Korean Beheaded

Politics International Politics
21

[quote=“tigerman”]
Our government correctly concluded that there was a connection between the old Saddam regime in Iraq and terrorists, and reasonably saw a threat that the old Saddam regime and terrorists could in the future cooperate even more closely and that WMD might be a part of such closer cooperation. I don’t think this is debatable.[/quote]

While there is evidence to suggest that Saddam had contacts with certain terrorists groups, the extent to which these contacts created a threat to US national security is questionable. The 9/11 commission found no credible evidence that Iraq and al qaida cooperated on attacks against the US.

[quote=“tigerman”]
No, once Bush changed US policy with regard to terrorism and states that sponsor terrorism (such as Iraq) the torture of Iraqi civilians ceased (OK, OK, with the exception of the unfortunate events of abuse of Iraqi detainees by some US troops). Thus, US policy regarding terrorism has affected Saddam’s ability to torture and kill his own citizenry.[/quote]

Yes, but absent such a link to terrorists and the alleged stockpiles of WMDs, the US would have had no interest in invading Iraq. If, for example, Saddam had become pro-US after 9/11, cooperated with the US to locate and destroy al qaida and other terrorists groups and permitted a thorough inspection of Iraq’s WMD program, there would have been no need to invade Iraq. Saddam’s murder of Iraqi civilians would be a non-issue in the current war on terror. Moreover, if Iraq were located in an area not central to US interests (and had no ties to terrorists and alleged WMDs) and Saddam murdered his own civilians, it is highly unlikely that the US would do much more than cite his brutality in its annual human rights report.

Thus, I do not think it is accurate to claim that Saddam’s killing of his own civilians is the result of previous appeasement policies that basically ignored terrorism. I think it is more appropriate to state that Saddam’s killing of his own civilians is the result of previous and current appeasement policies that basically ignore brutal dictatorial regimes (assuming the US and other nations have a responsibility to intervene in this regard). The current war on terror is a separate issue.

[quote=“tigerman”]
You’re right, it isn’t. But, as I pointed out above, US policy under Bush re terror has changed the fates of many Iraqi civilians.[/quote]

That much is true.

22

Sorry, but somebody has to say it: That Korean guy was such a pussy.

(teeny voice) “No no I don’t want to die, heeeelp me…” :help:

They say he was an evangelical Christian. Didn’t the early Christians go willingly to their deaths–shouting defiant messages while burning at the stake, stuff like that? God, things have gone downhill.

So, what would a smiley with its head cut off look like?

23

Well, thanks for the link. That was pretty gruesome. It is a shame that Fred Snith would trivialise such an act by drawing a link between censorship, liberal media bias and the threat posed by Monica Lewinsky’s dress. But what can one expect from someone whose beloved dictator only has 6 months or so left in office? Sorry Fred , but the dress comment was unbefitting of a man with your sweeping intellect.

24

No. No one had to say it. Its a bunch of crap. That’s why no one else did.

To Smerf/Mr T:

Fox News (yeah, yeah, i know) have been airing an amusing tape of Al Gore in the 1992(?) presidential election, lambasting George Bush senior for failing to see the warning signs on Iraq - including links with terror organisations and stockpiles of WMD.

I know a lot has happened inbetween times, but I find Al’s views to be tactical rather than heartfelt.

25

No. No one had to say it. Its a bunch of crap. That’s why no one else did.

[/quote]

That’s right. Even I remained silent as I prudently reserve deathwishes etc. for those who deserve to be beheaded, like Bush. Not that the removal of his head would in any way impair him.

26

There was no reason to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt considering the nature of the possible risk and considering that past intelligence estimates had virtually all beed substantial UNDERestimates.

No, it wasn’t a central argument. This is the War on Terror… it is not the War on al Qaeda. Bush stated very clearly in his many speeches that the enemy is terror and terrorists and states that support terrorism and terrorists. Saddam’s Iraq supported terrorists and terrorism. Bush never stated that the US has proof that Saddam was involved in the 911 attacks.

There certainly were links to terrorists. And Saddam was obligated to prove the absense of WMD. He failed to do so… for 12 years. It was in the interest of the US to verify once and for all the status of Saddams WMD (and other banned weapons systems, such as rockets that could travel in excess of a certain range) and to make certain that he could not obtain or create WMD.

