59 Children Among the Dead in "Religion of Peace" Blast

[Michael Tee]

The first gulf war was a more complex situation.  In the first place, I don't think that Iraq has ever accepted the legality of Kuwait as a separate entity, given the facts of its origin.  In the second place, Saddam claimed that Kuwait had been slant-drilling into Iraqi deposits and refused to stop despite numerous official protests.  In the third place, the U.S. ambassador had told Saddam's government that the U.S.A. had no objection to Saddam moving into Kuwait.

IMHO, the invasion of Kuwait was still an illegal act and all of Iraq's concerns could have and should have been addressed in due course through the International Court of Justice at the Hague and the United Nations.  So, yeah, I'd say that the war was justified to the extent that the Iraqi Army had to be forced out of Kuwait.  Once back within its own borders, there was no further reason to pursue the war.

[BT]

In the first place, I don't think that Iraq has ever accepted the legality of Kuwait as a separate entity, given the facts of its origin.

Though Kuwait had been an independent political entity for more than two centuries, it gained international recognition as a sovereign state in June 1961. A few weeks later Kuwait joined the Arab League. In 1963 the country became a member of the United Nations.

The State of Kuwait?s Constitution was ratified on November 11, 1962. Its National Assembly was convened under the Constitution on January 29, 1963.

http://www.kuwait-info.com/sidepages/nat_history.asp

 ....Another problem was insufficient documentation for the boundary. "Geographic coordinates were not established for the boundary. That task was left for the Demarcation Commission", Mr. Pinther said. The Commission had to depend on letters between the two Governments, which only broadly described the border dividing the countries.

These communications had taken place between Iraq and Kuwait in 1932, when Iraq joined the League of Nations.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_n4_v30/ai_14879122

In the second place, Saddam claimed that Kuwait had been slant-drilling into Iraqi deposits and refused to stop despite numerous official protests.

Was this ever proven? Or was this like WMDs?

In the third place, the U.S. ambassador had told Saddam's government that the U.S.A. had no objection to Saddam moving into Kuwait.

Relevance, if even true?

Once back within its own borders, there was no further reason to pursue the war.

Except Iraq refused to abide by the terms of the truce.

So to summarize, Iraq 2 is a continuation of Iraq I and Saddam is to blame.

[Michael Tee]

<<Accept Iraq refused to abide by the terms of the truce. >>

Bullshit.  The alleged violations were minimal to non-existent.  That's why those lying bastards had to cook up the "WMD" excuse.  Iraq was targeted for its oil, pure and simple.  They had made up their minds as per PNAC's plan, to seize a major oil-producing country in the Middle East and Iraq was it.

[BT]

Not Bullshit.

They wouldn't have been shelled for 40 days and 40 nights by Clinton if they were in compliance.

An attempt on the life of a former President is not minimal.

The sanctions would have been lifted a couple years after the truce if they were in compliance.

[Michael Tee]

<<They wouldn't have been shelled for 40 days and 40 nights by Clinton if they were in compliance.>>

LMFAO.  So now Clinton can do no wrong, is that it?  They sure as bitchin hell WOULD have been shelled 40 days and nights by Clinton for doing no wrong if that was what it took to shore up his domestic political position.

<<An attempt on the life of a former President is not minimal.>>

Apparently it is, because they took no legal action that I'm aware of to punish the so-called attempt and waited years to invade.

<<The sanctions would have been lifted a couple years after the truce if they were in compliance.>>

LOL.  You really don't get it, do you?  The sanctions would NEVER have been lifted, because the Iraqis would never be "in compliance."  The sanctions were one way to immobilize an important enemy of Israel.  The U.S. could find, fake or provoke one bullshit excuse after another to demonstrate "non-compliance" as required.

[sirs]

<< . . . after simply posting a tragic casualty of war, as if THAT was some form of atrocity validation.  Your movement, not mine.>>

Actually, what I posted was a link to a page with one photo and multiple links.... it's what the LINK was supposed to validate.

Ahhh, the all too famous reference to a "link", as the supposed smoking gun.  Sorry Tee, it didn't work with Bush Lied diatribes, and sure as hell isn't gonna work here.  Again, a picture here is worth squat

<<Which, for all to see, was what the picture was supposed to substantiate>>

YOU chose to focus on the first photo as if that were the only "atrocity" photo in the collection

YOU chose to provide the disclaimer "Here.  posting a link that claims U.S. war atrocities with a photo WARNING!  EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTOS OF AMERICAN ATROCITIES posted at the request of one of their biggest fans.

One more time for the dense, atrocites do NOT equal casualties...casualties do NOT equate with atrocities.  Just because your damn link says atrocities, and just because you say atrocites, doesn't make it so.  INTENT by Americans to kill and mame any and all at will, regardless of who they are is what would make such acts atrocities.  There could be thousands of pictures or casualties.....NONE of them being atrocities

<<It's very much like what Pooch accurately referenced ".... is that your perspective is so skewed as to be completely unreliable">>

Nothing at all wrong with MY perspective.  It's your own inability, and Pooch's, to accept the obvious, that is the problem here. 

