Bush Jeered By Vatican Crowd.

[OttawaUk]

My friend, I disagree.

When you're brought up in a country with such corrupt and brutal Administrations, its no wonder that their mentalities filter down to the population.

BUT, should we be angry at those who have been brainwashed? No. That is why I'd sit down with them, any of them, and talk openly about whatever they want. In fact I'd much rather try and help one that's been burnt by this mentality, rather than someone who shares the same views as myself.

Remember what Jesus said, dying on the cross.

"Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 28:34)

God Bless.

 

[Gaston]

My friend, I disagree.

When you're brought up in a country with such corrupt and brutal Administrations, its no wonder that their mentalities filter down to the population.

I was going to say this, I actually DO have compassion for them, but I don't have to like it.

BUT, should we be angry at those who have been brainwashed? No. That is why I'd sit down with them, any of them, and talk openly about whatever they want. In fact I'd much rather try and help one that's been burnt by this mentality, rather than someone who shares the same views as myself.

My belief? You'd be blowing hot air. It'd be better talking to a brick wall, just like half the people I talk to on this forum.

Remember what Jesus said, dying on the cross.

"Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 28:34)

God Bless.

Don't get me wrong, they're forgiven.

Gaston

 

[Ginny]

Truth has the same effect on me sometimes.

boy, that was harsh.

You were right....these boards do bring out the worst in people. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[k]

boy, that was harsh.

You were right....these boards do bring out the worst in people. Thanks for the heads up.

What was harsh? It's true that Bush has a history of drug abuse. It's true that Clinton at least used drugs.

Didn't mean for anything to be harsh.

 

[WarriorAngel]

So ask yourself, as a Christian, why are you not standing up for the real victims here, the millions who have died throughout this whole US sponsered Middle East fiasco? Or just the victims of 9/11?

This error caught my eyes.

19,500 is at most the loss of casualties...
The actual number of civilian casualties has not been accounted for by the Iraqi's.

Due to insurgencies...the country cannot access the true numbers..but are working with every family to determine whom was IN FACT AN innocent civilian.

Wanted to add...how little the lives meant to anyone that have been MURDERED in the millions...SOLELY UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF SADDAM.

5 new mass graves have been uncovered in Iraq..the toll reaches the plateau of Hitler's regime.

 

[Marklet12]

Can someone give the breakdown of the millions number? I've seen it a few times but don't know where all the deaths came from. I mean, are the wars included in this? Or are we saying that Saddam committed murder in the same way that Hitler did? BEcause there don't appear to be enough mass graves/prison camps to testify to that.

 

[WarriorAngel]

BEcause there don't appear to be enough mass graves/prison camps to testify to that.

There doesnt appear to be any that say that???

Well, knowing a guy in Iraq who said 5 more MASS graves were uncovered...and the fact many had already been uncovered, and more being looked into..the number has not been accurately accounted for as of yet.

THIS will takes years...BUT by skeletal remains, it is a huge and vast number.

Alot of research into the reasons for deaths, dna collections..etc.
IT is not reported in the NEWS because it would demonstrate the tyrant Saddam is.

WE cannot have that being released...after all.

BUT again...the highest estmated toll of lives during this current action has been 19,500...now I do not shun the fact some ppl as collateral deaths have been sad...but compare the numbers.

It is disgusting...that Saddam did this..BUT had he been a NICE guy to begin with, we wont be in this mess.
HAD he demonstrated peace and tolerance...would we have been 'instigated' enough to become involved.

Alas, God works in mysterious ways.

 

[Marklet12]

There doesnt appear to be any that say that???

Well, knowing a guy in Iraq who said 5 more MASS graves were uncovered...and the fact many had already been uncovered, and more being looked into..the number has not been accurately accounted for as of yet.

THIS will takes years...BUT by skeletal remains, it is a huge and vast number.

Alot of research into the reasons for deaths, dna collections..etc.
IT is not reported in the NEWS because it would demonstrate the tyrant Saddam is.

WE cannot have that being released...after all.

BUT again...the highest estmated toll of lives during this current action has been 19,500...now I do not shun the fact some ppl as collateral deaths have been sad...but compare the numbers.

It is disgusting...that Saddam did this..BUT had he been a NICE guy to begin with, we wont be in this mess.
HAD he demonstrated peace and tolerance...would we have been 'instigated' enough to become involved.

Alas, God works in mysterious ways.

The newly found mass graves have bodies numbering in the dozens:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/04/18/2003250977

From what I've seen, many other mass graves have been grossly overestimated. A lot of bodies, but it's hard to believe it all adds up to "millions." And many of the larger graves consist of Kurds who rose up violently against the Iraqi regime...I think it's a bit cloudy to say that a regime killing those attempting to overthrow it is guilty of Hitler-like sins.

