quote: Q. Why did Americans armed Saddam in the first place?
A. Yes America armed Saddam so he would be a good semi moderate Islamic state to counteract the murdering influence of the sadistic mullahs in Iran. Saddam has refused to conform and proves to be perhaps more dangerous than the Mullahs in Iran so America has decided to kick him out…The rest of world should deal with and get over it!
Could please explain what Saddam had refused to comform?. I have to also correct the assumption that Iraq under saddam is an Islamic state. Muslim Majority does not equate to Islamic state re Turkey. Infact Iraq is the only secular country in the Gulf region. Tariq Aziz, the foreign minister is christian. This fact is what confounds some people when this war is being explained as a war against Islamic terrorism.
quote:Q. The war will hurt innocent Iraqi civilians. A. Iraqi’s Saddam hurts, kills, intimidates, and brutalizes innocents Iraqi civilians. Truth be told America is fighting this war with one hand tied behind her back, and all the civilian casualties so far would be far less than Saddam would have created in any quarter of any given year.
I dont believe you mean this.Try explaining to a bereaved individual or people that lost limbs etc.It is this belief that make people resort to war as first resort.The facts remain that the dead and injured are human, just like you and I, they have brothers, sisters, children parents who love them.
quote:Q. It is not even worth trying to figure out France’s motives.
Contrary to the view peddled by the US media, the opposition to the war in Europe is being driven by two factors, 1)Their case for war was not made.
2)That this war will increase and not decrease Arab terrorism. The French Gov know that with very little evidence in support of the war,with over a million French people of Arab origin, they will bear the brunt of any expected back lash.
quote:. This war has sent a clear and decisive message to all terrorist-leaning states that big brother will come and get you if you misbehave. Surely, this can only make the world a safer place.
I think on this we should agree to disagree.
Finally, people should seperate opposition to this war from anti-americanism.
Posts: 585 | From: London. | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
Could please explain what Saddam had refused to comform?. I have to also correct the assumption that Iraq under saddam is an Islamic state. Muslim Majority does not equate to Islamic state re Turkey. Infact Iraq is the only secular country in the Gulf region. Tariq Aziz, the foreign minister is christian. This fact is what confounds some people when this war is being explained as a war against Islamic terrorism.
Wacko thanks for your Welcome.
You have inadvertently just made the exact case for why Saddam was supported by America in the first place. He maintained a semi secular state relative to his Arab neighbors. You said the case for war was not made yet on the other hand you admit that Saddam is a sadistic murderous thug perhaps comparable in history only to Hitler, and yet the case for war is not made?…umm I am baffled. While it is true that Iraq under Saddam has been relatively secular, I do not see how that has been an argument, since this war is about removing a murderous and mentally unstable tyrant and not about Islam. I recall Abacha also a few token non-Islamic members in his cabinet.
Posts: 101 | From: US | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
Nice to know you are still aroound. While I have left my opinion on the war to posterity (history has a way of telling us the truth), I have one question. Is there equally an urgency to liberate North Korea and would you encourage Dubya to do this ? I mean Kim Jong Il has pushed Japan into reviving it's millitary while flashing WMD in America's face, is there a credible threat to the US here ?
[ April 06, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: chiboy ]
Posts: 1532 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Q. The war will hurt innocent Iraqi civilians. A. Iraqi’s Saddam hurts, kills, intimidates, and brutalizes innocents Iraqi civilians. Truth be told America is fighting this war with one hand tied behind her back, and all the civilian casualties so far would be far less than Saddam would have created in any quarter of any given year.
I dont believe you mean this.Try explaining to a bereaved individual or people that lost limbs etc.It is this belief that make people resort to war as first resort.The facts remain that the dead and injured are human, just like you and I, they have brothers, sisters, children parents who love them.
With all due respect, with a statement like this, an average Iraqi would probably laugh in your face. This is a country that is used to seeing inhabitants of whole villages disappear and are executed all because the local Chief fell out of favor with Saddam. I know because unlike many I know and have spoken with a couple of them.
