The Butcher of Baghdad.

[IraHays]

Some of the major atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein's government:

?1978-80: Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, whose ancestors were of Iranian origin, packed in trucks and thrown out on border with Iran. Property confiscated. Hundreds died in very cold weather. Thousands of their teenage sons kept in Iraqi jails and after more than 15 years all killed.

? 1983: Government campaign against members of Kurdish Barzani (search) tribe for helping Iran launch offensive in northern Iraq. Estimated 8,000 killed, many buried in mass graves far from home in Iraq's southern desert.

?1986-88: Scorched-earth offensive known as "Anfal (search)" that included chemical attacks on Kurds in northern Iraq for advocating autonomy. Estimated 180,000 Kurds killed, many buried in mass graves in south. Possible genocide charges in Iraqi tribunal.

?1991: Crackdowns on Shiite Muslim (search) and Kurdish uprisings at end of the Gulf War. Estimated 60,000 killed. Many buried in mass graves.

?1992: Draining of marshes in southern Iraq, driving population known as Marsh Arabs from homes and wiping out way of life. Tens of thousands killed. No mass graves. Possible genocide charges.

?1979-2003: Various political prisoners of populations distrusted by Saddam disappeared, including Turkomans, religious Muslims and communists. Tens of thousands believed killed. Many buried in mass graves, some near prisons.


http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...105071,00.html

[ericTHEninja]

Until you quoted Fox News, this post might've received some respect. While Saddam was a tyrrant, you're touching on some pretty sensative stuff. Especially with those of us against the war.

Here're some more stats for you:
Civilian deaths due to the military intervention in Iraq: 60,000-65,000
# of civilians killed per day, Mar '06-'07: 73
Number of bombings in Iraq killing more than 50 people, Mar '06-'07: 17
American casualties since 3/19/03: 3245
American casualties since capture of Saddam: 2784
Americans wounded: 24,042

I don't know you, but I have respect for your opinion. Seriously though...Fox News? The only news station that has groups not only boycotting it, but lobbying against it?

[AJbuilder]

Originally Posted by ericTHEninja

Until you quoted Fox News, this post might've received some respect. While Saddam was a tyrrant, you're touching on some pretty sensative stuff. Especially with those of us against the war.

Here're some more stats for you:
Civilian deaths due to the military intervention in Iraq: 60,000-65,000
# of civilians killed per day, Mar '06-'07: 73
Number of bombings in Iraq killing more than 50 people, Mar '06-'07: 17
American casualties since 3/19/03: 3245
American casualties since capture of Saddam: 2784
Americans wounded: 24,042

I don't know you, but I have respect for your opinion. Seriously though...Fox News? The only news station that has groups not only boycotting it, but lobbying against it?

It's from AP specifically. Anyone can spew statistics and numbers all they want but it doesn't mean much if they don't have context. I can spit out how many of our soldiers were killed during WWI compared to the other wars of the past century and boast that it was a mistake to engage Germany. Saddam being a tyrant is a fact. That fact has nothing to do with you being against the war.

BTW, FOX gets all the attention. Everyone monitors it, even the haters. FOX > CNN

[ericTHEninja]

Originally Posted by AJbuilder

It's from AP specifically. Anyone can spew statistics and numbers all they want but it doesn't mean much if they don't have context. I can spit out how many of our soldiers were killed during WWI compared to the other wars of the past century and boast that it was a mistake to engage Germany. Saddam being a tyrant is a fact. That fact has nothing to do with you being against the war.

BTW, FOX gets all the attention. Everyone monitors it, even the haters. FOX > CNN

Yeah, I already know that. My post was picking at the point that the person starting this thread posted something pointless.

[MatthewM]

Not to hijack this thread, but as a person who watches all the major networks for 10 hrs a day, it is absolutely ridiculous to say that fox is any worse than the other networks. At the time of any breaking news, they are all on the same thing...nearly always. Fox usually is first. Secondly, Fox does cover alot of stupid crap, the others do too, but Fox really has a well oil ****-machine. Even WITH all the crap filler they have on; its still the best. Watching the other stations just sucks. Everyone takes themselves so seriously while Fox newscastors can have a little fun. I believe that is the reason they are more popular.