Probably right. But, he sure as heck didn’t do that.

Again you are probably correct.

However, if the anti-war group is going to cite the unfortunate deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians resulting from the US invasion of Iraq as an argument against the invasion, those of us who support the invasion are perfectly justified in citing the numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians killed and or tortured by Saddam and the numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians saved as a result of the invasion and Saddam’s removal. In other words, while the US may not have had as its prime reason for invading Iraq the welfare of the Iraqi civilians, if the welfare of the Iraqi civilians is going to be used by the anti-invasion people, then they must fairly and objectively look at both sides of the equation, so to speak. It is poor analysis to argue only deaths caused while ignoring lives saved.

The war in Iraq is central to the War on Terror because Saddam’s brutal regime supported terrorism and terrorists and because reform of the region requires reform of Iraq first. As long as we allowed him to support terrorism and retain his grip on power, he was also allowed to terrorize his own populace. These issues cannot be separated. The fact that so many Islamic terrorists are fighting in Iraq against the US efforts to reform Iraq proves that the issue of Iraqi internal conditions is vital to the War on Terror.

27

It’s a shame he wasn’t more headstrong.

28

Oh, Richard, you twat :unamused:

29

I think there is great value to keeping oneself informed.

Even forums like these at least let opposing views be exchanged. Further, by informing oneself, and exchanging ideas, we can form actual opinions based on what one hopes approximates the truth.

Personally, I think talk of whose dirty laundry is worse is besides the point. A bit of reading, say for instance, of the writings of Arundhati (sp?) Roy, Noam Chomsky, Salon.com or GNN.com should provide some alternative to the usual version of events as provided by CNN and mainstream media. While I don’t wish to bash Americans, or America here, I think most of us are living with some pretty persistent illusions about the benevolence of America’s foreign policy and the effect that has on the people of the world.

Having said, or written that, it does not in any way exonerate Saddam Hussein, Amin, Suharto or any others among the dictators of the world. However, if we truly want to be informed about atrocities, and their causes we should look at how the richest economies, and particularly the American economy, has funded and supported some of the worst regimes imaginable.

Consider this example. Dictator A is funded by Superpower B and comes to power with direct and indirect support. Then, during A’s time of power, A commits genocide, torture, embezzles millions, disregards the Geneva conventions, creates death or torture squads or secret police to terrify and subjugate their people, all with the explicit awareness of their backers (Superpower B). Who would you hold morally responsible? Is A the only one at fault? Should we only excoriate A for crimes against humanity when B was writing the checks, selling the weapons, turning a blind eye to the abuses? This example applies to the relationship that has existed, at one time or another, between Hussein and the U.S., Suharto and the U.S., Amin and the U.S., and there are many other examples.

Well, I guess my disclaimer about not U.S. bashing looks a little suspect now. But, this isn’t about being anti-American, it is about looking at what is REALLY going on, informing ourselves beyond the newsclips etc…

As far as watching a video of someone being beheaded. I don’t think that does alot towards respecting or honoring the dead. There is ample writing on the Iraq war, and others, available. For a general report on human rights abuses around the world, try searching for or buying the annual Human Rights Watch reports. The way I see it is, if it were me - or someone in my family - would I want people tuning in whether on television or streaming video - to witness the final moments? No. I wouldn’t.

30

Agreed and deleted after I reread my post. You are too damn quick! Can’t a guy have time to edit?

However, I would note that the Bush administration often spoke of a connection between al qaida and Iraq in the run up to the invasion. The terms “al qaida” and “Iraq” were used so often together in the weeks before the invasion that it is reasonable to believe that the White House’s intent was to create the illusion that they were one in the same. This may explain why polls show a significant portion of Americans believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Yes, but how do you calculate lives saved? Given the number of Iraqi civilian deaths in Iraq since the US invasion, how would one determine whether there is less carnage now as opposed to when Saddam was in power?

It seems fairly obvious to me that there are many people who are dead that would be alive today if the US had not invaded Iraq. Alternatively, I think it is far more diffcult to determine how many people are alive today that would be dead if the US had not invaded Iraq.

Perhaps, if things clear up and the violence comes to an end, the lives saved argument will win out. Unfortunately, I think the jury is still out on this one, especially after the latest round of attacks.