I remember some Black American congress people then supporting Abacha just because he was being sanctioned by a supposedly white America. Notable among those was that corrupt Lady senator from Chicago or whatever she was that has now been voted out of office.
Saddams Iraq was a country where you go to work and you disappear never to be seen again by your family, or you get picked up for a chat by the secret police and that would be the last time your family ever saw you. Your family dare not go to the police and enquire, least they also disappear forever. Saddam’s Iraqi was the exact model followed by Sani Abacha and his sons in Nigeria, but luckily, he died fucking a cheap prostitute before he could perfect the plan.
I hope you saw the hundreds of coffins with mangled bones discovered by the British Army in a warehouse in Iraq; most of them were shot in the head.
Saddam and his sons ruled by terror, and by terror, he and his sons must die; capture is not an option.
Posts: 101 | From: US | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Chiboy: Yours is a very credible question and seems to be one of the questions anti war protesters have hung on to. It is also in line with questions like. “Why should only America own weapons of mass destruction?”
America and indeed the rest of the world would deal with that as events unfold. North Korea, despite the braggadocio of its leaders, is relative sane and least prone to suicidal attacks unlike the gulf region.
As for the second question, America and its allies has proved themselves to be responsible, and decisions of life and death are not made on the wimps and caprice of a single individual who may or may not be stable. It is a far cry from leaving the faith of the world to a single and unstable individual.
Try go to bed at night knowing Iran or Syria has nuclear weapons.
Posts: 101 | From: US | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
North Korea is no threat to the world. Their version of nuclear warfare is extortion for loans and food. The economy has been on a life support and people are starving for food. I have to say that Korean Prime Minister is a desparate man but not enough to nuke any country. Perhaps a well ochestrated intimadation into seeking support for a badly needed American loan. He is likely to tone down his threat after the victory in baghdad. Or China is best suited to place a brake on North Korea since their interest is equally threatend.
Hail Biafra Posts: 1679 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
quote: You have inadvertently just made the exact case for why Saddam was supported by America in the first place. He maintained a semi secular state relative to his Arab neighbors. You said the case for war was not made yet on the other hand you admit that Saddam is a sadistic murderous thug perhaps comparable in history only to Hitler, and yet the case for war is not made?…umm I am baffled.
So the reason for war is that he was a tyrant and his people need to be liberated. Well Great leader Kim is all those things and more. I hope the coalition go to liberate his people next. Also we hope the people of Egypt are liberated from the tyrany of Mubarak. The message seems to be that you can commit as much attrocities against your people provided you do the bidding of a powerful section of the USA administration.
quote:With all due respect, with a statement like this, an average Iraqi would probably laugh in your face. This is a country that is used to seeing inhabitants of whole villages disappear and are executed all because the local Chief fell out of favor with Saddam. I know because unlike many I know and have spoken with a couple of them.
They still survived it only to be killed by their liberators.
quote:Try go to bed at night knowing Iran or Syria has nuclear weapons
So the reason for war has now reverted to Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. BTW Syria has one of the most extensive chemical weapons capabilities in the entire middle east . Iran has restarted the nuclear weapons program,as Bush and co have impressed it upon the world that you are free from US attack if you possess nuclear weapons.
posted
Quote: -------------------------------------------------- "Your goddamned opinion does count 5% and what really counts more is that you can't do a damn thing about it. Like Nigeria, the only government is being ruled by Desert Rats (ANIMALS) who become President by the barrel of the gun."---Waypoint. --------------------------------------------------
TALK! TALK!! TALK!!! You seem to be self contadicting yourself. In one thread you say the Biafrans should arm themselves "for self defence" (one would have thought that you would have joined the next available flight to do the fighting yourself) and here you're exonerating the American government that armed and continue to arm the governments that killed and continue kill those and other Nigerians whose only crime is to disagree with Obasanjo's "civilian" government. Do one need to be a "desert rat" to be a dictator? Or do your understanding of "dictator" only mean one with military uniform or someone from "third world" country? Your style may earn you applause in some quaters but I tell you you are not helping yourself or anyone in any way.
