"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."

[LogGrad98]

You seem to subscribe to far more speculation than anyone else is indulging in. Also, what WMDs??

Not a history major, eh?

1) You can't be serious. Saddam used mustard gas bombs to kill thousands of Kurds. It is in the historical record. Look it up. He tested other chemical weapons as well and was known to have been seeking sources of yellow-cake uranium. Just because he dismantled the operation before we got there does not mean he never had them or used them. This was actually verified during the first war in Iraq and subsequently by the UN inspectors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Just one source. Not hard to find others.

Here is another from a more liberal source:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html

At the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein and his elite military units were still in power and in possession of huge stockpiles of deadly weapons. In April 1991, the U.N. Security Council created UNSCOM, a special commission to find and dismantle this arsenal. The U.N. imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that would be enforced until the country eliminated all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capability.

Two agencies were charged with the task. UNSCOM would uncover and destroy Iraq's biological- and chemical-weapons and ballistic-missile programs; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was charged with uncovering and dismantling Iraq's clandestine nuclear program.

From 1991 to 1998 UNSCOM and IAEA carried out numerous inspections in Iraq, but with varying degrees of success.

For the first few years, Iraqi officials failed to disclose much of their special weapons programs to the inspectors. In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Kamel Hussein defected. He had been in charge of the bioweapons program and revealed to UNSCOM that there was a vast arsenal of weapons they had failed to uncover, including biological weapons, and described how the Iraqis were hiding them. This was a breakthrough for the inspection teams, and they continued their work until 1998, when Iraq blocked further access and expelled UNSCOM.

2) History? Well from #1 we see that you limit your history to the democratic rhetoric. Care to see what history really said about Saddam?

https://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

Excerpt from the article cited here.

"Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power."

From this source alone that would be 560k to 1 mill deaths under Saddam.

Saddams death toll is verifiable. I just clicked on one of the first links that came up when I googled it that was from a decent source. Largely the estimates fall between 800k and 2.5 mill dead under his regime. That is squarely on the list that includes Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Mao. It is also more than died during the Rawandan ethnic cleansing.

I guess you need a history lesson or 2.




Care to try again to convince us that Ghadaffi is somehow worse than Saddam and warranted intervention where Saddam did not? Next time, try bringing facts.

 

[Gameface]

I've never understood why the act of aerial bombing is considered morally superior to having troops on the ground. Boggles my mind to no end.

 

[Sneakers]

I've never understood why the act of aerial bombing is considered morally superior to having troops on the ground. Boggles my mind to no end.

Who is saying it is morally superior? But a lack of ground troops is hardly characteristic of a so-called "invasion". Don't believe the hype.

 

[Sneakers]

1) You can't be serious. Saddam used mustard gas bombs to kill thousands of Kurds. It is in the historical record. Look it up. He tested other chemical weapons as well and was known to have been seeking sources of yellow-cake uranium. Just because he dismantled the operation before we got there does not mean he never had them or used them. This was actually verified during the first war in Iraq and subsequently by the UN inspectors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Just one source. Not hard to find others.

Here is another from a more liberal source:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html



2) History? Well from #1 we see that you limit your history to the democratic rhetoric. Care to see what history really said about Saddam?

https://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

Excerpt from the article cited here.



From this source alone that would be 560k to 1 mill deaths under Saddam.

Saddams death toll is verifiable. I just clicked on one of the first links that came up when I googled it that was from a decent source. Largely the estimates fall between 800k and 2.5 mill dead under his regime. That is squarely on the list that includes Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Mao. It is also more than died during the Rawandan ethnic cleansing.

I guess you need a history lesson or 2.




Care to try again to convince us that Ghadaffi is somehow worse than Saddam and warranted intervention where Saddam did not? Next time, try bringing facts.

Democratic rhetoric?? I don't listen to talk shows, I couldn't even name a liberal talk show or website. I'm just processing the information and orating how it makes me feel. If I'm somehow the magical touchstone of Democratic rhetoric then damn, I'm a lot more special than I thought I was.

I like that your so called "facts" include Wikipedia as a source too.

Saddam as a top 5 "all-time" dictator truly is a whole other debate... I'm no history expert either but I'm also not foolish enough to believe that top 5 dictatorships of all-freakin-time are strictly ones that occurred during the 20th and 21th centuries.

 

[franklin]

I'm a lot more special than I thought I was.

This gave me a little chuckle.

I like that your so called "facts" include Wikipedia as a source too.

