For all who blindly cite the fact that Saddam has gassed his own people this may be worth considering.
The article was published in the Toronto Star which does have a pretty extreme left wing and anti-war bias. Never the less, it's a column from the paper's ombud and expresses the point pretty clearly.
Interesting. And here I had always assumed that the village had been attacked to put down another Kurdish uprising.
-Jag
If they studied their paper money for clues as to what their country was all about, they found, among a lot of other baroque trash, a picture of a truncated pyramid with a radiant eye on top of it, like this:
Not even the President of the United States knew what that was all about. It was as though the country were saying to its citizens, "In nonsense is strength."
Kind of sketchy if you ask me... they are basically saying that the town was under Iranian control when it was gassed, so it was not REALLY gassing his own people.
If I may draw a comparison, that would be like us going to war with Russia, the Russians taking Seattle, and us responding by NUKING it. Who cares about what military is occupying the city- your civilians are still there.
No matter which way the evidence points, it was still a heinous act.
Originally posted by Pool-BoyKind of sketchy if you ask me... they are basically saying that the town was under Iranian control when it was gassed, so it was not REALLY gassing his own people . . . No matter which way the evidence points, it was still a heinous act.
Not to go on the attack here, but did you read the article? You seemed to have missed some pretty important points:
1. The story of Saddam gassing and killing thousands of innocent Kurds (who may have been Iraqis) was started by Iran which was at war with Iraq at the time. I think we're all pretty familiar with the fact that nations at war often lie about each other.
2. The evidence seems to point to Iranian gas being behind the deaths.
3. The picture war supporters have painted about Saddam gassing his own people for no reason is either not true or at least greatly exagerated.
Originally posted by Pool-BoyKind of sketchy if you ask me... they are basically saying that the town was under Iranian control when it was gassed, so it was not REALLY gassing his own people . . . No matter which way the evidence points, it was still a heinous act.
Not to go on the attack here, but did you read the article? You seemed to have missed some pretty important points:
1. The story of Saddam gassing and killing thousands of innocent Kurds (who may have been Iraqis) was started by Iran which was at war with Iraq at the time. I think we're all pretty familiar with the fact that nations at war often lie about each other.
2. The evidence seems to point to Iranian gas being behind the deaths.
3. The picture war supporters have painted about Saddam gassing his own people for no reason is either not true or at least greatly exagerated.
(edited by anibanging on 8.3.03 1620)
Supposing for the sake of argument that Saddam never gassed his own people - so what? For the people who think Saddam is a threat, this changes nothing. And for those who think Saddam is a tyrant, well, there is plenty of other evidence to support that. This is like saying a criminal might only have killed 15 people, not 20 like we originally thought.
And I offer this semi-rhetorical question: Why did we establish no-fly zones after Gulf I?
(edited by PalpatineW on 8.3.03 1705) "... I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass..."
I don't remember where I read it, but some american fighter pilots were shot at flying in a no -flying zone. It sounds to me like they SHOULD be shot at, for FLYING in the NO-FLY zone.
Cerebus: Barbarian, Prime Minister, Pope, Perfect House Guest.
"Graft is as necessary as throwing up when you drink too much."
Originally posted by CerebusI don't remember where I read it, but some american fighter pilots were shot at flying in a no -flying zone. It sounds to me like they SHOULD be shot at, for FLYING in the NO-FLY zone.
Okay, if you're going to show THIS level of ignorance I'm not going to let you post in this forum anymore. This is the only warning.
The thing is, The guy did have a point. The most frustrating thing about many of the Democratic canditates is that they DON'T have plans, 99% of what they have to say amounts to "Bush is evil.