Just as you who cannot vote or be voted in Nigeria has EVERY RIGHT to your opinion (though most are incorrect), so do we the people from "third world" have EVERY RIGHT to make our voice heard ON EVERY MATTER of our choice and that is what we will continue to do. Copy dat?
Quote: -------------------------------------------------- "And for those who still have mindset that this question represent, I ask; do you think the retarded mullahs even need a reason to perpetrate their murderous and cowardly act? --------------------------------------------------
Wind: You guys have come from Abacha this and that to "mullah." Have you guys sat down for a while to ask yourselves why the hatred (resulting in acts of terror) against Americans and American interests around the world has suddenly been on the increase since the extremist Bush came to office?
While you guys talk of "terrosists" and crime against humanity, I urge you guys to read your history and tell us apart from Iraq's case which other crime against humanity has been done with the so-called weapons of mass destruction. Again, for the records, the worst crimes against humanity (aka terrorism) committed in recent human history was oiled by IGNORANCE, BIGOTORY and HATE. So other than applying the quick-fix MIGHT IS RIGHT solution which you guys are suggesting, it doesnt take a social scientist to know that what will actually minimize or stop terror of diverse nature IN THE LONG TERM both against the Americans and others is more tolerance and respect of other people's right to be different. Examples: the killing of over 6 million Jews had NOTHING to do with WMD; the slaughter of over 600.000 Tutsis by their Hutu countrymen had NOTHING to do with WMD; the killing of over 1 million Cambodians by Pol Pot had NOTHING to do with WMD; the killing of over 200.000 Albanians by the Serbs had NOTHING to do with WMD; in your own Nigerian case, the killing and stavation of over a million Biafrans had NOTHING to do with the so-called weapons of mass distruction. In all the above instances and others too numerious to mention, it was guns and in some cases normal house tools such as cutlasses, matchets, batons and bare hands that was used to kill those involved. So one do need to have the so-called WMD to commit mass murder, nor will all America's wars make her TRUE friends nor make those who fear America presently to respect her in the future. As a big brother and one that wants to be seen as such, it is RESPECT that America needs more than the fear Bush and co think they can put in the psych of the world.
Bottomline: just as we say that a baby that denies the mother sleep cannot have one. So also is a mother who denies her baby food will have her eyes WIDE OPEN all night. The choice is that of the extremists in America and those that support them to make. For now we know the casualties are not and will NEVER be only the weak as the Bushes thought.
Posts: 997 | From: Germany | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Wacko: So the reason for war has now reverted to Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. BTW Syria has one of the most extensive chemical weapons capabilities in the entire middle east . Iran has restarted the nuclear weapons program,as Bush and co have impressed it upon the world that you are free from US attack if you possess nuclear weapons.
I hope I have not disturbed your sleep.
Wacko: Have you heard from Quadaffi lately? No because a couple of F16’s a long time ago shut him up and he has since turned his bully to weaker African nations including Northern Nigeria creating mischief.
Yes Syria may have Chemical weapons as indeed a lot of countries do, but they know better than to use it or even threaten to use it. A nuclear reactor for CIVILIAN purpose is been built in Iran by the broke and rogue Russian state with favorable contracts to France. But my guess is that the reactor would be destroyed if not by the US, but by Israel, who has more to fear. Mark my words; this would be done as soon as the nuisance in Baghdad is taken care of.
Posts: 101 | From: US | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:"Saddamn's Iraq was the exact model followed by Sani Abacha and his son in Nigeria but luckily, he died "getting laid" by a cheap prostitute before he could perfect his plan"---------->WIND
How fast and fury they forget with misplaced argument against the war?. And who in his right mind will defend Saddam with such contemptible correlation with Sani Abacha. A devil with no idle spirit, but a vagrant, runagate walker, that never rested, whose motive, cause and main intentions of his restlessness was to ruin those who questioned his Nigerian spirit. You know, one pathological quality of both Saddam's son and Sani's is when they are striped of thier chain gangs and blood money, they cowardly become humans.