What's the point of all this? Not to say that Saddam wasn't evil. But if we're going to use body count as a reason to invade a country, I think some kind of proper accounting is in need.

 

[fanatiquefou]

Here's some apples for you, eh?

When America is attacked, we couldn't care less about whether the enemy likes our way of life or not. They signed their death warrant, and we are going to deliver it. We will continue to deliver it and we will be victorious. We will strike until their is nothing left of their cells, infrastructure, finances or their will to terrorize the west. I will bet when we are done they will have a little more respect for 'our way of life'. Canada can sit on its hands, but when the trouble comes your way, I bet your govbernment will be begging for our America to watch your back. I hope we tell you to pound sand.

I just want to say, as an American, that you don't speak for me.

 

[OttawaUk]

Warriorangel,

Do you guys even read what I post, or just ignore it because it doesn't fit your beliefs?

Why are you arguing over the 2003+ Iraq war casualties? What does that have to do with what I'm explaining to you?

Forget about all the other horrendeous things the US government has supported, let's just focus on what I said about Saddam.

1) The US funded and backed Saddam in power in the 1980's to fight the Iranians. This is a fact, there is nothing false about this statement.
2) The US armed Saddam with his weapons, including chemical, which he ended up using on his own people.
3) After Saddam, who had been put in power by the US, invaded Kuwait, the US and the UN put sanctions on the Iraqi people.
4) As a result, millions of Iraqis died due to lack of proper medicine while Saddam and his cronies enjoyed any money rolling in from the Oil for Food program, and whatever other deals he cut under the table with the French, Germans etc.

So how in the world can you blame anyone other than the US government for all of this.

Research it, its true, and you're being fooled.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

 

[jamesrwright3]

I have things to do tonight but 3 things are notably false in your post.
1. We did not install Saddam Hussein in the 80's. He was on his way to power all throughout the 70's (he actually got his start in the 60's) and was the power behind the President and it was natural for him to take over once he passed away. We had nothing to do with his coming to power. He was a self made man.
2. We never provided chemical weapons to Saddam. Companies may have supplied him with dual use materials (that had valid civlian purposes), but never did we provide him with actual chemical weapons. We did provide him with conventional weapons, but so did everyone else including the Europeans and the Russians. We didn't know he was going to turn out like he did..
3. Saddam should have been using the oil for food money for guess what..food and supplies for the Iraqi people instead of palaces and luxury cars and Swiss bank accounts. BTW the UN Security Council authorized the sanctions. You can't blame the US for them and they could have been rescinded if Saddam had played by the rules. H e refused to do so.

 

[Glaz]

2) 1980's US puts Saddam in power to fight Iranians. He is armed with US weapons, including chemical, which he ends up using on his own people.

Let the truth be told.

Saddam came to power in the '70s not the 80's.

1) 1953 US CIA and Britian MI6 support an overthrow of the Iranian Prime Minister, and install the Shah as a dictator.

Actually, the Shah had been in power since 1941, but a coup forced him out in 1953 for a brief time until a counter coup organized by one of his generals and supported by the CIA/ MI6 reinstalled the Shah into power.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

We didn't know he was going to turn out like he did.

That's such a crock. They knew who they were getting involved with from the start. The way he tried to mount a coup and later took power, it is slamming your head in the sand saying, "We didn't know." Along with use of chemical weapons, no one seemed to have a problem with him until Britain spoke up about their invasion of Kuwait. I shake my head when people pretend that they don't understand their actions.

 

[Glaz]

no one seemed to have a problem with him until Britain spoke up about their invasion of Kuwait.

Ironically, it was Britain who ripped a chunk off of Iraq and called it 'Kuwait' after WW1. You wanna blame someone for the problems in the middle east, your blaming the wrong Western power.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

Ironically, it was Britain who ripped a chunk off of Iraq and called it 'Kuwait' after WW1. You wanna blame someone for the problems in the middle east, your blaming the wrong Western power.

I see no difference among the Western powers. They are the primary reason that regions like and the Middle East have problems with their artificial borders. But if you're going to blame a WWI decision, as it should be acknowledged, then that same attitude must be taken with many aspects of American history also (this comment is a sidenote really looking at the effects of attitudes and how they've affected women, minorities, and immigrants in this country).