Saddam as a top 5 "all-time" dictator truly is a whole other debate... I'm no history expert either but I'm also not foolish enough to believe that top 5 dictatorships of all-freakin-time are strictly ones that occurred during the 20th and 21th centuries.

Is One Brow mentoring you?

BTW, I can't wait until Pearl shows up to this party. You are going to wish you got raped after your Pearling.

 

[Sneakers]

BTW, I can't wait until Pearl shows up to this party. You are going to wish you got raped after your Pearling.

The Pearl, singling me out for a paddling??? I'm a big fan of his work... it would be such an honor

 

[LogGrad98]

You seem to subscribe to far more speculation than anyone else is indulging in. Also, what WMDs??

Not a history major, eh?

You specifically said "What WMD's". If I misunderstood that then to what were you referring? That was the liberal marching drum of the past decade.

Also how is providing sources speculation? At least I based it on something I actually looked into, not just "what I feel about it". You appear to be processing some very limited information.

So go beyond Wikipedia and check THEIR sources. Go ahead, I will wait. While you are at it, go ahead and find sources that prove this to be wrong. I said that was one source. It links to many other sources. I even give another source myself. Since it appears you were speaking out of your ***, feel free to spend some time reading and educating yourself before spouting off.

The funny thing about the "all-time" comment is that only in the modern era has population grown enough for death tolls to rise to the millions without outside influences such as wars, disease, or famine. Estimates for other tyrants in history (Atilla the Hun comes to mind) vary wildly since the history itself is spotty at best. For Atilla some estimates even claim he killed more than the population of Eurasia at that time. Anything from 100,000 to 100 million have been reported. Most likely in his case is 100k-150k, based on population estimates at the time and some very spotty census-type data regarding villages and cities plundered, as well as anecdotal evidence. (at that time population estimates across europe and asia vary between 55 mill and 100 mill total). Even the Roman emperors were not responsible for such large mass-killings, particularly of their own people. The Roman Empire over 500 years is said to be responsible for between 500k and 650k deaths, including more than 300k of their own soldiers who died in battle. That is about what Saddam killed of his own people without counting deaths he was responsible for in war.

Go ahead and find some sources showing this all to be wrong. I am not going to provide any more for you since you never really read about any of this anyway. Do some footwork yourself then come back and discuss it intelligently.

 

[LogGrad98]

This gave me a little chuckle.



Is One Brow mentoring you?

BTW, I can't wait until Pearl shows up to this party. You are going to wish you got raped after your Pearling.

That is exactly why I have Unibrow on ignore. Life on Jazz Fanz has never been sweeter. I must admit I have been curious about his comments in this thread, but not enough to actually read any of them.

 

[One Brow]

Is One Brow mentoring you?

Do you think the five worst dictators,in terms of their willingness to kill, have been alive in the past 100 years, or just those that had access to the most efficient killing technology?

BTW, you didn't answer my question. When you aree with the consensus opinion in your scientific field, is that because of political pressure?

 

[Sneakers]

That is exactly why I have Unibrow on ignore. Life on Jazz Fanz has never been sweeter. I must admit I have been curious about his comments in this thread, but not enough to actually read any of them.

I don't understand. This is a political thread and discussion. I'm not like anything said here is leaving the thread. You take these things personally and throw users on ignore because of it? This is a Jazz forum first... i'm only in here because the Jazz are terrible and the season is over.

 

[Sneakers]

I would just like to point out, WMDs aside, my whole main point was how completely different what Bush the 2nd did with Iraq is compared to what Obama is doing with Libya. I was arguing that Republicans and faux-Moderate Republicans are drawing imaginary parallels. There are differences on so many levels. But now this conversation has become so deluded and derailed with WMDs and Dictatorships that I'm not even sure what I am arguing about anymore. I feel baited.

But I do stand by saying that its just ridiculous to claim the top-5 dictatorships have all happened in contemporary history. That is just narrow-sighted.

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't understand. This is a political thread and discussion. I'm not like anything said here is leaving the thread. You take these things personally and throw users on ignore because of it? This is a Jazz forum first... i'm only in here because the Jazz are terrible and the season is over.

No I didn't just put him on ignore for this one thread. It is his M.O. that comes out in every thread. Ignore was better than being subjected to it. i actually have 3 people on ignore. 2 due to my personal opinion that they bring so little to the conversation that they are not worth debating any further, or listening to for that matter. One because of harrassment and I didn't feel the need to tolerate it any further.

I whole-heartedly encourage anyone who doesn't like the way I post to put me on ignore too. It is one of those things that makes playing on a forum nice for everyone. You can simply block posts by people you personally find incorrigible.