[quote=“tigerman”]

The fact that so many Islamic terrorists are fighting in Iraq against the US efforts to reform Iraq proves that the issue of Iraqi internal conditions is vital to the War on Terror.[/quote]

It does now, but that was not the case prior to the invasion. I think that the issue of Iraqi internal conditions is relevant to the Islamic terrorists because the US is there. If the Iraqi military had overthrown Saddam and started efforts to bring about democratic reforms, do you feel that the Islamic terrorists would be in Iraq to the same extent they are today? I don’t.

Although I opposed the war, I do not believe that we should pull out until it’s clear the country is stable.

31

There was a connection. This connection might not have amounted to any cooperation prior to or in connection with 911. But, the fear was that Saddam, known to have had and used WMD and to be an enemy of the US and OBL and al Qaeda, known to be an enemy of the US and to have declared war on the US, might in the future somehow connect in a more cooperative way. Even if Saddam and OBL remained enemies, it was conceivable that a greedy WMD researcher under Saddam’s regime might sell secrets or goods to OBL or his terrorist organization. That again is why it was vital to remove Saddam and verify for certain the status of Saddam’s WMD stocks and programs.

Can’t do so definitely. However, we can certainly estimate based on the lives lost under Saddam’s rule during the past decade.

I don’t agree. The anti-invasion folks cited numbers of victims each year due just to the sanctions. The sanctions were not going to be lifted anytime soon. Add to those the numbers of people killed and tortured in Iraq before the invasion. I think a strong case that many lives have been saved can easily be made.

I think there will have to be a very very large number of innocent Iraqis killed as a result of the invasion before the cost in human lives argument tilts in favor of the anti-invasion folks.

One of the major reasons for ousting Saddam was to give Iraq a chance to reform. If a reformed Iraq is not detrimental to the terrorists in the region, they would not now be streaming into Iraq to cause havoc.

A) I don’t think the Iraqi military was going to over throw Saddam and B) even if they did I doubt they would begin democratic reforms. If it did, however, I do think the terrorists would be in Iraq today… because democratic reform is dangerous to terrorists. So its the US in Iraq… what’s it to the terrorists? Its democratic reform that scares the shit out of them.

The US is no longer in Saudi Arabia… yet, the terrorists are active there.

32

[quote=“Spack”]Does Forumosa have a policy on posting of links to gore sites?
Invite people to do a search for key words, but direct links to gore, mpegs of people being decapitated…:astonished: :help:[/quote]
Sorry, man. But someone asked for the information here, and it was clearly labeled as such when it was posted – so it was easy to skip or ignore.

Personally, I believe everyone SHOULD view such footage, to see what we are up against, and to see what the “other side” believes is perfectly acceptable behavior. The media has had a field day with nonsense about stacking naked Iraqis in human pyramids – something on the level of a fraternity initiation exercise – while ignoring Saddam’s torturers chopping off Iraqis’ limbs, tongues, and heads. Meanwhile, certain pinheads here have ranted about how the U.S. is “worse than Saddam” for the human pyramid nonsense.

33

Who? I think you may have trouble finding examples. People do however expect much higher standards from the US than Saddam as we all know Saddam is a cunt. Maybe you don’t expect higher standards from the US.

34

[quote=“MaPoSquid”]
Personally, I believe everyone SHOULD view such footage, to see what we are up against, and to see what the “other side” believes is perfectly acceptable behavior. The media has had a field day with nonsense about stacking naked Iraqis in human pyramids – something on the level of a fraternity initiation exercise – while ignoring Saddam’s torturers chopping off Iraqis’ limbs, tongues, and heads. Meanwhile, certain pinheads here have ranted about how the U.S. is “worse than Saddam” for the human pyramid nonsense.[/quote]

Torture is unacceptable ALWAYS, whether it is cutting off limbs and burning out eyes, or forcing people to masturbate or be piled into a naked human pyramid. Americans are not supposed to torture. Period. That’s not what America is supposed to be about. We are SUPPOSED to be the good guys, but the reaction of the Iraqis and of people all around the world shows that we have failed miserably at being the good guys.