Well, talk about the other devil, Saddam currently confined to hell, or hiding by invisibility! The Marines have him by shoals in his Baghdad bunker. His pictures in every corner of the country is gradually dinnasourous. But the psychology of these pictures will remain a nightmare on the average Iraqis until deprogramed.------->Kill Saddam. But for once his blessings are bleak, confined and not seeking which family to devour. Thanks to the coalition forces, a family in Iraq could live another day without fear or intimidation by Nigerian Abacha style government.
Hail Biafra
[ April 06, 2003, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1679 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Quote: -------------------------------------------------- "How fast and fury they forget with misplaced argument against the war?. And who in his right mind will defend Saddam with such contemptible correlation with Sani Abacha." --------------------------------------------------
Who said Saddam or Abacha were a saints? Nevertheless, it's time you be told that between 1994 to 1997 that Abacha governed Nigerian and 1999 till date that the "civilian" Obasanjo has been in power that more Nigerians have died (through political and religious violence) than during the regimes of ALL military regimes after the Nigerian civil war put together. The only difference between Obasanjo and Abacha is in the cloth they wear. Just as the only difference between the person/s America will put in Baghdad after Saddam will be in their clothings as well.
True change has NEVER and does not come from WITHOUT. That's the point we have been making. You guys should address that and stop beating about the bush.
Posts: 997 | From: Germany | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Let me doff my hat to the duo of Wind and especially Waypoint. Those that have inferred war-mongering on those pro-war supporters are either naive or just plain idealists. Idealists see situations differently (mostly utopian) and would want the world to be like that.
Realists see things from a prospective of experience. They do not revel in utopian fantasies.
Humans are very difficult to understand. Let us ponder over this-- Humans tend most often to scorn those who are successful. Example-
The Jews in Europe especially German Jews were so successful- they were hated.
Our own Igbos were successful in Nigeria in every endeavor--- They were hated.
America is so successful- Jealousy followed.
Most of the criticisms against America is due to jealousy and probably fear and mostly by idealists.
Some have even remembered their history to tell us how Britain and US propped Saddam. SO WHAT?
Hmmm- I tell you one thing- It is called Diplomacy. There is no CONSTANT in diplomacy. There is no permanent friend or foe in diplomacy. So, that argument is very weak.
Anyhow- the end of the war is near and America has done it again. If you don't like it, too bad.
___________________ Emotional Commentaries most often do not solve problems. Being rational makes for intelligence. Posts: 21 | From: Ekpoma, Nigeria | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Those who oppose the recent war against Iraq do so mostly because they see the war being fought for the wrong reasons. Saddam Hussein, we all agree is an evil man but so too are many of our friends and allies in that part of the world.
The reason we condemn this war is that the ONLY reason for invading Iraq is that Saddam Hussein refuses to be our (evil) man in Baghdad. As we are all too familiar, several reasons have been proffered for invading Iraq - one of which is Mr. Hussein's addiction to weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But the fact is that he is not the only person interested in WMD. As Wacko cleverly noted, Syria has a massive WMD program. And in large measures so does Libya, Egypt and our friends in Tel Aviv. If WMD should be used as the criterion for invading another sovereign country does that mean that we would next invade Israel and Egypt? Of course not. Why? Because they are our friends and being so we have imbued them with certain reasonableness and gravitas.
There are two principal schools of thought in international politics. Those who argue that the world is a jungle without a law enforcement entity and in which power and authority in the international arena should accrue to the mightest and most powerful country. To persons who make such arguements the nation state is the primary and only legitimate actor and its interest must be governed by national interest to the exclusion of all. To this school the appelation, "Realists" was attached. But there is the other school of thought - sometimes called "Idealists" but often by proponents of "Realism", who argue that the world is much too complicated and too interdependent and thus calls for cooperation between nation-states to achieve a much more prosperous and harmonious world order. The invest a lot in international institutions like the United Nations because they believe that such an organization imbued with legitimacy by all would render it more effective.
For a long time American's participation in international affairs followed the idealist's school. She was in the vanguard of nationa that founded the League of Nations after WW1 and its successor organization, the UN. America's foreign policy was also distinguished by its anti-colonialist stance. This won America a lot of friends and followers as no other powerful nation has had.