[Itchy Nads]

Originally Posted by ericTHEninja

Until you quoted Fox News, this post might've received some respect. While Saddam was a tyrrant, you're touching on some pretty sensative stuff. Especially with those of us against the war.

Here're some more stats for you:
Civilian deaths due to the military intervention in Iraq: 60,000-65,000
# of civilians killed per day, Mar '06-'07: 73
Number of bombings in Iraq killing more than 50 people, Mar '06-'07: 17
American casualties since 3/19/03: 3245
American casualties since capture of Saddam: 2784
Americans wounded: 24,042

I don't know you, but I have respect for your opinion. Seriously though...Fox News? The only news station that has groups not only boycotting it, but lobbying against it?

And I'll bet that if this info came from a far left news source, you'd claim it was a right wing conspiracy and boycott that too.

[Johnnie Rico]

People in Iraq are still blowing each other up everyday. They didn't need Saddam to do that for them.

[run213]

Originally Posted by Itchy Nads

And I'll bet that if this info came from a far left news source, you'd claim it was a right wing conspiracy and boycott that too.

The only groups boycotting fox are left wing groups. You see the left has no tolerance for opinion that may differ from their own. Conservatives know that the other major news networks lean left but they are not afraid of differing opinion.

[Lothar]

Originally Posted by Johnnie Rico

People in Iraq are still blowing each other up everyday. They didn't need Saddam to do that for them.

Pretty sure Saddam didn't help the situation any.

[Lothar]

Originally Posted by ericTHEninja

Until you quoted Fox News, this post might've received some respect. While Saddam was a tyrrant, you're touching on some pretty sensative stuff. Especially with those of us against the war.

Here're some more stats for you:
Civilian deaths due to the military intervention in Iraq: 60,000-65,000
# of civilians killed per day, Mar '06-'07: 73
Number of bombings in Iraq killing more than 50 people, Mar '06-'07: 17
American casualties since 3/19/03: 3245
American casualties since capture of Saddam: 2784
Americans wounded: 24,042

I don't know you, but I have respect for your opinion. Seriously though...Fox News? The only news station that has groups not only boycotting it, but lobbying against it?

Holy ****! He posted facts generated from the Associated Press, FOX news just reported them. You need to have an understanding how news networks work and how they attain their information.

BTW, what far-left wing website did you get your data from? www.democraticunderground.com?

And why didn't you post the many positive things that are going on over there? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's because your leftist news sources don't want you to see that the Generals are reporting that things are improving astronomically or that only 2 quadrants in the region have attacks anymore or that schools, buildings, and infrastructure is being built. Wouldn't want to report on that, would you?

[Shaun1990]

Originally Posted by Lothar

Pretty sure Saddam didn't help the situation any.

Yes, he did, he held the country together, under him, I cannot recall any sectarian violence.

[Lothar]

Originally Posted by Shaun1990

Yes, he did, he held the country together, under him, I cannot recall any sectarian violence.

So you are saying they are better off having a brutal dictator and his sons ruling their country and slaying and raping people from all over insted of having 2 quadrants under insurgent attacks?

Hey, maybe the US should have a dictatorship where he can rape your mom and sister, start killing off certain religious groups for no reason, etc. Sounds fun!

[Johnnie Rico]

I'm not supporting Saddam in any way but I think that was one of those situations where "a bad king is better than no king". Saddam was a brutal leader, and he pretty much represented the country's attitude as a whole.

[Lothar]

Originally Posted by Johnnie Rico

Saddam was a brutal leader, and he pretty much represented the country's attitude as a whole.

In what way?

[IraHays]

Originally Posted by ericTHEninja

Until you quoted Fox News, this post might've received some respect. While Saddam was a tyrrant, you're touching on some pretty sensative stuff. Especially with those of us against the war.

