Say NO to this happening again (warning very graphic images and text)

[gvox]

Here are two links regarding what happened the last time the U.S. and coalition forces invaded Iraq.

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt_index.html


There are going to be some posters that come on and offer an alternative view, that's fine, just remember that these are not of my own making, these findings and photos are from people who were actually there.

Not again!

Say NO to the U.S. using ITS weapons of mass destruction again.

 

[melon]

Wasn't Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 a violation of international law?

Melon

 

[gvox]

Melon, please read throught the link to the International War Crimes Tribunal. There is more to the story than meets the eye. I don't want to recite it, I want everyone to read and think about it. It will take some time but it is worth the read.

 

[melon]

It's fascinating from a media culture standpoint.

Perception.
Representation.

Melon

 

[Zoomerang96]

yup, its what war is all about.

 

[CannibalisticArtist]

those first few pics in the 2nd link were from the Mutla Ridge at the kuwaiti border. i saw the same things in real life shortly following the gulf war. there was a stretch of road that was filled with burned corpses and dessimated tanks and trucks. most of the vehicles were directed away from kuwait and were therefore fleeing to iraq. the scene was nasty because the corpses looked burned in place.

 

[gvox]

I was interested to hear the perspective of someone who had actually seen that first hand. According to testimony in the War Crimes Tribunal document I also linked to, these were soldiers and civilians who were fleeing back to Iraq after Hussein had issued orders to stand down, so by International Law they were no longer in active combat mode, hence should not have been attacked. Very troubling indeed.

 

[DebbieSG]

it's a terrible thing to shoot a man in the back

 

[Dreadsox]

I find it interesting that#1 Frontline did a series on the Gulf War and by their estimates 400-500 died on that road....not "tens of thousands" as according to the paper you linked to. Not that 400 makes it any better...... Where did all the people go.....according to Frontline, when the front and rear of the convoys were disabled, the soldiers fled from the vehicles out of harms way.


#2The Frontline info on the topic also said that the so called civilian vehicles were being driven by Iraqi soldiers. Iraqi's that were fleeing due to the US taking over, and not only were they fleeing, but fleeing with stolen items looted from Kuwait.



#3 We can debate if they are non-combatants all day long. We will have differing opinions on this issue.




War is terrible. The pictures prove it and speak volumes as to our capacity to inflict damage upon our enemy. That fact is not debatable.

 

[gvox]

1. Given the choice of believing a potentially biased television program vs. a respected former US Attorney and witnesses including US military personnel entering sworn statements as evidence for an international Tribunal on War Crimes similar to that as held and respected for other war situations like Bosnia etc, I will have to say I would put more faith in the latter.

2. Persons fleeing from a city they occupied with stolen goods in no way deserve to be incincerated with weapons of mass destruction.

3. Whether they were non combatants or not as defined by International Law and the Geneva Convention is not debatable, and that's why the relevant sections of those laws were quoted in the document. There is no evidence that these individuals were still fighting, they were trying to return to Iraq. They were not confronted on the ground and asked to surrender, they were bombed from the sky.

Perhaps this is why the US is so vigorously opposing being subject to International War Crimes Tribunals??

 

[STING2]

1. Only a few dozen bodies were found among the hundreds of vehicles along the so called "highway of death". This comes from well respected Persian Gulf Military Analyst Kenneth M. Pollack.

2. The USA did not use Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Gulf War. Studying the movement of the column, if it had not been interecepted, many of its troops would of been engaged against US armored forces coming from the west within hours. There is nothing to indicate that these soldiers had "surrendered" or were in fact "fleeing".

3. At that time they were engaged from the sky, US ground forces were not close enough to engage them. The Airstrikes were called in to destroy and disrupt them before they engaged any US ground forces.

 

[Dreadsox]

1. Given the choice of believing a potentially biased television program vs. a respected former US Attorney and witnesses including US military personnel entering sworn statements as evidence for an international Tribunal on War Crimes similar to that as held and respected for other war situations like Bosnia etc, I will have to say I would put more faith in the latter.

Frontline is a biased television program? Out of respect I did not attack the credibility of your source. However since you would prefer to call my sources biased it is simply amazing how many wonderful Anti-US sites I was able to find the report you linked us to on.

Anarchist Librarians Web
Socialists Worker
American Terrorism is American Tradition (Wonderful pic of the Nazi Emblem where the Stars are supposed to be on our flag)
Revolutionary Worker

Let's start here. These are very UN-BIASED places to find what you linked us to.

If you want to, I can start to rip on Ramsay Clark and how unbiased he is.

Frontline is one of the most respected programs right up there with 60 Minutes in the integrity department.

2. Persons fleeing from a city they occupied with stolen goods in no way deserve to be incincerated with weapons of mass destruction.[/B]

The really sad part here is, that according to everything I read on this topic, more of the Iraqi's were killed by their own hand on this road. Care to ask yourself why? I can explain it to you? Their own forces put mines in on either side of the road. They hoped to catch the Coalition Forces in a bottleneck on the road. They wanted force the Coalition to use the road so they could bottleneck them and force them off the road. Did You ever wonder why they Stayed on the road instead of driving off? LAND MINES placed by their own hands. I wonder how many of them were killed by their own hand. They hoped to do it to us. It was their strategy and it FAILED.

But I digress. They were soldiers. They were paid for by Saddam to LOOT and PILLAGE. They had civilian buses filled with STOLEN GOODS and Property. They had STOLEN any vehicle they could STEAL to get out of Kuwait City because they were losing the battle.

