Saddam in court: 'The real criminal is Bush' - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

scamdotcom · 07-01-2004, 11:46 AM

I 100000000000% agree.

ADL Colin · 07-01-2004, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
They leave out a little part of the gassing story during the gulf war . Bush the first told the kurds to rise up against your leader ,we will help you. They rose up and we didnt help them. Also seems lately we have been doing a nice amount of torture and rape in Iraqi jails . Where up to 90% of those held are innocent according to the red cross. Here is the question once again.

If he was such a monster why didnt they rise up and have revolution? This is what people with nothing to lose do. People say because they were afraid of Saddam. THey were afraid of Saddam but not of the most powerful army in the world makes no sense.

I am sorry the just because the news said it its true doesnt work for me anymore. Also why did the American government support such a monster if they knew all these terrible things he did for all those years.

Oh, boy. You have it all mixed up. Kurds were gassed in late 1980s. Gulf war was 1990. The no fly zone was established in the North by France, UK, and US to protect Kurds against Saddam.

directfiesta · 07-01-2004, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
Oh, boy. You have it all mixed up. Kurds were gassed in late 1980s. Gulf war was 1990. The no fly zone was established in the North by France, UK, and US to protect Kurds against Saddam.

1988... But this is an intersting ( Ok long, but some have more attention span than Bush...) article:

BOLD is by me as CliffNotes...

Quote:

New York Times
January 31, 2003

A War Crime or an Act of War? By Stephen C. Pelletiere

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. ? It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent ? that is, a cyanide-based gas ? which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades ? not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition ? thanks to United Nations sanctions ? Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."

http://britons4peace.org.uk/articles/raju2.html

So the Kurds could be considered as " colateral damage " ....

Nothing has only one side ....

ADL Colin · 07-01-2004, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nyght
Oh yeah, Saddam informed our government that he was going to kick the crap out of Kuwait and then our ambassador to Iraq gave him the go ahead.

You're wrong. Here is the transcript. You can clearly see that the conversation left with Saddam intending to reach an agreement with Kuwait. There is no "go ahead".

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

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?
My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.
I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.

HUSSEIN: We do not ask people not to be concerned when peace is at issue. This is a noble human feeling which we all feel. It is natural for you as a superpower to be concerned. But what we ask is not to express your concern in a way that would make an aggressor believe that he is getting support for his aggression.
We want to find a just solution which will give us our rights but not deprive others of their rights. But at the same time, we want the others to know that our patience is running out regarding their action, which is harming even the milk our children drink, and the pensions of the widow who lost her husband during the war, and the pensions of the orphans who lost their parents.
As a country, we have the right to prosper. We lost so many opportunities, and the others should value the Iraqi role in their protection. Even this Iraqi [the President points to their interpreter] feels bitter like all other Iraqis. We are not aggressors but we do not accept aggression either. We sent them envoys and handwritten letters. We tried everything. We asked the Servant of the Two Shrines -- King Fahd -- to hold a four-member summit, but he suggested a meeting between the Oil Ministers. We agreed. And as you know, the meeting took place in Jidda. They reached an agreement which did not express what we wanted, but we agreed.
Only two days after the meeting, the Kuwaiti Oil Minister made a statement that contradicted the agreement. We also discussed the issue during the Baghdad summit. I told the Arab Kings and Presidents that some brothers are fighting an economic war against us. And that not all wars use weapons and we regard this kind of war as a military action against us. Because if the capability of our army is lowered then, if Iran renewed the war, it could achieve goals which it could not achieve before. And if we lowered the standard of our defenses, then this could encourage Israel to attack us. I said that before the Arab Kings and Presidents. Only I did not mention Kuwait and U.A.E. by name, because they were my guests.
Before this, I had sent them envoys reminding them that our war had included their defense. Therefore the aid they gave us should not be regarded as a debt. We did not more than the United States would have done against someone who attacked its interests.
I talked about the same thing with a number of other Arab states. I explained the situation t brother King Fahd a few times, by sending envoys and on the telephone. I talked with brother King Hussein and with Sheik Zaid after the conclusion of the summit. I walked with the Sheik to the plane when he was leaving Mosul. He told me, "Just wait until I get home." But after he had reached his destination, the statements that came from there were very bad -- not from him, but from his Minister of Oil.
And after the Jidda agreement, we received some intelligence that they were talking of sticking to the agreement for two months only. Then they would change their policy. Now tell us, if the American President found himself in this situation, what would he do? I said it was very difficult for me to talk about these issues in public. But we must tell the Iraqi people who face economic difficulties who was responsible for that.