The war against Iraq and the reasons advanced for it simply changed all of that. America was no longer an anti-colonialist power. It has become like the other great powers of the past - selective in its administration of justice and decency. Now, any nation that challenges America's interest will be brought down for being too cheeky. That was what Saddam Hussein failed to realize.
Earlier, I mentioned reasons advanced for invading Iraq and noted that WMD was one. Later, this matured into the need to bring democracy to Iraq. How charming. But it would have been better and considerably easier to seek such democratic values and institutions among our kleptomanic friends in Saudi Arabia or that authoritarian, ramschackle of a country, Egypt. But alas, Iraq presented such a vehicle for bringing democratic values to the Middle-East.
When General Kemal, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law briefly abandoned Iraq and went into exile in Jordan, he provided excellent information to the CIA when he was debriefed. He clearly noted that Iraq has destroyed all its WMD though it still kept the design to reconsitute such programs in the future. Thus far, events in the conquered parts of Iraq appears to support Kemal's statements in 1995.
Iraq was invaded not based on the reasons thus far advanced though those reasons may have been indirectly considered. Iraq was invaded for its two important resources - its oil and its water. Iraq remains the only country in the Middle East with sufficient water and a lot of countries - principally, Israel needs that water. Its oil reserves has at times been placed larger than those of Saudi Arabia. And it also had a leader who felt bold to challenge the United States. In the past, Saddam Hussein was able to get way with challenging America's might. But with the Bush Jr. administration a new class of people came into office who have a different and a medieval understanding of power. They applied it with unshakable resolve and extreme violence against Iraq. They would again use it in such places as North Korea and later, China. They have chained us to a policy of perpetual war because the batlefields in the future will be bigger and more deadly.
When we oppose the war against Iraq it is not becaused we are endeared to Saddam Hussein or his Baatheist ideology. It is because we tremble for what is happening to America and the leadership descent into colonialism. We cannot bring about the sort of regime change we envisaged for Iraq without changing its insitutions, its education, its mores and its laws. These are the things that colonialism are made of.
posted
Quote: -------------------------------------------------- "There is no CONSTANT in diplomacy. There is no permanent friend or foe in diplomacy"--- Irewere. --------------------------------------------------
Irewere: I agree 100% that in politics/diplomacy there's no permanent friend, rather what is permanent is interests. Where I (I guess other anti-war members) disagree with the Americans is they should not be the one that decides when/how someone/country is/should be EVERYONE'S friend or enemy as the case maybe. They should not fall out with their then "friend/s" and want the whole world to fall out with same at same time. That attitude in itself is DICTATORIAL and that is what people around the world resist even as the war has reached Saddam's bedroom. If one is a true democrat as the Bushes want us believe then they should learn not to force either their friends or enemies on others--not even their own child would live under such draculian order. That is the INSINCERITY Wacko and others before and after him have made a profound good case of.
That is the main reason (not "jealousy" as you wrote) America is presently the only superpower and at same time the SUPPER CHICKEN on diplomatic tables around the world. Believe me, someone with Bill Clinton's IDEALISM would have done a far better job with less casuality on either side and achieve a LASTING SOLUTION both for the Arabs and others in the Middle East. Do you remember the Oslo agreement? If that piece of paper was implimented to the letter it would have achieved everything all Bush's bombs have not and I dare say will NEVER achieve -- LONG LASTING PEACE in the Middle East.
For your information, good leaders are first idealists before becoming activists and not the other way around as you wrongly implied.
Quote: -------------------------------------------------- "Anyhow- the end of the war is near and America has done it again. If you don't like it, too bad."---Irewere. --------------------------------------------------
Fine and good. But again, it does not make the "reasons" reasonable nor the action right. In any case, the strong has had his way but we the weak have had our say. Is there any other way to practice DEMOCRACY?
As we Igbos have it in our proberb: to see evil and not speaking out kills the old, but what kills the young is refusal to heed to wise counsel.
Posts: 997 | From: Germany | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Benbella: Long time. While what you stated is about 90% right, the difference between you and I is that to me, the end justifies the means. I would be perfectly satisfied if "Boredom" was the only reason advanced by GW for attacking Iraq.
