Modification of Geneva Conventions

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, that clarifies your position somewhat.

With regard to our invasion of Iraq, I still don't understand why people in the Middle East would be angry about it. If the Iraqi people did not want us to invade, then I would understand why people in the Middle East would be angry. But that's not the case. The vast majority of Iraqis wanted us to come in and "liberate" them and get rid of Saddam. All the polls does in Iraq within a year of the invasion showed that.

I can understand why Americans would be angry about us invading Iraq, but for people in the Middle East to have been angry makes no sense. If the Iraqi people were suffering under Saddam and they wanted us to "liberate" them, then nobody in the Middle East should have been upset at the time. The polls done in Iraq even a year after we invaded showed that the huge majority of Iraqis were happy that we came despite the fact that some people got killed and the country was still in bad shape.

Why would you view Iraqis as victims of US agression, if Iraqis don't see it that way at all?

Rupert,
Please provide a link to the polls you cite.
Thank you.
DTS

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
Please provide a link to the polls you cite.
Thank you.
DTS

I don't have a link to the polls. These were polls that were done about a year after the invasion. They were failry well publicized at the time. They were done by independent media groups. All the polls done pretty much showed the same thing. They showed that about 70% of the citizens of Iraq were glad that we came. The thing that was so significant to me about it was that the people were glad we came despite the fact that things were still really bad there and the people had suffered a lot.

The polls that have been done more recently are not nearly as favorable but that's because the insurgency has been really bad and things are really bad over there. The people are starting to wonder if it was all worth it or not. The people were originally expecting the same thing that we were. They figured that after Saddam was gone that everything would be great. It hasn't happened thanks to the insurgency.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't have a link to the polls. These were polls that were done about a year after the invasion. They were failry well publicized at the time. They were done by independent media groups. All the polls done pretty much showed the same thing. They showed that about 70% of the citizens of Iraq were glad that we came. The thing that was so significant to me about it was that the people were glad we came despite the fact that things were still really bad there and the people had suffered a lot.

The polls that have been done more recently are not nearly as favorable but that's because the insurgency has been really bad and things are really bad over there. The people are starting to wonder if it was all worth it or not. The people were originally expecting the same thing that we were. They figured that after Saddam was gone that everything would be great. It hasn't happened thanks to the insurgency.

Ain't it sad that just when you think you've got the monkey by the nuts, a coconut falls out of the tree and knocks you out. Not that I'm referencing the esteemed "macaca" senator from Virginia.
Here's a question that I'll preface with one of my favorite quotes, "those that ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them."

Here's the question...
How did Americans react when an invading force attempted to dictate our decision to have independence, and sought through armed conflict, on American soil, to instill subserviance to their demands?

Follow up...
Would we expect the Iraquis to respond differently?

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Ain't it sad that just when you think you've got the monkey by the nuts, a coconut falls out of the tree and knocks you out. Not that I'm referencing the esteemed "macaca" senator from Virginia.
Here's a question that I'll preface with one of my favorite quotes, "those that ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them."

Here's the question...
How did Americans react when an invading force attempted to dictate our decision to have independence, and sought through armed conflict, on American soil, to instill subserviance to their demands?

Follow up...
Would we expect the Iraquis to respond differently?

Ok, let me just say this... if you really believe that the Iraquis LIKED to be tortured by Hussein, then you have another thing coming. I have several friends who serve and ALL of them told me that the Iraqi people were GRATEFUL that we were there. They lived a life that we as Americans in today's world know nothing about. I think we tend to take for granted the freedom that we have and our ability to decide things for ourselves. The Iraqi people did not have that luxury.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Ok, let me just say this... if you really believe that the Iraquis LIKED to be tortured by Hussein, then you have another thing coming. I have several friends who serve and ALL of them told me that the Iraqi people were GRATEFUL that we were there. They lived a life that we as Americans in today's world know nothing about. I think we tend to take for granted the freedom that we have and our ability to decide things for ourselves. The Iraqi people did not have that luxury.

I think different soldiers in different areas are going to have different accounts. There are large numbers of people that did NOT appreciate what the US did.

And lets not turn on the spin machine. We didnt go there to provide freedom to the Iraqi people. Our main purposes for war, as outlined to congress and the UN were because of the non-existant wmds and the non-existant ties to Al Qaeda. Now, the oil and the reconstruction money had NOTHING to do with it .

[Downthestretch55]

A few questions:

1. Did the USA supply weapons of mass destruction to Saddam during the conflict between Iraq and Iran during the 80's?
2. Did he use those weapons on the Kurds before or after a CIA sponsored insurrection had been initiated by the Kurds and failed to be supported by the USA?
3. Were there UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq (Hans Blix), two containment no-fly zones prior to the presentation of "yellow cake" theory to both the UN (48 hour ultimatum) via Colin Powell and to the American people via GWB in his "State of the Union" address?
4. Are there current plans for four major military bases to be located in Iraq?
5. Is there interest in using Iraqui natural resources (oil) to repay the costs of the "liberation"?
6. Are there any connections between Halliburton (no bid contract), Brown Kellog and Root, and the Bush administration?
7. Have detainees been treated "fairly" or has there been a suspension of "habias corpus" for those "enemy combatants"?