LOL, now we move into the 2nd to last level of desperate rebuttal.....the "obvious" tact

[Michael Tee]

<<Ahhh, the all too famous reference to a "link", as the supposed smoking gun. >>

Yes, sirs, a link.  That happens to be what I posted, that was the reference I made.

<< Sorry Tee, it didn't work with Bush Lied diatribes . . . >>

Ah, the famous sirs distraction tactic.  The subject is Amerikkkan atrocities and war crimes and he tries to steer the discussion back to "Bush Lied."  Sorry, sirs, aint' gonna work this time.

<< . . . and sure as hell isn't gonna work here.  >>

Sorry to disappoint you sirs, but it already HAS worked here.  You tried to misrepresent a single picture as the reference I had steered you to, and I answered your false accusation by pointing out, correctly, that the picture YOU selected from my link was just one of many.  Case closed.

<<Again, a picture here is worth squat>>

What's this?  An actual substantive comment on the topic under discussion?  From sirs??  Hey now that's what I call progress.  So:  a picture is worth squat, huh?  Well, I guess it's all in context.  Rich had asked for a photo of all those dead Iraqi civilians.  So I showed him a photo.  Lots of photos.  So in the context of the thread that led me to post that link, I don't think the picture is worth squat at all.  You of course are welcome to your own opinion on the subject and good luck with it.

<<YOU chose to provide the disclaimer "Here.  posting a link that claims U.S. war atrocities with a photo WARNING!  EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTOS OF AMERICAN ATROCITIES posted at the request of one of their biggest fans.>>

I guess I did.  I posted a link to a page with one photo and with a bunch of links clearly labelled as such to such photos as "Child casualties," "Civilian casualties," "torture," etc.   I did that.  In response to a request for photos of civilian victims of U.S. atrocities.  And your point is . . . ?

<<One more time for the dense, atrocites do NOT equal casualties...casualties do NOT equate with atrocities.  Just because your damn link says atrocities, and just because you say atrocites, doesn't make it so.  INTENT by Americans to kill and mame any and all at will, regardless of who they are is what would make such acts atrocities.  There could be thousands of pictures or casualties.....NONE of them being atrocities>>

I'm sorry, sirs.  I happen to think that civilian casualties, particularly caused by WP or napalm, when occurring during a criminal war of unprovoked aggression are atrocities and war crimes.  Torture is an atrocity and a war crime.  Cruel and degrading treatment is an atrocity and a war crime.  My opinion.  You obviously have a different opinion.  We have to agree to disagree.


<<LOL, now we move into the 2nd to last level of desperate rebuttal.....the "obvious" tact>>

I'm glad you recognize the humour in the remark ("Nothing at all wrong with MY perspective.  It's your own inability, and Pooch's, to accept the obvious, that is the problem here.") 

That was a little bit of tongue in cheek.  It was in response to your own equally lame and inane comment that <<It's very much like what Pooch accurately referenced ".... is that your perspective is so skewed as to be completely unreliable" >> 

When you let the debate slide to such a level of invective so totally devoid of any substance that in effect it's just an ad hominem aspersion on my perspective and reliability, I just responded in kind with an equally lame and meaningless ad hominem attack both on both yours and Pooch's alleged "inability to accept the obvious."  I thought it was particularly funny to slip the word "obvious" in there, adding that extra twist.

It's a little bit like the saying "Ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer."   Use a stupid debating tactic and you get your stupidity thrown right back atcha (with a little extra, in this case the "obvious.")

[Amianthus]

I guess I did.  I posted a link to a page with one photo and with a bunch of links clearly labelled as such to such photos as "Child casualties," "Civilian casualties," "torture," etc.   I did that.  In response to a request for photos of civilian victims of U.S. atrocities.  And your point is . . . ?

Except that the author of the page says "I am not saying who in particular caused any of these injuries."

Perhaps if you found one that documented victims of US atrocities, instead of nebulous claims?

[Michael Tee]

<<Except that the author of the page says "I am not saying who in particular caused any of these injuries."

<<Perhaps if you found one that documented victims of US atrocities, instead of nebulous claims?>>

My nebulous claim is that whoever started the war is responsible for the casualties of the war.  That's usually how it works.  That's why the plotting and waging of an unjustified war of aggression is itself a war crime deserving of death. 

[Plane]

Many of the dead were killed by the other side in each of the examples cited.

Why should our enemys attack Americans at all?

Atacking Americans is hard work  it is expensive and risky.


Easyer by far to blow up a bunch of kids and let the Americans take the heat for it.

This 59 will be added to the total number of dead figure that will be used by opponents of fighting back in the future.

[Michael Tee]

<<Many of the dead were killed by the other side in each of the examples cited.

