The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
By...erm...making it worse than it was under Saddam.
[URL]http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=577151[/URL]
So if Skarra or Bell are still reading, and if they still want to take the approach that this war was good for the people of Iraq, would they like to respond?
[URL]http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=577151[/URL]
So if Skarra or Bell are still reading, and if they still want to take the approach that this war was good for the people of Iraq, would they like to respond?
Page:
kevstar wrote:
> Of course it does, but you can't just send someone down based on
> accounts, you need other proof to back that claim up which has yet to
> be found. That includes the 18 tons of documents left behind by the
> Iraqis.
No, you can't. But you can weigh up all of the available evidence before coming to a conclusion, rather than saying that the only piece of evidence that disagrees with all of the rest is proof that it wos Iran wot did it.
> Hmmm so because you see Chemical Ali walking through the deserted
> streets makes him guilty does it?
Nope. But it goes some way toward establishing guilt. That's what evidence does you see; it builds up. And you look at all the available evidence, look at who has provided it and possible reasons why they have done so, and come to a conclusion. Taking one piece in isolation is a guaranteed way to come to an erroneous conclusion.
> The graves recently been discovered
> are mainly victoms with bullet holes in the back of there head.
Yes, because of course Gas is always 100% fatal and leaves absolutely no-one alive but maimed, doesn't it? Especially when it's a gas that's being tested cos they haven't previously used it.
> I am
> not saying he didn't use Chemical weapons as everyone incuding
> Reagen who sold and advised Iraq how and where to strike knew he was
> using them. I just dont think we should say anyone is guilty until
> proven, and thats exactly what your doing. Somethings don't add up
> e.g Why was cyanide found when it was known it wasn't the Iraqis
> weapon of choice, but we do know Iran was using this type of weapon,
> the Iraqis are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
On the other hand, one or two pieces of evidence against Iran do not a case make. You want to pick up on the only evidence that says it might not have been Iraq? Okay, great; it doesn't really counteract the evidence of Kurdish eyewitnesses saying that it was the Iraqi army? Hell, this is before we even get to the point of certain Iraqi's boasting of the achievement. The attack on the Kurdish town is widely regarded to have been a test. Why would one test a gas one already uses? Aren't tests supposed to be about finding out about something new? A gas that they didn't previously use for example?
> I personally blame America, they were helping the Iraqis at the time,
> they had been selling them chemical weapons and didn't want Iran
> winning the war mainly due to oil. It is known the Iraqis were helped
> in intelligence regarding the positioning of the enemy.
True, but lets not forget that;
A - America was also running arms to Iran
B - The former soviet union and most of Europe is just as culpable as America in this; don't make the mistake of demonising one nation just because they're the most obvious target. After all, that's essentially what Dubya did with Iraq.
> Of course it does, but you can't just send someone down based on
> accounts, you need other proof to back that claim up which has yet to
> be found. That includes the 18 tons of documents left behind by the
> Iraqis.
No, you can't. But you can weigh up all of the available evidence before coming to a conclusion, rather than saying that the only piece of evidence that disagrees with all of the rest is proof that it wos Iran wot did it.
> Hmmm so because you see Chemical Ali walking through the deserted
> streets makes him guilty does it?
Nope. But it goes some way toward establishing guilt. That's what evidence does you see; it builds up. And you look at all the available evidence, look at who has provided it and possible reasons why they have done so, and come to a conclusion. Taking one piece in isolation is a guaranteed way to come to an erroneous conclusion.
> The graves recently been discovered
> are mainly victoms with bullet holes in the back of there head.
Yes, because of course Gas is always 100% fatal and leaves absolutely no-one alive but maimed, doesn't it? Especially when it's a gas that's being tested cos they haven't previously used it.
> I am
> not saying he didn't use Chemical weapons as everyone incuding
> Reagen who sold and advised Iraq how and where to strike knew he was
> using them. I just dont think we should say anyone is guilty until
> proven, and thats exactly what your doing. Somethings don't add up
> e.g Why was cyanide found when it was known it wasn't the Iraqis
> weapon of choice, but we do know Iran was using this type of weapon,
> the Iraqis are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
On the other hand, one or two pieces of evidence against Iran do not a case make. You want to pick up on the only evidence that says it might not have been Iraq? Okay, great; it doesn't really counteract the evidence of Kurdish eyewitnesses saying that it was the Iraqi army? Hell, this is before we even get to the point of certain Iraqi's boasting of the achievement. The attack on the Kurdish town is widely regarded to have been a test. Why would one test a gas one already uses? Aren't tests supposed to be about finding out about something new? A gas that they didn't previously use for example?
