i think we bombed and killed a million innocent japanese with our nukes. as far as i know, we are the only ones in the history to use them. and we also engage in a lot of wars. yet, we're still allowed to keep them.

Wonder why that is?

So you can massacre palestinians as long as you dont gas them?

Lets cut the ******** and be honest. You dont care about human suffering in the middle East, you care about USA economic intrests.

Who's gonna stop us?

Definition of massacre:

–noun
1.
the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
2.
a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
3.
Informal . a crushing defeat, especially in sports.
–verb (used with object)
4.
to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, especially a large number of persons.
5.
Informal . to defeat decisively, especially in sports.

Sounds like what Israel has done to palestinians imo.

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

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

extra details of israeli brutality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...d_the_Gaza_War

have fun!

LOL. Cognitive dissonance on full display.

The lengths Bushies will go to slap lipstick on their heroes' foreign policy... Go it alone, never admit dishonor. Great stuff.

For once I agree with Jiggs. Of course information of this nature will never be complete. Judgements do have to be made on partial information. That fact, however, doesn't justify the arguments made by the Bush administration. I'm firmly of the opinion that Saddam was eventually going to have to be dealt with one way or another, and that he did pose a real threat in the long-run, but it seems pretty clear that the explicit justification for war - that he had or was producing WMD and that he had solid links to Al Qaeda - was grossly exaggerated and/or fabricated by people like Rumsfeld in order to scare people into supporting a war they had already decided upon.

- Another situation where a decision had to be made and was made honestly on necessarily incomplete information would be much more acceptable.

- This situation where Rumsfeld and his cronies lied and spun stories they knew to be false to the entire world and are now trying to dress it up with "incomplete information" is something completely different.

Based on what?

Unless by "dealt with" you simply mean "create a different ruse in order to step in and secure maximum flow rates on his oil."

Do you believe Saddam had those tanks massed along the Saudi border in 1990? I sure don't.

Well, he actually attacked and invaded Saudi Arabia fwiw...

So he had invaded Saudi Arabia, invaded Iran, annexed Kuwait, launched missiles at Israel, committed genocide against the Kurds (and one might argue the Shi'a in 1991). That sounds like a pretty big threat to me.

I think he was a threat for lots lots of reasons. I might expand on more of them later, but I'll present one good reason.

Read the book "The Bomb in My Garden" by Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam Hussein's ex-chief nuclear scientist. He details the level of sophistication of the Iraqi nuclear programme in 1990 which was in his opinion only a few (possible as few as 2) years away from producing a nuclear weapon (something confirmed by the inspectors iirc). He recounts how Saddam's strategy after basically completely disarming after the Gulf War and the inspections program, was to move politically to try and get the sanctions dropped, and then resume the nuclear program. Obeidi rekons that if the world's attention turned away from Saddam, then the expertise they had already accrued, and the resources at Saddam's disposal would have been enough for Saddam to get a bomb in a rather short space of time (2-3 iirc, I haven't read it in a while). I think that the policy of containment was an utter disgrace, it further entrenched the regime, and led to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths, so I don't see it as desirable to keep the sanctions regime in place indefinitely. And I don't see it as feasible either. Saddam was working pretty hard to get them lifted, and I think, eventually, he would have succeeded. He was also only letting inspectors in when there was a credible threat of the use of force against him. I don't favour a policy which could easily break down some day, which impoverished the Iraqi people, entrenched the regime and necessitated a permanent stand-off and intermittent bouts of violence between the US/UK and Iraq. I also don't like the idea of dropping sanctions and inspections and allowing Saddam to get the nuclear bomb he so desperately wanted to get as soon as it was feasible.

I'd highly recommend reading the book, it's not long only a couple hundred pages.

Quickly, another reason would be that he was funding terrorists around the world. Not the Al Qaeda claims that the Bush administration made, but undeniable support to Palestinian suicide bombers, the Abu Nidal group, terror groups in the Phillipines, the MEK and more. It doesn't make the case for a removing him a slam dunk, but it adds up.

Khafji was after the fact, when it was on like Donkey Kong, and more an effort to encircle OUR existing troops there.