<<Why should our enemys attack Americans at all?>>

Because they're aiming at that magic number.  When they put enough Americans in body bags, the American people will turn on the war and pull out of Iraq.  Just because nobody knows what the magic number is, is no reason not to keep moving towards it.

<<Atacking Americans is hard work  it is expensive and risky.>>

It's adventurous, life and material are cheap and there's no risk at all for jihadis who aren't afraid to die.


<<Easyer by far to blow up a bunch of kids and let the Americans take the heat for it.>>

Same argument applies with much more logic to the Americans:  It's hard work to go thousands of miles away, live in a shit-hole away from your friends and family and fight the Iraqi people; it's very expensive (close to half a trillion dollars already) and it's risky, especially for troops who don't want to die.  Easier by far to blow up a bunch of kids and let the Iraqi Resistance take the heat for it.

<<This 59 will be added to the total number of dead figure that will be used by opponents of fighting back in the future.>>

This is the Age of Spin.  Both sides can put those 59 dead kids to good use.  They'd be alive today if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq.  That's MY bottom line.

[Plane]

<<Many of the dead were killed by the other side in each of the examples cited.

<<Why should our enemys attack Americans at all?>>

Because they're aiming at that magic number.  When they put enough Americans in body bags, the American people will turn on the war and pull out of Iraq.  Just because nobody knows what the magic number is, is no reason not to keep moving towards it.

<<Atacking Americans is hard work  it is expensive and risky.>>

It's adventurous, life and material are cheap and there's no risk at all for jihadis who aren't afraid to die.


<<Easyer by far to blow up a bunch of kids and let the Americans take the heat for it.>>

Same argument applies with much more logic to the Americans:  It's hard work to go thousands of miles away, live in a shit-hole away from your friends and family and fight the Iraqi people; it's very expensive (close to half a trillion dollars already) and it's risky, especially for troops who don't want to die.  Easier by far to blow up a bunch of kids and let the Iraqi Resistance take the heat for it.

<<This 59 will be added to the total number of dead figure that will be used by opponents of fighting back in the future.>>

This is the Age of Spin.  Both sides can put those 59 dead kids to good use.  They'd be alive today if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq.  That's MY bottom line.

So a brave Jhahadi kills himself in order to kill a big group o kids and this is just for the sake ofthe spin with which it can be presented to the world?

[Xavier_Onassis]

In the second place, Saddam claimed that Kuwait had been slant-drilling into Iraqi deposits and refused to stop despite numerous official protests.

Was this ever proven? Or was this like WMDs?
===================================
It is pretty easy to verify how an oil well was drilled.

The American companies had perfected the technique and had the tools for doing this. The Iraqis didn't. I have never heard anyone deny this, so I assume it is true.

Saddam was suckered into the first Gulf War. Olebush, the CIA, other secret US and UK forces planned the whole thing. I imagine that Kissinger was in on it, too. Unlike the current mess, it pretty much didn't cost the US anything. The Kuwaitis, Saudis, Japanese and others financed nearly the whole thing. If the US had invaded to take out Saddam, it would have had to do so in its own nickel, and they weren't prepared for that.

The Emir of Kuwait in 1990 was sitting atop a huge pile of cash, and was thinking seriously about taking it out of the US and investing it in Euros. The war forced him to spend it to get his country back. The money was paid to the US for services rendered, of course. The US did lose a very few soldiers, but they died to keep the Emir of Kuwait in power, and presumably this was a sufficiently worthy cause.

[Michael Tee]

<<So a brave Jhahadi kills himself in order to kill a big group o kids and this is just for the sake ofthe spin with which it can be presented to the world? 

Isn't that what you meant when you said <<Easyer by far to blow up a bunch of kids and let the Americans take the heat for it.>>?

Personally, I can think of at least two reasons why a "brave jihadi" would blow up 59 kids - - (a) revenge for their tribe blowing up 29.5 of his own tribe's kids; (b) to provoke retaliation, stoking the fires of a civil war. 

I can also think up at least one reason for Americans blowing up the kids - - to "prove" that the Iraqis still need American troops to keep the country from degenerating into a blood-bath.

[Plane]

<<So a brave Jhahadi kills himself in order to kill a big group o kids and this is just for the sake ofthe spin with which it can be presented to the world? 

Isn't that what you meant when you said <<Easyer by far to blow up a bunch of kids and let the Americans take the heat for it.>>?

Personally, I can think of at least two reasons why a "brave jihadi" would blow up 59 kids - - (a) revenge for their tribe blowing up 29.5 of his own tribe's kids; (b) to provoke retaliation, stoking the fires of a civil war. 

I can also think up at least one reason for Americans blowing up the kids - - to "prove" that the Iraqis still need American troops to keep the country from degenerating into a blood-bath.

Somewhere in there, I find that you agree with me, that the Jahadi, was killing these children for the sake of the number.