GLASPIE: I spent four beautiful years in Egypt.

HUSSEIN: The Egyptian people are kind and good and ancient. The oil people are supposed to help the Egyptian people, but they are mean beyond belief. It is painful to admit it, but some of them are disliked by Arabs because of their greed.

GLASPIE: Mr. President, it would be helpful if you could give us an assessment of the effort made by your Arab brothers and whether they have achieved anything.

HUSSEIN: On this subject, we agreed with President Mubarak that the Prime Minister of Kuwait would meet with the deputy chairman of the Revolution Command Council in Saudi Arabia, because the Saudis initiated contact with us, aided by President Mubarak's efforts. He just telephoned me a short while ago to say the Kuwaitis have agreed to that suggestion.

GLASPIE: Congratulations.

HUSSEIN: A protocol meeting will be held in Saudi Arabia. Then the meeting will be transferred to Baghdad for deeper discussion directly between Kuwait and Iraq. We hope we will reach some result. We hope that the long-term view and the real interests will overcome Kuwaiti greed.

GLASPIE: May I ask you when you expect Sheik Saad to come to Baghdad? HUSSEIN: I suppose it would be on Saturday or Monday at the latest. I told brother Mubarak that the agreement should be in Baghdad Saturday or Sunday. You know that brother Mubarak's visits have always been a good omen.

GLASPIE: This is good news. Congratulations.

McKracken · 07-01-2004, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Babagirls
Saddam is the Devil in the Flesh. Too bad they dont have a Death Penalty over there.....hopefully they'll were willing to make an exception.

thats like bush saying to bad porn pedlers dont get to rot in jail lets make an exception....

i do not like bush nor saddam but to make exceptions to laws is one stupid idea!

sam from montreal · 07-01-2004, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
All this hate for Saddam please tell me three things he did to the American people I'm curious? Dont bring up the gassing of the kurds because our government was still behind him while that was happening. The picture everyone sees of Rumsfield shaking his hand that wasnt too long after the gassing happened.

ADL Colin · 07-01-2004, 12:07 PM

directfiesta, interesting article.

It will be interesting to see whether
the claims of the United States, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Commission for Human Rights and the International Federation of Human Rights League about Human Rights Violations in Iraq turn out to be true.

ADL Colin · 07-01-2004, 12:11 PM

Now I know how it is that people don't believe in the holocaust. ;-)

SuckOnThis · 07-01-2004, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
Iraq is not Oklahoma and stop thinking it is. It's a backward third world nationthat is berely out of the middle ages.

Actually before the sanctions Iraq was one of the more modern middle eastern countries and one of the best health care systems in the world.

ADL Colin · 07-01-2004, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SuckOnThis
Actually before the sanctions Iraq was one of the more modern middle eastern countries and one of the best health care systems in the world.

You mean before the Iran/Iraq war of 1980-1988 which killed a whole generation of young men and bankrupt the country leaving Iraq owning billions to foreign governments including Kuwait.

Why do you think he invaded Kuwait?

Webby · 07-01-2004, 01:14 PM

tony404 :

Quote:

All this hate for Saddam please tell me three things he did to the American people I'm curious? Dont bring up the gassing of the kurds because our government was still behind him while that was happening. The picture everyone sees of Rumsfield shaking his hand that wasnt too long after the gassing happened.

I had to check the date today and establish that it was July 1st 2004 and rechecked the meaning of "sovereignty" in the dictationary.

When Saddam was in court this day, what the fuck does the US military have to do with "vetting" the court tape visuals and deciding on the release (or not), of the sound track of proceedings in the courtroom of a sovereign nation???

If Iraq "supposed" to have this "sovereignty" on June 30th, - (tho this may have occurred earlier to allow a flippant photo op for Bush at the NATO summit), - no military from any other country needs to be in the decision makeing process of "editing" court proceedings.