Frankly I blame GW for ever trying to get the UN involved. After 9/11, American has implicitly be handed a license to take down any government it chooses, any time it chooses without recourse to a UN occupied by semi-rogue states like Russia, Germany or France. It is times like this that America really needs a Reagan in Power, even though GW is not doing too badly holding the fort either. I find it hard to believe I would one day heap praises on a Republican president, but hey it is a different world out there now and the only language these cowards understand is violence and overwhelming violence. Time for Greenpeace, perfect world, and type idealism is gone and gone forever.
I hope all anti-war activist are taking note of the current uprising by ordinary citizens in Baghdad against what is left of Saddams terror machine.
[ April 07, 2003, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: wind ]
Posts: 101 | From: US | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
You guys are very erudite, very clear thinking indeed. The question often asked by the wary minds is why does the U.S fight at least one major war each decade. Even though they masquerade as attempting to resolve conflicts diplomatically. Does it all have to do with the nature of the larger part of the economy that is dependent on the Military-Industrial-Complex? These wars are often unneccessary, and overwhelming force particularly the air campain uses the expensive cruise misles and guided bombs. The elite of the U.S all are beneficiaries of the companies that make these weapon systems. This explaines why even with no Soviet Union, this dangerous complex will create enemies, to justify high taxation on Americans, the revenue transfered to the benefactors that prop up the system.
Posts: 138 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Those who oppose the recent war against Iraq do so mostly because they see the war was fought for the wrong reasons. Saddam Hussein, we all agree is an evil man.----------->BENBELLA
A very strong colonization of Saddam as a self made evil but lacks any conviction on how to deal with the evil itself. And I ask does it make any sense and sensibility to watch the triumph of evil while good men do nothing about it? Everyone agrees that Saddam is evil, misery and perhaps death himself but has no remedy for the victims, the Iraqis. And if United states is evil themselves as the peace makers would like us to believe, then history has informed us that the evil has made this world a better place, e.g Japan, Germany, South Korea, France and others. History has also informed us that you cannot fight evil without evil and you cannot fight barbarism without barbarism. Peace makers believed that Hitler was monstrously barbaric but non-violence enough was not able to deal with him until 6 million Jews perished. The so-called evil, once again was the victor.
The war against physical evil[Saddam], like every other war, must be conducted with such fury as to render the evil incapable of the arts of criminality. Saddamn took over his country by force, intimidation, employed violence to fence his evil doings, homicidal soldiers, secret police became his instrument for inflicting both psychological pain and pain itself on hopeless citizens. As if that was not enough, he took on the UN. All infliction of pain in the abstract and according to Benbella was wrong or evil. But how do we contaminate the weapons with which the evil deals with and the means by which it works? Peace makers falls short of telling us how. I am statisfied that Benbella and company are convinced that Saddam is an evil and if there is no other or good enough justification to go to war; then I fancy no other explanation to those thousands of human skulls in the coffin found in Bashra. "Daddy's unfinished Business and G.W"s Obssession with Iraq and Saddam is Over" Enough is enough, the war is fought and is over-------------> next who is rebuilding Iraq, USA?
Hail Biafra
[ April 08, 2003, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Waypoint1Biafra ]
Posts: 1679 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
quote: then I fancy no other explanation to those thousands of human skulls in the coffin found in Bashra.
WayPoint!
Remains are old soldiers, not torture victims 08.04.2003 [03:30]
Human remains found inside a makeshift morgue in a former artillery complex appeared to be soldiers killed in the Iran-Iraq war, not victims of atrocities as first reports suggested.
Investigators from the US 75th Exploitation Task Force arrived at the site north of Zubayr on Sunday morning from their camp in northern Kuwait to investigate initial descriptions which suggested the morgue was a centre for torture and execution.
But after just a few hours, Chief Warrant Officer Dan Walters, the leader of the task force's Criminal Investigation Division unit, said a preliminary examination of the remains of 408 men in 664 thin wooden coffins and some of the thousands of pages of documents in a building next to the warehouse suggested that atrocities had probably not occurred there.
Rather, he said, Iraqis had apparently been processing the remains and preparing to exchange them with Iran.