> I personally blame America, they were helping the Iraqis at the time,
> they had been selling them chemical weapons and didn't want Iran
> winning the war mainly due to oil. It is known the Iraqis were helped
> in intelligence regarding the positioning of the enemy.
True, but lets not forget that;
A - America was also running arms to Iran
B - The former soviet union and most of Europe is just as culpable as America in this; don't make the mistake of demonising one nation just because they're the most obvious target. After all, that's essentially what Dubya did with Iraq.
Ok heres another way to look at it, who's to say that America didn't advise Iraq to bomb Halabja not knowing Saddam would use Chemical weapons in doing so? Why? We all know America was assisting Iraq with intelligence regarding positioning of enemy troops. They knew Iran had taken over Halabja and never wanted them winning the for financial reasons.
No matter how you put it no one can say for certain who bombed who, but as you say Light all evidence from all angles needs to be looked at and taken into conclusion. So then why do I read people saying that he did do it, it's called prejudging and were certainly no judges are we?
No matter how you put it no one can say for certain who bombed who, but as you say Light all evidence from all angles needs to be looked at and taken into conclusion. So then why do I read people saying that he did do it, it's called prejudging and were certainly no judges are we?
kevstar wrote:
> Ok heres another way to look at it, who's to say that America didn't
> advise Iraq to bomb Halabja not knowing Saddam would use Chemical
> weapons in doing so? Why? We all know America was assisting Iraq with
> intelligence regarding positioning of enemy troops. They knew Iran
> had taken over Halabja and never wanted them winning the for
> financial reasons.
Could be, but as the Kurds have been on the receipt of the poo-ey end of the stick since the turn of the 19th century, I find it difficult to look for reasons to implicate the Americans in any more than selling the weapons to Saddam.
>
>
> No matter how you put it no one can say for certain who bombed who,
> but as you say Light all evidence from all angles needs to be looked
> at and taken into conclusion. So then why do I read people saying
> that he did do it, it's called prejudging and were certainly no
> judges are we?
It's called having an opinion, and backing up that opinion with evidence. And everyone's allowed to do it.
> Ok heres another way to look at it, who's to say that America didn't
> advise Iraq to bomb Halabja not knowing Saddam would use Chemical
> weapons in doing so? Why? We all know America was assisting Iraq with
> intelligence regarding positioning of enemy troops. They knew Iran
> had taken over Halabja and never wanted them winning the for
> financial reasons.
Could be, but as the Kurds have been on the receipt of the poo-ey end of the stick since the turn of the 19th century, I find it difficult to look for reasons to implicate the Americans in any more than selling the weapons to Saddam.
>
>
> No matter how you put it no one can say for certain who bombed who,
> but as you say Light all evidence from all angles needs to be looked
> at and taken into conclusion. So then why do I read people saying
> that he did do it, it's called prejudging and were certainly no
> judges are we?
It's called having an opinion, and backing up that opinion with evidence. And everyone's allowed to do it.
Light wrote:
> It's called having an opinion, and backing up that opinion with
> evidence. And everyone's allowed to do it.
And thats what I was doing too, but the difference is I was trying to give another perspective into the topic which I think I have done. My opinion is different to yours as it has been in the past, and I think time will tell in the near future when Chemical Ali goes to court and the story will uncovered.
Yes I think you were right in what you were saying regarding the Kurds accounts at the time, but you forget that Iran had chemical weapons too, and even if the statement which I got my information from is wrong, can it be ignored along with all the other information. e.g. 18 tons of document confirmed nothing in relation to the gassings. None of the information in there confirmed new chemical weapons, sure as you mentioned they could have tested cyanide on the kurds, but you can't just dismiss information like that.
> It's called having an opinion, and backing up that opinion with
> evidence. And everyone's allowed to do it.
And thats what I was doing too, but the difference is I was trying to give another perspective into the topic which I think I have done. My opinion is different to yours as it has been in the past, and I think time will tell in the near future when Chemical Ali goes to court and the story will uncovered.