Here're some more stats for you:
Civilian deaths due to the military intervention in Iraq: 60,000-65,000
# of civilians killed per day, Mar '06-'07: 73
Number of bombings in Iraq killing more than 50 people, Mar '06-'07: 17
American casualties since 3/19/03: 3245
American casualties since capture of Saddam: 2784
Americans wounded: 24,042

I don't know you, but I have respect for your opinion. Seriously though...Fox News? The only news station that has groups not only boycotting it, but lobbying against it?

You are exactly why I posted this thread. I just knew someone would come in and somehow turn this on Bush. Sensative subject for people against the war??? Well booo *****n whoo. You didn't care about Iraqi's when they died by Saddams hands, so why do you care now?

Also, about Fox news. I did a search thinking it would be easy as hell to find a list of Saddam's crimes. Not as easy as I thought. Nothing from any other major news organization. How's that for fair and balanced?

(Oh but you can find 10000000 articles about "USA war crimes")

[Lothar]

Originally Posted by IraHays

You are exactly why I posted this thread. I just knew someone would come in and somehow turn this on Bush. Sensative subject for people against the war??? Well booo *****n whoo. You didn't care about Iraqi's when they died by Saddams hands, so why do you care now?

Also, about Fox news. I did a search thinking it would be easy as hell to find a list of Saddam's crimes. Not as easy as I thought. Nothing from any other major news organization. How's that for fair and balanced?

(Oh but you can find 10000000 articles about "USA war crimes")

LOL...for a Gator fan, coming from an FSU alum, I have to admit these UF guys are pretty smart!

It's clear they don't really care about the Iraqi people, it's just angst and hatred for one man: President Bush. People often get into a one way road style of thinking and never venture off that path, no matter what happens. They just ride it out.

PS, As I was reading your first post, the first thing that also popped up in my head is "Someone is going to post opposite statistics to try to make an off the wall point.

[Shaun1990]

Originally Posted by Lothar

So you are saying they are better off having a brutal dictator and his sons ruling their country and slaying and raping people from all over insted of having 2 quadrants under insurgent attacks?

I would like you to point out where I said that, please. I merely stated that Saddam did in fact help with the problem of sectarianism, if when someone proves you wrong you must go on a typical rant about him being an evil dictator, then there is no point in debating with you.

Its a no win situation for the Iraqis, under Saddam they at least had stability, now they have nothing, no hope, no prosperity or no stability. At any moment they could be blown apart by some religious nut. How can any situation be better than they other?

Hey, maybe the US should have a dictatorship where he can rape your mom and sister, start killing off certain religious groups for no reason, etc. Sounds fun!

I do not live in the US.

[Lothar]

Originally Posted by Shaun1990

I would like you to point out where I said that, please. I merely stated that Saddam did in fact help with the problem of sectarianism, if when someone proves you wrong you must go on a typical rant about him being an evil dictator, then there is no point in debating with you.

Its a no win situation for the Iraqis, under Saddam they at least had stability, now they have nothing, no hope, no prosperity or no stability. At any moment they could be blown apart by some religious nut. How can any situation be better than they other?



I do not live in the US.

Fair enough.

I jumped the gun on you here.

[Johnnie Rico]

Originally Posted by Lothar

In what way?

The whole "ends justify the means" attitude. Saddam used violence and intimidation to keep things in check (which actually did work to a certain extent) and the people now will support those who can support them, no matter how they go about it. (if that makes sense)

[efini84]

Originally Posted by Lothar

So you are saying they are better off having a brutal dictator and his sons ruling their country and slaying and raping people from all over insted of having 2 quadrants under insurgent attacks?

so we're the world's morality police as well?

[Johnnie Rico]

Originally Posted by VeritasAequitas

Foxs' newsshow ratings absolutely smokes the other stations. Not even close. Secondly, most of the deaths of muslim civilians in iraq are caused by other peace loving muslims.