It is clear the "new" government of Iraq is no more than the next model of the "Iraqi Governing Council" under the command of "Desert Boot" Bremner since the US, once again, intervened at the final stages of the "appointment" of mutually agreeable members and pressured for their own "candidates" with ties to various US "agencies". This must be "democracy" US style or something.

Saddam may have been hitting near some truth when he questioned the credentials of this court. It is probably fortunate for the legal process that this man not have a trial until after democratic elections in Iraq and the appointment of a legitimate government. Or will the US military still be editing the tapes then???

This is a farce...

genomega · 07-01-2004, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by asher
just curious, did saddam actually break any laws? up until this point im not aware of a single one that hes broken.

its also a shame that GWB isnt held accountable for the numerous laws and treaties that he has broken, i guess its just about who has the most power

Proving once again how scary these people are.

ADL Colin · 07-01-2004, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Webby
tony404 :

I had to check the date today and establish that it was July 1st 2004 and rechecked the meaning of "sovereignty" in the dictationary.

When Saddam was in court this day, what the fuck does the US military have to do with "vetting" the court tape visuals and deciding on the release (or not), of the sound track of proceedings in the courtroom of a sovereign nation???

If Iraq "supposed" to have this "sovereignty" on June 30th, - (tho this may have occurred earlier to allow a flippant photo op for Bush at the NATO summit), - no military from any other country needs to be in the decision makeing process of "editing" court proceedings.

It is clear the "new" government of Iraq is no more than the next model of the "Iraqi Governing Council" under the command of "Desert Boot" Bremner since the US, once again, intervened at the final stages of the "appointment" of mutually agreeable members and pressured for their own "candidates" with ties to various US "agencies". This must be "democracy" US style or something.

Saddam may have been hitting near some truth when he questioned the credentials of this court. It is probably fortunate for the legal process that this man not have a trial until after democratic elections in Iraq and the appointment of a legitimate government. Or will the US military still be editing the tapes then??? This is a farce...

Gee, the US military doesn't want Saddam sending messages out over the airwaves to whatever partisans are left with AK47s and RPGs.

Basic_man · 07-01-2004, 02:04 PM

Burn in hell BUSH too!

TweetyBird · 07-01-2004, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta

and your point is ?

directfiesta · 07-01-2004, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TweetyBird
and your point is ?

LOL... didn't want to ... hummmm.... insult your nickname...

Khun · 07-01-2004, 03:31 PM

Every time I hear it meantioned that he keeps calling himself the president, I can't help but think of Cartman saying "You must respect my authority".

MrJackMeHoff · 07-01-2004, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Khun
Every time I hear it meantioned that he keeps calling himself the president, I can't help but think of Cartman saying "You must respect my authority".

its authoritah

Face (o_0) · 07-01-2004, 04:25 PM

didnt you guys see the south park movie ?

TheWildcard · 07-01-2004, 04:29 PM

I agree with Saddam.

goBigtime · 07-01-2004, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Dont bring up the gassing of the kurds because our government was still behind him while that was happening.[/B]

Didn't we give him the gas?

theking · 07-01-2004, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by goBigtime
Didn't we give him the gas?

No.

directfiesta · 07-01-2004, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
No.

LOL...

Just like the USA didn't invade Iraq....

The " Coalition" did....

Still playing with words...

So, new question:

Were the gases or the components to fabricate the gases supplied by US companies????

pimplink · 07-01-2004, 05:32 PM

Both of them is criminal!

theking · 07-01-2004, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
LOL...

Just like the USA didn't invade Iraq....

The " Coalition" did....

Still playing with words...

So, new question:

Were the gases or the components to fabricate the gases supplied by US companies????

Maybe...maybe not. I do know that some American companies sold Iraq materials that could be used for dual use. I have dual use materials in my house...bought from the local grocery...hardware store...and a nursery from which...if I chose to...I could make bombs...poisons...or poisonous gas. Maybe it was the Russians...French or Germans...as they supplied 99 plus % of his weapons of war.

69pornlinks · 07-01-2004, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
All this hate for Saddam please tell me three things he did to the American people I'm curious? Dont bring up the gassing of the kurds because our government was still behind him while that was happening. The picture everyone sees of Rumsfield shaking his hand that wasnt too long after the gassing happened.

, you're talking to the average american, they usually have the brain the size of a pea and they also don't think for themselves

theking · 07-02-2004, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 69pornlinks
, you're talking to the average american, they usually have the brain the size of a pea and they also don't think for themselves

pea brain.

jayeff · 07-02-2004, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
You mean before the Iran/Iraq war of 1980-1988 which killed a whole generation of young men and bankrupt the country leaving Iraq owning billions to foreign governments including Kuwait.

Why do you think he invaded Kuwait?

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

As late as 1988 we we still turning a blind eye to Saddam's use of chemical weapons and I don't suppose the invasion of Kuwait could have had anything to do with Kuwait slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields or because Kuwait was claiming Province 19, part of Iraq, as their territory?

But frankly I couldn't care less what happens to Saddam Hussein and what has happened in the past is the past. What I object to is that we have been lied to and we are still being lied to by the current administration. It is only because of those lies that we consented to the loss of hundreds of american lives and billions of dollars of taxpayers money.

First we were told this was about WMD. Then we were told it was about freeing the Iraqi people. But if this claim holds any more truth than its predecessor, the implication is that the US no longer has any objection to an Iran-Iraq alliance.

The math is simple enough: 60% of Iraqis are Shi'ite moslems whose spiritual home is Iran. In truly free elections, the Shi'ites will end up in control and that will surely mean a close relationship with Iran. That puts the world's second- and fourth-largest oil reserves firmly into anti-US hands and will hasten the inevitable overthrow of the unpopular regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (homes of the largest and third-largest oil reserves).

In other words, if current White House statements are to be believed, we are witnessing a 180 degree turn in our mid-east foreign policy. Not only are we apparently abandoning 70+ years of ensuring the instability of the region, but we are doing so in the most self-destructive manner possible. All this because we are concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people...

Does that really sound very likely?

genomega · 07-02-2004, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pilldude
FREE SADDAM! KILL BUSH!

Heh, the men in black will pay you a visit shortly.

theking · 07-02-2004, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jayeff
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

As late as 1988 we we still turning a blind eye to Saddam's use of chemical weapons and I don't suppose the invasion of Kuwait could have had anything to do with Kuwait slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields or because Kuwait was claiming Province 19, part of Iraq, as their territory?

But frankly I couldn't care less what happens to Saddam Hussein and what has happened in the past is the past. What I object to is that we have been lied to and we are still being lied to by the current administration. It is only because of those lies that we consented to the loss of hundreds of american lives and billions of dollars of taxpayers money.

First we were told this was about WMD. Then we were told it was about freeing the Iraqi people. But if this claim holds any more truth than its predecessor, the implication is that the US no longer has any objection to an Iran-Iraq alliance.

The math is simple enough: 60% of Iraqis are Shi'ite moslems whose spiritual home is Iran. In truly free elections, the Shi'ites will end up in control and that will surely mean a close relationship with Iran. That puts the world's second- and fourth-largest oil reserves firmly into anti-US hands and will hasten the inevitable overthrow of the unpopular regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (homes of the largest and third-largest oil reserves).

In other words, if current White House statements are to be believed, we are witnessing a 180 degree turn in our mid-east foreign policy. Not only are we apparently abandoning 70+ years of ensuring the instability of the region, but we are doing so in the most self-destructive manner possible. All this because we are concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people...

Does that really sound very likely?

Some of your premises are not "very likely".

jimmyf · 07-02-2004, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pleasurepays
extensive and brutal secret police, torture, rape, executions, machine gunning crowds and gassing entire villiages of men, women and children tends to have that effect.

if they could get past the Bush hateing I think most would agree with.

fr33s3x · 07-02-2004, 06:22 AM

i agree

jimmyf · 07-02-2004, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RocHard
Has everyone here forgotten what Iraq did to Kuwait?

Anyone remember?

Looks like they don't give a shit.

theking · 07-02-2004, 06:28 AM

In addition...if I am not mistaken..."Province 19"...is Kuwait...and it was Iraq claiming "Province 19" is a part of Iraq.

jimmyf · 07-02-2004, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly

And Saddam was widley loved by a lot of his people, because he was better than the guy before him.

you can't be serious

he worked for the guy before him

theking · 07-02-2004, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf
you can't be serious

he worked for the guy before him

"The guy before him" was his cousin...if I am not mistaken...and he was a hit man for him.

jimmyf · 07-02-2004, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fusionx
Do you know what the word "allies" actually means?

does not have a clue

ADL Colin · 07-02-2004, 06:34 AM

jayeff,

After Saddam conquered Kuwait he called it "province 19". Saddam's claim is that since Kuwait and Iraq were both once part of the Ottoman Empire then Kuwait should really be part of Iraq. By his logic, Iraq should be part of Turkey and all of Europe should be part of some "Neo-Roman Empire". None of which should matter as Iraq had agreed to recognize Kuwait 30 years before the Gulf War.

theking · 07-02-2004, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
jayeff,

After Saddam conquered Kuwait he called it "province 19". Saddam's claim is that since Kuwait and Iraq were both once part of the Ottoman Empire then Kuwait should really be part of Iraq. By his logic, Iraq should be part of Turkey and all of Europe should be part of some "Neo-Roman Empire". None of which should matter as Iraq had agreed to recognize Kuwait 30 years before the Gulf War.

It is difficult for me to understand why people...such as jayeff...want to enter into "debate" (to use his term)...when they are so misinformed. BTW jaeff...I do not twist facts or use innuendo in "debate"...to use your term once again.

07-01-2004, 11:46 AM	#51
scamdotcom Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Toronto Posts: 138	I 100000000000% agree. __________________ Report Scams Here - scam.com

07-01-2004, 12:07 PM	#57
ADL Colin Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Tube Titans, USA Posts: 11,929	directfiesta, interesting article. It will be interesting to see whether the claims of the United States, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Commission for Human Rights and the International Federation of Human Rights League about Human Rights Violations in Iraq turn out to be true. __________________ Adult Date Link - $50 PPS starting NOW! -- good and JUICY! skype = "adultdatelink"

07-01-2004, 12:11 PM	#58
ADL Colin Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Tube Titans, USA Posts: 11,929	Now I know how it is that people don't believe in the holocaust. ;-) __________________ Adult Date Link - $50 PPS starting NOW! -- good and JUICY! skype = "adultdatelink"

07-01-2004, 02:04 PM	#64
Basic_man Programming King Pin Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Montreal Posts: 27,360	Burn in hell BUSH too! __________________ UUGallery Builder - automated photo/video gallery plugin for Wordpress! Stop looking! Checkout Naked Hosting, online since 1999 !

07-01-2004, 03:31 PM	#67
Khun Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: TN Posts: 1,239	Every time I hear it meantioned that he keeps calling himself the president, I can't help but think of Cartman saying "You must respect my authority". __________________ Sig is on vacation... (I wish I could vacation as long as my sig has...)

07-01-2004, 04:25 PM	#69
Face (o_0) So Fucking Banned Join Date: May 2004 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 2,617	didnt you guys see the south park movie ?

07-01-2004, 04:29 PM	#70
TheWildcard So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 4,759	I agree with Saddam.

07-01-2004, 05:32 PM	#74
pimplink Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Closer than you think Posts: 9,535	Both of them is criminal! __________________ Need Mainstream Content and SEO? SEO * Website Copy * Blogs Blogging - PR Work - Forum Marketing - Social Marketing - Link building - Articles 100% Guaranteed Content!

07-02-2004, 06:22 AM	#82
fr33s3x Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,064	i agree __________________

07-02-2004, 06:28 AM	#84
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	In addition...if I am not mistaken..."Province 19"...is Kuwait...and it was Iraq claiming "Province 19" is a part of Iraq. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

07-02-2004, 06:34 AM	#88
ADL Colin Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Tube Titans, USA Posts: 11,929	jayeff, After Saddam conquered Kuwait he called it "province 19". Saddam's claim is that since Kuwait and Iraq were both once part of the Ottoman Empire then Kuwait should really be part of Iraq. By his logic, Iraq should be part of Turkey and all of Europe should be part of some "Neo-Roman Empire". None of which should matter as Iraq had agreed to recognize Kuwait 30 years before the Gulf War. __________________ Adult Date Link - $50 PPS starting NOW! -- good and JUICY! skype = "adultdatelink"