Yes I think you were right in what you were saying regarding the Kurds accounts at the time, but you forget that Iran had chemical weapons too, and even if the statement which I got my information from is wrong, can it be ignored along with all the other information. e.g. 18 tons of document confirmed nothing in relation to the gassings. None of the information in there confirmed new chemical weapons, sure as you mentioned they could have tested cyanide on the kurds, but you can't just dismiss information like that.
kevstar wrote:
> And thats what I was doing too, but the difference is I was trying to
> give another perspective into the topic which I think I have done. My
> opinion is different to yours as it has been in the past, and I think
> time will tell in the near future when Chemical Ali goes to court and
> the story will uncovered.
Speaking personally, I have my doubts about any trial. A lot of western powers stand to made to look like the hypocrites they are, so I'm expecting a whitewash at best, mysterious deaths before trial at worst.
>
> Yes I think you were right in what you were saying regarding the
> Kurds accounts at the time, but you forget that Iran had chemical
> weapons too, and even if the statement which I got my information
> from is wrong, can it be ignored along with all the other
> information. e.g. 18 tons of document confirmed nothing in relation
> to the gassings. None of the information in there confirmed new
> chemical weapons, sure as you mentioned they could have tested
> cyanide on the kurds, but you can't just dismiss information like
> that.
True enough. However, the evidence about Iran is far from convincing; it amounts to a tiny amount of conjecture. As to the 18 tons of documents you keep referring to, it's an impressive figure but unless you personally have read all 18 tons and know of all conceivable interpretations of the bureaucratic doublespeak within, you'll pardon me for not taking that as anywhere near conclusive. Especially as the only place I've seen this statement is in tandem with the assertion that Iran were responsible.
Trust me, I'm not 'just dismissing' anything. The evidence you've given me is new to me, but it's utterly unsupported, whereas the assertion that Iraq were responsible has other evidence in support of it. Yes, I could be completely wrong, but on the balance of probabilities and based on the currently available evidence, Iran doesn't have much of a case to answer.
> And thats what I was doing too, but the difference is I was trying to
> give another perspective into the topic which I think I have done. My
> opinion is different to yours as it has been in the past, and I think
> time will tell in the near future when Chemical Ali goes to court and
> the story will uncovered.
Speaking personally, I have my doubts about any trial. A lot of western powers stand to made to look like the hypocrites they are, so I'm expecting a whitewash at best, mysterious deaths before trial at worst.
>
> Yes I think you were right in what you were saying regarding the
> Kurds accounts at the time, but you forget that Iran had chemical
> weapons too, and even if the statement which I got my information
> from is wrong, can it be ignored along with all the other
> information. e.g. 18 tons of document confirmed nothing in relation
> to the gassings. None of the information in there confirmed new
> chemical weapons, sure as you mentioned they could have tested
> cyanide on the kurds, but you can't just dismiss information like
> that.
True enough. However, the evidence about Iran is far from convincing; it amounts to a tiny amount of conjecture. As to the 18 tons of documents you keep referring to, it's an impressive figure but unless you personally have read all 18 tons and know of all conceivable interpretations of the bureaucratic doublespeak within, you'll pardon me for not taking that as anywhere near conclusive. Especially as the only place I've seen this statement is in tandem with the assertion that Iran were responsible.
Trust me, I'm not 'just dismissing' anything. The evidence you've given me is new to me, but it's utterly unsupported, whereas the assertion that Iraq were responsible has other evidence in support of it. Yes, I could be completely wrong, but on the balance of probabilities and based on the currently available evidence, Iran doesn't have much of a case to answer.
Light wrote:
>
> Speaking personally, I have my doubts about any trial. A lot of
> western powers stand to made to look like the hypocrites they are, so
> I'm expecting a whitewash at best, mysterious deaths before trial at
> worst.
>
>
Its funny you mention this as the US have apparently lost crucial evidence of alleged human rights abuses that could have been used in the up and coming trails of Saddam. Failure to stop looters from taking important documents and not preventing the families of the murdered from digging up remains found in many of the grave sites shows ignorance of the highest level. A whitewash? and by this you mean people would argue that orange is really black if it was to help them justify why a man responsible for the deaths of over 1 million+ Iraqis and other Arabs, and for the creation of 4 million+ refugees should have stayed in power. And how Veto nations should have been allowed to continue striking up oil deals and exporting arms to this man if the sanctions were brought down. Yeah I know what you mean.