"Their wounds were consistent with combat deaths, not executions," said Mr Walters.
"So far," he added, "there are no indications that war crimes were committed here."
Outside the warehouse, a bullet-riddled wall also turned out to be less than the initial reports had suggested. "A search of the area did not reveal any evidence that the wall was used as a firing wall or an execution wall," said Mr Walters.
An estimated one million people were killed in the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war, which Saddam initiated against the fledgling Iranian Islamic government, his first war as president. The conflict ended in an uneasy truce. But Iraq claimed victory in the war, which nearly bankrupted the government and paved the way for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
It was in the war with Iran that Saddam ordered the use of poison gas against enemy forces for the first time, as he did against Iraqi Kurds. But members of the forensic team examining the remains said they had found no trace of chemicals or biological agents.
Brigadier General Mirfeisal Baqerzadeh, the head of Iran's search and recovery committee of those missing in action, had said that the bodies were found in recent months in joint recovery operations in Iran and southern Iraq, but that the exchange had not taken place because of the American-led invasion. Some early news reports by correspondents travelling with the British forces who stumbled on the site on Saturday suggested that it had been used for torture.
But Captain Thomas Jagielski, who heads the war crimes team, said the suspected "torture chambers" were apparently makeshift offices separated by hastily erected mud-brick partitions. Here, Iraqis had apparently documented the identities of the dead.
About 85 per cent of the dead were Iraqis, Mr Walters said. The rest are believed to be Iranian. The men are believed to have been killed sometime in the mid-1980s.
Mr Walters said efforts would be made in the coming days and weeks to return the remains to the families of the Iranians and Iraqis.
Posts: 585 | From: London. | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Wacho: Leave the Waypoint guy to his fantasies. He writes before he think/research. All we have to do is to watch and correct his misrepresentation of facts.
All: The TRUTH at last! In a press confrence given yesterday (Monday 7th April, 2003) by the Coalition Central Command spokesman Brig-Gen Vincent Brooks he replied to a question thus, "NO, WE ARE YET TO FIND ANY WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION." The fact that the Americans and their allies did not find any "WMD" after capturing almost over 3/4 of Iraq, including Saddam's Presidencial Palace (living-room) renders every other "reason" they and their blind followers here fabricate as NULL and VOID.
Life or dead, Saddam and co has finally exposed Bush and co as BROAD DAY LIES. They have also vindicated those like us who from day one saw this SENSELESS war as another IMPERIALISM disguised as "freedom." Karl Blix, the UN and all who prostested against this war around the world have finally been vindicated. Their effort was afterall NOT IN VAIN!!
That a strong and well armed man break into someone's apartment and loot or even kill the occupant does not make the invader (even if the owner of the house stole the properties therein) a good guest, or worse still a 'liberator.'
That was our case all along. On this note I rest my case.
Posts: 997 | From: Germany | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
Britain admits there may be no WMD's in Iraq by Ruben Bannerjee Saturday April 05, 2003 at 01:01 PM
But, what this Al Jazeera article fails to mention is that Paul Wolfowitz has recently indicated in Sensative briefings to Congress that Saddam moved all his WMD to Syria. Wolfowitz fully intends to use this as his excuse to attack Syria for Israel.
Britain admits there may be no WMD's in Iraq
Ruben Bannerjee
Well into the war that was supposed to rid Iraq of its alleged stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, a senior British official admitted on Saturday that no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction may after all be found.
Making the startling confession in a radio interview, British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, added in the same breath that he would in any case rejoice the “fall” of Saddam Hussein and his regime — regardless of whether any weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq or not.
The confession reconfirms the worst fears of opponents of the war that “weapons of mass destruction” is only a ruse for the US and the British to go to war against Iraq.
At the very least the admission certainly deals a serious blow to the moral legitimacy that the US and the British have been seeking in prosecuting the war.
Soldiers of the British 7th Armoured Brigade patrol the road leading to the southern Iraq city of Basra
Critics of the war across the world have been accusing the US and the British of aiming for regime change in Baghdad under the guise of “unearthing and disman
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