Thanks in advance for answering these questions. I have a few more that I'll post later.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

A few questions:

1. Did the USA supply weapons of mass destruction to Saddam during the conflict between Iraq and Iran during the 80's?
2. Did he use those weapons on the Kurds before or after a CIA sponsored insurrection had been initiated by the Kurds and failed to be supported by the USA?
3. Were there UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq (Hans Blix), two containment no-fly zones prior to the presentation of "yellow cake" theory to both the UN (48 hour ultimatum) via Colin Powell and to the American people via GWB in his "State of the Union" address?
4. Are there current plans for four major military bases to be located in Iraq?
5. Is there interest in using Iraqui natural resources (oil) to repay the costs of the "liberation"?
6. Are there any connections between Halliburton (no bid contract), Brown Kellog and Root, and the Bush administration?
7. Have detainees been treated "fairly" or has there been a suspension of "habias corpus" for those "enemy combatants"?

Thanks in advance for answering these questions. I have a few more that I'll post later.

1. I know we gave them weapons. I don't know if we gave them any WMDs.

2. I think it was after but I'm not sure.

3. I'm not sure I understand this whole question. With regard to the part about inspectors, Saddam would go back and forth. He wasn't cooperating with the inspectors. He was playing a lot of cat and mouse games. Once he saw that we were serious and we were going to invade, then he became more cooperative. So the answer is "yes" that I think there were inspectors there at the time, but that's irrelevant because much of the time leading up to that time, Saddam had not been cooperating with the inspectors. I don't understand your question about the "no-fly" zone. I do know that Saddam had been firing on our planes there for several years.

4. I don't know if there are plans for military bases. It would not surprise me if there were. We have bases in the countries of several of our allies.

5. Yes, but thanks to the insurgency attacking the pipelines, the oil is not producing all that much revenue.

6. I don't know who Brown Kellog and Root are. I think a big company like Haliburton has ties to politicians in both parties. Cheney used to work there.

7. I don't know what your definition of "fairly" is. I don't know if you are referring to the prisoners at Gutanomo or where. The prisoners at Guantanomo are interrogated very aggresively. All types of techniques including sleep deprivation and things like that are used. The prisoners are certainly treated far worse than they would be if they were being held in jail in America. In America, they read you Miranda rights. On the other hand, these prisoners are being treated a helluva lot better than they would be if we sent them back to their own countries. Do you know what they would do to them at the prisons in Egypt or Saudi Arabia?If we sent them there, they would wish they were back at Guantanomo. With regard to the "habeus corpus" thing, I think that a judge just ruled that we can't contiue with the current practices at Guantanomo. But that doesn't mean anything. Every legal scholar that I've listened to both liberal and conservative said the judge's ruling has little or no basis in law and will surely be overturned.. they said the judge's rling was titally partisan and the arguments she made were very poor.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

A few questions:

1. Did the USA supply weapons of mass destruction to Saddam during the conflict between Iraq and Iran during the 80's?
2. Did he use those weapons on the Kurds before or after a CIA sponsored insurrection had been initiated by the Kurds and failed to be supported by the USA?
3. Were there UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq (Hans Blix), two containment no-fly zones prior to the presentation of "yellow cake" theory to both the UN (48 hour ultimatum) via Colin Powell and to the American people via GWB in his "State of the Union" address?
4. Are there current plans for four major military bases to be located in Iraq?
5. Is there interest in using Iraqui natural resources (oil) to repay the costs of the "liberation"?
6. Are there any connections between Halliburton (no bid contract), Brown Kellog and Root, and the Bush administration?
7. Have detainees been treated "fairly" or has there been a suspension of "habias corpus" for those "enemy combatants"?

Thanks in advance for answering these questions. I have a few more that I'll post later.

I think that's enough questions. I don't have all day to answer your questions. I hope there is a point to all this.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Ain't it sad that just when you think you've got the monkey by the nuts, a coconut falls out of the tree and knocks you out. Not that I'm referencing the esteemed "macaca" senator from Virginia.
Here's a question that I'll preface with one of my favorite quotes, "those that ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them."

Here's the question...
How did Americans react when an invading force attempted to dictate our decision to have independence, and sought through armed conflict, on American soil, to instill subserviance to their demands?

Follow up...
Would we expect the Iraquis to respond differently?

That was a totally different situation. We were trying to gain independence from Britain. In the case of Iraq, the people had no means to overthrow Saddam. We were their only chance. As I said, the vast number of citizens supported us. The problem was that if you have even 1% of the citizens who are against you and are well-armed and are getting support from outsiders and are waging a guerilla war against you, you're in trouble.

There were a lot of outsiders from Syria, Iran, etc who did not want us to suceed in Iraq. They were helping with the insurgency. These outsiders don't have the best interest of Iraq at heart. They don't want Iraq to be free. They don't want there to be free elections.

What are we doing that's bad over there? We want to get the hell out of there. We want the people to be able to have free elections and be free. The vast majority of people there want the same thing. It's not like we're trying to force them to do something that they don't want to do. The vast majority of people there want to have free elections and they want to be free. Under Saddam they had no freedom. If you spoke about Saddam they would kill you.