>
> Speaking personally, I have my doubts about any trial. A lot of
> western powers stand to made to look like the hypocrites they are, so
> I'm expecting a whitewash at best, mysterious deaths before trial at
> worst.
>
>
Its funny you mention this as the US have apparently lost crucial evidence of alleged human rights abuses that could have been used in the up and coming trails of Saddam. Failure to stop looters from taking important documents and not preventing the families of the murdered from digging up remains found in many of the grave sites shows ignorance of the highest level. A whitewash? and by this you mean people would argue that orange is really black if it was to help them justify why a man responsible for the deaths of over 1 million+ Iraqis and other Arabs, and for the creation of 4 million+ refugees should have stayed in power. And how Veto nations should have been allowed to continue striking up oil deals and exporting arms to this man if the sanctions were brought down. Yeah I know what you mean.
Well, even though its in a well respected piece of literature, it still bases that 100,000 figure on the deaths of 69 doesn't it? How can 69 deaths be sufficiently representative as to the total number of deaths in a country of about 25 million?
Oh, and thats not pro-war reteric. One of my War Studies lectures is very much against this war, and even he doubts the validity of this. He wishes it were true, as it adds to the case against the war, but he can't see that this is entirly accurate.
Oh, and thats not pro-war reteric. One of my War Studies lectures is very much against this war, and even he doubts the validity of this. He wishes it were true, as it adds to the case against the war, but he can't see that this is entirly accurate.
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
>
> Compare this with Saddams regime where democracy wasn't a question
> because he killed the majority of people against him. Killed people
> for fun, tested weapons on there neighbours and thats just what we
> know about.
>
> We know about it because western governments not only approved of the
> gassing of kurds and war with Iran, it was encourged and the weapons
> to do so were sold to him by the US, UK, France, Germany...
>
> And now, suddenly, we're acting on moral grounds? Do you really
> believe that?
COME ON!!! Are you really that simple.
Tell me, who was in Government when those decisions were made??? The exact same people as today??? NOOOO!!! Governments, Ministers and Policies can change in a matter of hours.
And so what if its hypocritical, since when has, do as i say, not what i do been sufficient grounds for being morally corrupt?
> kevstar wrote:
>
> Compare this with Saddams regime where democracy wasn't a question
> because he killed the majority of people against him. Killed people
> for fun, tested weapons on there neighbours and thats just what we
> know about.
>
> We know about it because western governments not only approved of the
> gassing of kurds and war with Iran, it was encourged and the weapons
> to do so were sold to him by the US, UK, France, Germany...
>
> And now, suddenly, we're acting on moral grounds? Do you really
> believe that?
COME ON!!! Are you really that simple.
Tell me, who was in Government when those decisions were made??? The exact same people as today??? NOOOO!!! Governments, Ministers and Policies can change in a matter of hours.
And so what if its hypocritical, since when has, do as i say, not what i do been sufficient grounds for being morally corrupt?
Light wrote:
> American company. Singular. Haliburton are the ones who've done best
> out of this.
> Would I be right in saying that this war was justified because it
> provides a boost to the American economy?
http://www.costofwar.com/
Still think it was to provide a boost to the US economy?
> American company. Singular. Haliburton are the ones who've done best
> out of this.
> Would I be right in saying that this war was justified because it
> provides a boost to the American economy?
http://www.costofwar.com/
Still think it was to provide a boost to the US economy?
Skarra wrote:
> Light wrote:
> American company. Singular. Haliburton are the ones who've done best
> out of this.
> Would I be right in saying that this war was justified because it
> provides a boost to the American economy?
>
> http://www.costofwar.com/
>
> Still think it was to provide a boost to the US economy?
Erm, no. I think you've missed the point; how can something good for a few companies help the whole economy? I'm saying that Dubya et al couldn't give a damn about the US economy. I'm saying they care about the lining of their own pockets.
> Light wrote:
> American company. Singular. Haliburton are the ones who've done best
> out of this.
> Would I be right in saying that this war was justified because it
> provides a boost to the American economy?
>
> http://www.costofwar.com/
>
> Still think it was to provide a boost to the US economy?
Erm, no. I think you've missed the point; how can something good for a few companies help the whole economy? I'm saying that Dubya et al couldn't give a damn about the US economy. I'm saying they care about the lining of their own pockets.
Page: