another way for the bloodshed to stop, and that is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands to force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside."[92] This remark was heard by Iraqis on the Voice of America.[93]

Soon after the uprising began, however, fears of a disintegrating Iraq led the Administration to distance itself from the insurgents. Officials downplayed the significance of the revolts and spelled out a policy of nonintervention in Iraq's internal affairs. On March 5, Rear Admiral Mike McConnell, director of intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that "chaotic and spontaneous" uprisings were under way in thirteen Iraqi cities, but stated the Pentagon's view that Saddam would prevail because of the rebels' "lack of organization and leadership."[94] White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater appeared to discount the insurgents when he stated the same day, "It's not clear to us what the purpose or extent of the fighting is."[95]

Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney said on March 5 that "it would be very difficult for us to hold the coalition together for any particular course of action dealing with internal Iraqi politics, and I don't think, at this point, our writ extends to trying to move inside Iraq."[96] Marine Major General Martin Brandtner, deputy director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added the same day, "There is no move on the [part of] U.S. forces...to let any weapons slip through [to the rebels], or to play any role whatsoever in fomenting or assisting any side."[97] State Department spokesman Richard Boucher explained on March 6: "We don't think that outside powers should be interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq."

On March 7, when the rebels in the south were in control of several cities and the revolt in the north was gathering momentum, Secretary of State James Baker was asked if the United States preferred continued Baath Party rule to an Islamic revolution in Iraq. Baker replied: "I'm not going to make a choice because I'm not sure that's what the choices are necessarily. I will say this C we do not want to see any changes in the territorial integrity of Iraq and we do not want to see other countries actively making efforts to encourage changes."

Consequently, U.S. occupation forces who were stationed only a few miles from al-Nasiriyya, Samawa and Basra did nothing to help the rebels who rose up in these cities. Soldiers watched helplessly as Iraqi troops devastated the cities, and wounded civilians fled on foot to U.S. bases nearby telling of the atrocities that were taking place. Thomas Isom, a U.S. Army lieutenant, described what he saw from his post at the edge of Samawa:

They fired at the hospital twice. We were watching them shell the train station and other small houses. This was simply designed to kill civilians or terrorize them, which it did. It did not have a military purpose, just artillery impacts on large concentrations of civilians.

An officer at the same post said of Iraq's Soviet-made H-18 helicopters that were firing rockets at Samawa residents: "We could have used our own helicopters to take them out. We could hear them come over our heads."[98]

The Administration did sternly warn Iraqi authorities on March 7 against the use of chemical weapons during the unrest,[99] but equivocated about Iraq's use of helicopter gunships against civilians. President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker stated in mid-March that helicopter gunships should not be used, but other Administration officials gave conflicting signals. In the end, the aircraft were employed with impunity to attack rebels and civilians alike, and proved instrumental in quelling the insurrection. Inquiries to Administration spokespersons about why the warnings had not been enforced met with equivocation.

The decision to permit Iraq to use helicopters in suppressing the revolt has been the subject of lively debate. Some believe that the rebels would have triumphed had helicopters been included in the Allies' cease-fire ban on flights by Iraqi aircraft. Others believe that a ban on helicopters would have merely prolonged the bloodshed without altering the outcome.


But on March 21, Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams acknowledged that U.S. policy regarding the use of helicopters was not clear. While admitting that "dozens" of helicopters were being used against the rebels, Williams declined to say whether U.S. forces would fire at these aircraft. He answered affirmatively when asked: "Is our policy somewhat ambiguous?"


Deputy White House spokesman Roman Popadiuk, when asked on March 29 about Kurdish requests for U.S. attacks on the helicopters, responded as if the matter concerned only which side prevailed in the conflict, not whether the matter was one of preventing gross human rights abuses: "The issue of internal unrest in Iraq is an issue that has to be settled between the government and the people of Iraq. It's a decision for the people of Iraq to make."[106]

After Iraqi military forces crushed the uprising, the U.S. continued to stress the limits of its role in Iraq.[107] Secretary Baker, on April 7 in Turkey, condemned Saddam's "crimes against the Iraqi people," but stated "We are not prepared to go down the slippery slope of being sucked into a civil war [sic]. We cannot police what goes on inside Iraq, and we cannot be the arbiters of who shall govern Iraq....We repeatedly said that could only be done by the Iraqi people."


Meanwhile, the administration moved to counter the accusation that it had encouraged the uprising that led to the humanitarian disaster. In a carefully crafted statement, State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said on April 2 that the Bush Administration had "never, ever stated as either a military or a political goal...the removal of Saddam Hussein." She said that although the United States had said that normal relations with Iraq were "next to impossible" while Saddam Hussein was in power, it did not "cal[l] on [the] Iraqi people to put their lives on the line to overthrow the current leadership."

President Bush insisted three days later,

I have not misled anybody about the intentions of the United States of America. I don't think the Shiites in the south, those who are unhappy with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad or the Kurds in the north, ever felt that the United States would come to their assistance to overthrow this man.

The president also claimed, "I made clear from the very beginning that it was not an objective of the coalition or the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein."

These protestations rang hollow to many of the Shi'a and Kurds interviewed by MEW after the uprising who had clearly expected to receive U.S. help once they rose up against Saddam. A young Kurdish refugee in Iran told MEW, "You [the U.S.] broke Saddam's leg, and told us to break his head. And then?" He stretched out his hands and raised his eyebrows, as if to answer his own question.
************

quote:
To be against removing Saddam Hussein is effectively a vote for Saddam Hussein--jwhop

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 18, 2005 12:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
"I made clear from the very beginning that it was not an objective of the coalition or the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein."

So Petron, what's your point? It wasn't the objective of the UN, the UN Security Council, the coalition, or the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait.

Is it your opinion the US or the coalition should have overthrown Hussein by advancing to Baghdad in 1991.... action not authorized by UNSCR 660 or UNSCR 678?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (Condemning the Invasion of Kuwait by Iraq), S.C. res. 660, 45 U.N. SCOR at 19, U.N. Doc. S/RES/660 (1990).

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2932nd meeting, on 2 August 1990
The Security Council,
Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,
Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,
Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;
2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

RESOLUTION 678 (1990)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2963rd meeting on 29 November 1990
The Security Council, Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.

Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,

Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of international peace and security, Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

So Petron, what is your rhetoric if not more talking out of both sides of leftists mouths? There was nothing authorizing the coalition to remove Saddam Hussein. Bush Sr. and the coalition acted within the scope of UN Resolutions to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait and nothing more.

What's really comical is that if Bush Sr and the coalition had attacked Iraq proper, arrested, deposed and prosecuted Saddam in 1991, leftists all over the world would have been wetting themselves. So to would they have wet themselves if the US had intervened inside Iraq to protect Iraqi citizens when Saddam attacked them in the south....just as they have been wetting themselves for the last 14 years over every action taken against their little leftist, socialist brother, Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad.

Right, marching in the streets of America, signing petitions to impeach Bush under the auspices of the Workers World Party/International Answer and wetting themselves over the war to remove Saddam IS a vote for Saddam.

Not that I don't appreciate all the reading material you posted Petron because I would have been in favor of removing/killing Saddam in 1991.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 19, 2005 08:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The ultimate point here is that the left is no more a friend of Saddam than the right is, and that you should probably stop trying to insinuate falacies.

IP: Logged

Saturn's Child
unregistered
posted June 19, 2005 09:02 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
AG, didn't you know??? According to JWop, or so it seems by his postings, there are no right wing morons...they are so supremely superior....it only those who lean to the left that are moronic! Now really, you knew that didn't you?

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted June 19, 2005 11:30 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

the fact is that those who materially and financially supported saddam in the 80's are the only "friends of saddam"
these are the people who were friends to saddam when he committed his most heinous atrocities......when saddam repressed his people in the most deadly fashion of his career......with chemical weapons....
they actually say things like..."the enemy of my enemy is my friend".....
as bush sr. said....it was never his policy to remove saddam.....so that was his "vote" at the security council...
they topped it off with one of the biggest military blunders of modern times when bush sr. called for the iraqis to revolt, then, at that critical moment....did nothing substantial while fully aware saddam was committing his largest mass executions....
these same people were still in office a year later when it was clear saddam would continue in breach of the ceasefire.....

but of course...now...... i'm an idiotic leftist moron if i dont want to vote for these same people......

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a