35

tigerman, no bases in Saudi?
What’s this?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/taif.htm
As for your connection in your first sentence between al-qaida and Saddam, well using that logic we could connect just about anything now couldn’t we? :notworthy:
Considering the U.S.'s past history with Saddam, I think there is a stronger connection between George Bush and Saddam than between the al-qaida and Saddam…but that’s just my opinion. But as a matter of fact, George has done more to help al-qaida than Saddam has… :astonished:

36

[quote=“Chris”][quote=“MaPoSquid”]
Personally, I believe everyone SHOULD view such footage, to see what we are up against, and to see what the “other side” believes is perfectly acceptable behavior. The media has had a field day with nonsense about stacking naked Iraqis in human pyramids – something on the level of a fraternity initiation exercise – while ignoring Saddam’s torturers chopping off Iraqis’ limbs, tongues, and heads. Meanwhile, certain pinheads here have ranted about how the U.S. is “worse than Saddam” for the human pyramid nonsense.[/quote]

Torture is unacceptable ALWAYS, whether it is cutting off limbs and burning out eyes, or forcing people to masturbate or be piled into a naked human pyramid. Americans are not supposed to torture. Period. That’s not what America is supposed to be about. We are SUPPOSED to be the good guys, but the reaction of the Iraqis and of people all around the world shows that we have failed miserably at being the good guys.[/quote]
Piling people into pyraamids isn’t torture, it’s harrassment.

And oh, lordy, don’t make me whack off! :wanker: That’s what camels are for! The horror, the horror. . . .

37

MPS

You still haven’t come up with an example of where anybody on this forum has ‘ranted about how the U.S. is “worse than Saddam” for the human pyramid nonsense’. Care to retract your ‘nonsense’?

38

Using this as justification for an invasion will result in many more wars since it is equally conceivable that a greedy WMD researcher from a number of other states would do so as well. I don’t see how it is any less conceivable that such secrets could come from Pakistan, Iran or North Korea. In fact, given Iraq’s lack of WMDs, it seems much more conceivable that bin Laden would get his nuclear goodies somewhere else (I know, I know, Bush based his decision on reasonable inferences from the intelligence available at the time - I have the argument memorized).

Again, I think the main reason that the terrorists are in Iraq is because the US is there.

[quote=“tigerman”]If it did, however, I do think the terrorists would be in Iraq today… because democratic reform is dangerous to terrorists. So its the US in Iraq… what’s it to the terrorists? Its democratic reform that scares the shit out of them.

The US is no longer in Saudi Arabia… yet, the terrorists are active there.[/quote]

I am not trying to argue that the terrorists support democractic reform. However, I think they have joined the fighting in Iraq to oppose the US more than anything else.

There aren’t any democratic reforms going on in Saudi Arabia. The recent terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia have reportedly been for the purpose of disrupting the world’s oil supply. I think that these attacks are a response to the US invasion in Iraq. Rightly or wrongly, the terrorists view the US invasion in Iraq, in part, as our attempt to control the Middle East’s oil supply. Also, by affecting oil prices, the US economy may take a hit in such a way as to influence the November election.

To the terrorists, oil companies = US. From the terrorists’ point of view, killing US soldiers in Iraq and killing western civilians in Saudi Arabia leads them to the same goal, getting the US out of the Middle East, both militarily and commercially.

Bush has chosen to take a “bull in a China shop” approach to diplomacy and reforms in the Middle East - let’s turn Iraq into a democratic country as soon as possible through the use of force. I disagreed with that approach because I felt (and still feel) that invading Iraq would breed more hatred towards the US. Iraq, IMO, has turned into an “I want you” poster attracting Islamanuts all over who are pissed off about anything.

39

Then why are they trying to kill the leaders of the new Iraqi government that apparently enjoys very wide support of the Iraqi people? The sooner Iraq is stabilized, the sooner the US will leave.

40

[quote=“tigerman”]
Then why are they trying to kill the leaders of the new Iraqi government that apparently enjoys very wide support of the Iraqi people?[/quote]

I think they are seen as US collaborators, same as the poor Korean chap who is the topic of this thread. If Iraq’s democratic reform had come from within, I doubt there would be the foreign terrorist influenced violence in the country that we see today. The democratic reforms taking place in Iraq are the result of US armed intervention in Iraq. They hate us and anyone connected to us.

I hope for nothing less.