:: Get Them Out Of That Hell ::

[fossten]

I believe that we are arguing opinions, not hypotheticals.

And there is no evidence that 28,000 troops have died in Iraq. That is only a lib rumor, not even a hypothetical.

There is no evidence that WMD ever existed.

Sigh. There you go again.

Okay, here:

What happened to Halabja on the Bloody Friday?




The brutal massacre of the oppressed and innocent people of Halabja began before the sunrise of Friday, 17th of March 1988. The Iraqi regime committed its most tragic and horrible crime against the civilian people on Friday, 17th of March, 1988. On that day, Halabja was bombarded more than twenty times by Iraqi regime's warplanes with chemical and cluster bombs. That Friday afternoon, the magnitude of Iraqi crimes became evident. In the streets and alleys of Halabja, corpses piled up over one a nother. Tens of children, while playing in front of their houses in the morning, were martyred instantly by cyanide gases. The innocent children did not even have time to run back home. Some children fell down at the threshold of the door of their houses and never rose. In a Simorgh Van, the corpses of 20 women and children who had been prepared to leave the town and the chemical bombardment of the town had deprived them of this opportunity, made any observer stop and ponder about the corpses of these innocent people were evident.

The doors of most houses were left open and inside of each house, there were some martyred and wounded people. The enemy had heightened the cruelty and heart-hardness to its peak and took no pity on its own people. This crime in the chemical bombardment of Halabja has indeed been unprecedented in the history of the imposed war. This crime in Halabja can never be compared to the tragedy of the chemical bombardment of Sardasht. In Halabja more than five thousand people were martyred and over seven thousand more were wounded. Women and children formed 75 percent of the martyrs and wounded of the bloody Friday of Halabja.

Along with Halabja, Khormal, Dojaileh and their surrounding frequently but the center of the catastrophe was Halabja. In late April 1987, twenty four villages of Iraq's Kudistan were targeted by the chemical bombardment because of the struggles of the Muslim-Kurds people of this town and their open opposition to the regime ruling in Iraq. These villages were chemically bombarded twice in less than 48 hours.
*owned* *owned* *owned* *owned* *owned*

This is actually getting boring. :sleep:

 

[barry2952]

This is actually getting boring. :sleep:

So is your lame response. Where are the chemical weapon stockpiles? Vanished without a trace? How? How come none have been used by the insurgency? They've used everything else. What's keeping them from using chemical weapons?

Our best trackers haven't been able to find anything. I believe that there were 17,000 troops assigned to finding weapons. Are our armed forces inept? Saddam wasn't smart enough to keep himself from being captured yet you think he was smart enough to eliminate all traces of a chemical weapons program. Lame.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Barry, fossten keeps having to resort to ancient history to "prove" his point that Iraq "once had" WMDs (although considering C/BW as "WMDs" is debateable IMO, but I'll let that slide). He'll never admit to the fact that all the sanctions imposed on Saddam since Gulf-war I actually worked.

 

[MAllen82]

And all you rsort back to is that Bush lied, and he's a A$$, and whatnought. You come up with these articles that are so ridiculous, and so obviously some nincumpoop(sp?)'s writing. EVERYTIME we have asked you to back something up with evidence, you don't come up with anything. And I know your next response, where's the evidence of WMD's. Well my friend, we know he used to have them, and again, every major intelligence agency said he had them. That's all you could get before the war. Either way, getting rid of Saddam was good. Evidence: ELECTIONS, working on a new CONSTITUTION. Oh, but those things are not as good as having a tyrranical leader who uses wmd's to kills thousands upon thousands of his people. You're right, I have no evidence.

 

[fossten]

Barry, fossten keeps having to resort to ancient history to "prove" his point that Iraq "once had" WMDs (although considering C/BW as "WMDs" is debateable IMO, but I'll let that slide). He'll never admit to the fact that all the sanctions imposed on Saddam since Gulf-war I actually worked.

That's because you people keep making the same, bumbling error over and over again. "Duh - Saddam never had WMDs!"

******I.Q. ALERT - FALLING BELOW 100********
Let me get this straight. Are you ACTUALLY trying to say that chemical and biological weapons are NOT weapons of mass destruction?
******I.Q. ALERT - FALLING BELOW 100********

 

[MAllen82]

well fossten, if they aren't, then that lends a whole lot of credence to Johnny's argument. Typical tactic of the libs to change reality to further there cause.

 

[MonsterMark]

Oh, but those things are not as good as having a tyrranical leader who uses wmd's to kills thousands upon thousands of his people. You're right, I have no evidence.

What are you talking about? Saddam killed thousands of his own people without WMD's. Torture chambers, death rooms, you name it.

OK, some of us are missing the point here.

Aside from the obvious WMD issue, we went into Iraq to stabilize the Middle-East. Saddam was the easiest target to justify. He was in all sorts of violations and was a real antagonist to us. Add in the fact that 9/11 created a brave new world and we (the United States) could no longer take chances in the War on Terror. Can you imagine the fervor in this country had we let Saddam alone and we or any other country for that matter, were attacked and we then traced the involvement, or weapons, or fundung back to Saddam? The left would be going crazy. Bush didn't do this, Bush didn't do that.

I have figured out a LONG time ago that, like a terrorist, you can't appease a liberal. There is no making them happy. Give an inch, they take a foot.

(Preamble) you're gonna love this...

I guess being liberal is like homosexuality. It is not a choice. Somehow, you are 'wired' with it. How else can one explain their positions on almost any issue.

Take abortion. Instead of making it legal/illegal, why don't we take the whole issue out of the equation. Why not teach that 14 year old to save her 'flower' for later on in life? Why not take the crap off TV that takes advantage of women by making them run around nude? Why doesn't the music industry discourage hate speech to women and other minorities? Why doesn't the liberal media join the conservative movement in repressing the obscenities and vulgarities we see in everyday life? Why is the latest murder ALWAYS the lead story on the news?

Why don't we teach our kids how to read and write instead of teaching them sex ed and their heritage?

We have it so ass-backward in this country and I blame the media for it. They are complicit in it. We keep half our country uneducated so they can be led around by the nose. Then we have the 'elite' in this country that want to maintain their power by keeping the dumb dumber.

So in conclusion, I just don't understand the liberal mind. It is completely 180 out of sync with mine. List 10 social/economic issues and I will be on the opposite of a liberal on 9 out of those 10. Why is that? When the issue is argued fairly, the right always wins. It is only the bias in the media that serves to keep people uniformed - or otherwise the Democratic Party as it exists today would no longer be a factor in this country.

 

[eL eS]

Welcome left-winger. PM JohnnybzOOLS so he can help you strap on your body armor because your gonna need it. We're gonna shoot your story so full of holes you're going to be able to use it as a watering bucket when we're done with it.

I love it.... up armored libs. No lib goes out unless it is... up armored.