I'm asking: Is there tangible evidence that Saddam was implementing plans for a full-scale invasion of Saudi and/or Israel before we got involved over Kuwait? (regardless of the Glaspie question)

About all we know is that Cheney was faking intel about Iraqi tanks, and Kuwaiti incubators even then.

Probably not, and I'm no defender of Cheney. We can't be sure what Saddam would have done if we had just left him alone with Kuwait as his prize. His actions, and accounts of his personality (his hubris, arrogance and delusion especially) don't make me feel too comfortable about him suddenly becoming a benign actor.

You're just goalpost shifting now. The issue is "was Saddam a threat" not the far more specific question of whether he planned to launch a full-scale invasion against Saudi Arabia or a full-scale attack on Israel if we hadn't intervened in late 1990/early 1991. I don't really care about the intel on Iraq massing tanks on the Saudi border, faked or not. It's extremely peripheral to my case against Saddam.

The nuclear attacks saved more lives than ended them. At least the first certainly did, the second is a bit greyer.

Also i cant believe someone seemingly as intelligent as yourself that you would hold such childishly simple views of the world.

There is a difference between the US, UK and Israel holding WMD and Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

So, he seemed boorish and arrogant, maybe even delusional. Killed a bunch of his rebels, tried to annex a neighbor, and fired scuds at Israel AFTER we attacked. And after getting his ass kicked, and 9 years of brutal sanctions, had zero capacity to maintain such aggression. But I'm the one "goalpost shifting."

He was no threat to us, before or after the Gulf War. He was a nuisance to world oil trade, most especially because he couldn't maintain flow rates AFTER our sanctions, and threatened to scrap the dollar for trade. To me, that's never worth $2 trillion and 200,000-300,000 lives.

dude a massacre is when one side attacks the other side with absolute disproportion which is something Israel has consistently done.

Sounds like the war in iraq and afghanistan?

Or any other recent war really.

Do you have proof?

Do not have me started posting photos.

Sounds like a solid philosophy. You can only kill as many people as were killed that caused you to kill people.

I guess only the "conspiritards" get bashed when getting off topic.
-The isreali commandos killing innocent unarmed people on the gaza flotila, was a massacre imo.
-What the isrealis are doin to the palistinians and the lebanese people every day are a massacre
-Hiroshima and Nagasaki we're massacres
-The Iraq and Aghnanistan wars we're masscares

And even if anyone tries to find some way around the definition of massacres. These events are inhuman, and people dont give a **** cause it doesnt directly affect them.

They weren't unarmed. They pre-prepared metal bars, they had knives, and according to some reports they fire a few live rounds from a pistol (apparently casings were found in the Mavi Marmara which were not from the IDF weapons). They clearly attacked the commandos who dropped onto the boats. Some of them were abducted, some were seriously injured.

Whether you agree with the blockade or not, whether you agree with the decision to apprehend the Mavi Marmara or not, whether you agree the tactics of the IDF-N commandos or not, whether or not you think the response was disproportionate, they clearly only used live fire after they came under assault from those on board the ship and they clearly were under serious threat at the time. This was not an unprovoked massacre of unarmed innocents no matter how you look at it.


This is just demagogy.

This is of course true. But isn't the guy you're responding to asking for Israeli massacres?

See above, and entire wars cannot be massacres. That doesn't really make any sense. If they are "massacres" then all wars are massacres.

If you say so bro. The Afghans think differently though (just for one example) and the majority want international forces to stay and see the Taliban as the biggest threat to their country.

So stick that in your conspiritard pipe and smoke it!

1. LOL, if the isrealis we're coming to put a bullet in your head, would you not grab the first steel pipe you saw? or any knife on board. They were not armed with a purpose. But knowing what the isrealis we're about, they armed themselves with anything they could find on the boat. Nice try though, your misinformed.

2. And demagogy is good how?

3. Massacres are massacres, period.

4. All wars are indeed massacres. I dont support war in any way shape or form, why would I?

5. The afghans with an opinion that matters to U.S affairs are paid by the U.S.. lol you think im an idiot and you have it all figured out, but i beg to differ.

Stop reading the articles paid for by the U.S and start searching the truth to all the bs you believe. All american news are twisted to benefit them or the people they support.

What news source would you suggest we use?