I think that conservatives tend to be better educated and actually watch the news as opposed to the majority of liberals who think they already know everything.

[IraHays]

Originally Posted by efini84

so we're the world's morality police as well?

Someone has to step up. The UN won't get off their arse.

[efini84]

Originally Posted by IraHays

Someone has to step up. The UN won't get off their arse.

the iraqi people should have "stepped up".

[IraHays]

Originally Posted by efini84

the iraqi people should have "stepped up".

Very good point and I really think we missed the boat back in 1991. I blame the UN and Bush Sr.

Hopefully they will start to step up now.

[efini84]

Originally Posted by IraHays

Very good point and I really think we missed the boat back in 1991. I blame the UN and Bush Sr.

bush sr knew an invasion into iraq and removing saddam wouldn't have worked and would have come at great cost. we had the opportunity to support - with minimal air support only - a revolution in iraq in 1995 that would have taken out saddam a decade ago. clinton, in all his wisdom, decided to not support it and the plan fell apart.

Hopefully they will start to step up now.

one could argue that's exactly what they're doing now in their fight against the US and its allies...

[IraHays]

Originally Posted by efini84

bush sr knew an invasion into iraq and removing saddam wouldn't have worked and would have come at great cost. we had the opportunity to support - with minimal air support only - a revolution in iraq in 1995 that would have taken out saddam a decade ago. clinton, in all his wisdom, decided to not support it and the plan fell apart.

one could argue that's exactly what they're doing now in their fight against the US and its allies...

With the whole world rolling into Iraq it would of been much easier to wipe out all the "insurgents." Plus there was a alot of support to overthrown Saddam at that time. When we finally left Iraq many of those people were slaughtered. So I can see why they might be a little gun shy now. We let them down the first time.

The guys that want an unfree, Islamic dictatorship are steppping it up against us in Iraq. We just need the good guys to step up.

[efini84]

Originally Posted by IraHays

With the whole world rolling into Iraq it would of been much easier to wipe out all the "insurgents." Plus there was a alot of support to overthrown Saddam at that time. When we finally left Iraq many of those people were slaughtered. So I can see why they might be a little gun shy now. We let them down the first time.

The guys that want an unfree, Islamic dictatorship are steppping it up against us in Iraq. We just need the good guys to step up.

the arabs of the gulf war coalition did not support an invasion into iraq. it would have been the same as today - almost exclusively the US taking on a full scale occupation.


and regarding "unfree", who are we to judge how the iraqi people should live? if they do not want a liberal democracy and do not want "freedom", why must we force it upon them? there are no "good guys" in this war.

[IraHays]

Originally Posted by efini84

the arabs of the gulf war coalition did not support an invasion into iraq. it would have been the same as today - almost exclusively the US taking on a full scale occupation.

We certainly would of had the support of Iran at the time. But, Like I said, the UN let us down. (Which includes arab countries.)

Originally Posted by efini84

and regarding "unfree", who are we to judge how the iraqi people should live? if they do not want a liberal democracy and do not want "freedom", why must we force it upon them? there are no "good guys" in this war.

We didn't invade Iraq to force freedom on them. But since we are there, why would we let them turn into a another Islamic sh*thole dictatorship?

There are good guys in this war. Lets hope they win.

[efini84]

Originally Posted by IraHays

We didn't invade Iraq to force freedom on them.

that was one of the many reasons bush & co used to gain support for the war pre-invasion. they of course didn't use the word force.

But since we are there, why would we let them turn into a another Islamic sh*thole dictatorship?

the ONLY problem with an islamic "****hole" dictatorship is that it will threaten our access to the world's most valuable resource.

again, i ask: who are we to judge how the iraqi people want to live? if they want to live in an islamic dictatorship, so be it.

[Lothar]

Originally Posted by efini84

again, i ask: who are we to judge how the iraqi people want to live? if they want to live in an islamic dictatorship, so be it.

Not all of them want to live in a dictatorship.

Many many of them were very pleased to see Saddam go.