 

[jamesrwright3]

That's such a crock. They knew who they were getting involved with from the start. The way he tried to mount a coup and later took power, it is slamming your head in the sand saying, "We didn't know." Along with use of chemical weapons, no one seemed to have a problem with him until Britain spoke up about their invasion of Kuwait. I shake my head when people pretend that they don't understand their actions.

Not a crock. Simply the truth. We didn't know he was going to turn out to be such a menace. We started to distance ourself from him during the latter part of the 80's after it became apparent.

 

[rahma]

Actually, the Shah had been in power since 1941, but a coup forced him out in 1953 for a brief time until a counter coup organized by one of his generals and supported by the CIA/ MI6 reinstalled the Shah into power.

The people of Iran wanted to choose their leader, and kicked out the dictatorial shah. The covert operation sponsored by the US and the british overthrew the will of the people and re-installed a dictator that the people dispised. 20 some odd years later, the people rebelled again, and look what happened. Me thinks it would have been better had Mossadaq been allowed to remain in power in the 50s.

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

 

[rahma]

And for an interesting look at the gerimandering that went on in the ME at the beginning of the 1920s, I recommend this article:

Inventing the Middle East



*ok, I'm just shamelessly promoting the UW, but if something interesting comes out of Wisconsin, I'm excited*

 

[flipper1]

And for an interesting look at the gerimandering that went on in the ME at the beginning of the 1920s, I recommend this article:

Inventing the Middle East



*ok, I'm just shamelessly promoting the UW, but if something interesting comes out of Wisconsin, I'm excited*

http://www.christianforums.com/t1448986-world-leaders-plans-for-global-govt-to-speed-up.html

Must go!

 

[WarriorAngel]

The newly found mass graves have bodies numbering in the dozens:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/04/18/2003250977

From what I've seen, many other mass graves have been grossly overestimated. A lot of bodies, but it's hard to believe it all adds up to "millions." And many of the larger graves consist of Kurds who rose up violently against the Iraqi regime...I think it's a bit cloudy to say that a regime killing those attempting to overthrow it is guilty of Hitler-like sins.

What's the point of all this? Not to say that Saddam wasn't evil. But if we're going to use body count as a reason to invade a country, I think some kind of proper accounting is in need.

Allow me to quote some of the story...

The bodies of 41 Kuwaitis believed killed during the first Gulf War were found in southern Iraq, among 295 mass graves uncovered around the country in the two years since US-led forces invaded and ousted Saddam Hussein, Iraq's Human Rights Minister said Saturday.

......



More and more mass graves are being uncovered across the country, but the fragile security situation is hampering investigators' work, he said. The graves will be used in war crimes cases being built against Saddam and his top ministers. The Iraqi Special Tribunal is still in the process of gathering evidence.

......



He said some graves contained the remains of dozens of people, while other had thousands.

"Iraq is a land of mass graves due to the genocide policy of Saddam Hussein," he said. "We have hundreds of thousands of people missing."

It was difficult to estimate how many people were buried in the different sites, since some graves had several layers that have yet to be uncovered, Amin said, recalling one particular location in Hatra in northern Iraq. "In Hatra, we went looking for one and we found 11. It's difficult to say. It could be more, it could be less. The number of missing is 'calculated to be' about 1 million in Iraq," he said.

That is the estimated missing..not accounted for are singles...loners..etc.
Plus, this is a much bigger number than a few dozen.

In fact, they are coming up all over the place. Its sad, it is disgusting.
The lives of so many....just snuffed out.

BUT we are not counting those who were accounted for ..
Like the ones Uday had killed in chippers..and women who were abused to death.
OR the one who Uday smeared honey on her nude body and threw her to hungry dobermans...

IF we stopped and figured the millions kiled who were accounted for plus the unaccounted for...it really is an ugly scenerio.

'ALL things shall come to light'. AMEN!

Washington Post
A more conservative figure comes from Iraqbodycount.net, a British Web site that compiles media reports on Iraqi civilian deaths. Based on such reporting, the site says there have been a minimum of 12,778 civilian deaths in Iraq and a maximum of 14,820.
Reporters in Iraq do not need a statistic to tell them that civilian deaths are common but difficult to accurately report. Patrick Cockburn, Baghdad correspondent for London's Independent, wrote this week that "the truth about who is being killed by the US air strikes is difficult to ascertain exactly because Islamic militants make it very dangerous for journalists to go to places recently attacked. Bodies are buried quickly and wounded insurgents do not generally go to public hospitals. But, where the casualties can be checked, many of those who die or are injured have proved to be innocent civilians."

...............

At the same time, the Iraqi insurgents are also killing civilians, forcing the issue of which is more newsworthy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37968-2004Sep21.html