3. Whether they were non combatants or not as defined by International Law and the Geneva Convention is not debatable, and that's why the relevant sections of those laws were quoted in the document. There is no evidence that these individuals were still fighting, they were trying to return to Iraq. They were not confronted on the ground and asked to surrender, they were bombed from the sky.[/B]

The WAR was not over. Saddam had refused to sign the terms presented to him. We stopped even before he did.


SO please, lets not get into my source is better than yours. The number is somwhere between my 400 and your ten's of thousands.


Anyone who knows me knows I love a good debate on issues. This War Crimes stuff is NOT UNBIASED.

 

[Dreadsox]

1. Given the choice of believing a potentially biased television program vs. a respected former US Attorney and witnesses including US military personnel entering sworn statements as evidence for an international Tribunal on War Crimes similar to that as held and respected for other war situations like Bosnia etc, I will have to say I would put more faith in the latter.

Well, you opened this can of worms.


Ramsay Clark a respected former US Attorney:

#Was appointed Attorney General by LBJ to get his father to step down from the Supreme Court. LBJ wanted to appoint Thurgood Marshall and needed to get an opening.

# Daddy was a corrupt judge from the start receiving money from New Orleans Godfather Carlos Marcello even after making it to the Supreme Court. Marcello was an associate of D. Ferry, J. Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald (3 suspects in the Kennedy Assasination).

# Investigated Black groups fighting for their Civil Rights. Gave approval to J EDGAR Hoovers attempts (COINTELPRO) to infiltrate said groups.

#Prosecuted Dr. Spock for advocating draft resistence in 1968.

# Screamed at anti-war protesters harassing LBJ at a campaign rally to stop criticizing Washington and take their protests to Hannoi.

# 1980 joined a forum held in "Tehran" called the "Crimes of America". Yes, while US Citizens were being held hostage he went to celebrate with the people who held them hostage.

#1986 After Lybia was bombed visited and had a cup of coffee with Col. Moammar Qadaffi in Tripoli. Nice way to associate with a terrorist.

#1989 Defended Lyndon LaRouche on the famous mail fraud charges. No comment. Great associate to have.

#1990 Gave Speeches in Copenhagen defending LaRouche. The speech, was published in it's entirety in the New Federalist.

#Represented PLO leaders in a suit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the elderly vacationer who was shot and thrown overboard from the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise-ship by renegade Palestinian terrorists in 1986. More terrorists.

# Defended Karl Linnas, concentration camp guard who had overseen the muder of 12,000 jews. Nice!!!!!!

# Joined the Workers World Party in 1990 to try and stop US intervention in the Middle East. This is a very UNBIASED Stalinist organization. This organization created the IAC, the organization that Clark now heads.

# Met President Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade after he was brought up on War Crimes charges. After the meeting Milosevic called his guest "brave, objective, and moral."

# Represented a Rwandan Hutu militiaman fighting his extradition from the US back to Rwanda to face genocide charges.




I guess I will stick with Frontline in the unbiased department.

By the way, I emailed the photographer of the pictures you linked to. Very interesting guy who was nice enough to respond to me. He basically said that the pictures you linked us to, could not support that the US committed War Crimes, nor could they support that these were non-combatants, nor could they prove that the US used weapons of mass destruction. What they do show is the horrors of war.

Doubt I emailed him? He invited people to on the front page of his photo essay. I took him up on it.

Peace

 

[STING2]

Very interesting Dreadsox.

 

[gvox]

2. The USA did not use Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Gulf War.

That's hilarious, especially given the current application of the term.

 

[gvox]

Frontline is a biased television program? Out of respect I did not attack the credibility of your source.

Dreadsox do you have a problem reading? I said 'potentially'. As every single other program on TV is.

As for your other accusations, most of them are conjecture and do nothing but illustrate your bias.

I never claimed that Ramsay Clark was lily white, and really all he did was round up the witnesses and present the findings.

I didnt go to any anti-us or Arab websites to get this info, I did a simple search on MSN and a whole host of American based websites provided me with the links.

Whether or not Ramsay Clarke has done wrong in the past is irrelevant, its a deflect and you know it.

Im glad you read the front page of the photographer's site. Im also glad that you emailed him, and of course you didn't need to email him to get the message from his site. THATS WHY I SAID READ IT ALL WITH AN OPEN MIND.

Bottom line is, the US DID use weapons of mass destruction during the Gulf War, and most likely did commit war crimes. And Im not the only one who thinks so.

 

[Dreadsox]

Gab...

I read it with an open mind. I responded with a source that had an opposing view to yours. You attack the source, and dismiss it saying the your source was more valid because it was a "respected US AG".

Because I have an opposing view to yours on this thread and others you have labeled me as being "brainwashed" and stated that I do not have "an open mind". Again, I read your links. I researched them and I did not attack their validity in my original response. I replied with a respected programs view on the same situation. You attacked my source.

I responded, including all of the sites that link to your article. They are extremely "BIASED" Anti-US Websites. I also looked into Ramsay Clark's background. He has associated with the Iranian's, Quadafi, and the Palestinian terrorists over the past twenty years. He has sided with them on every issue. He is clearly biased in his view.

As for my being open minded, I think my contact with the photographer speaks for itself. The pictures do not provide evidence of WMD nor do the demonstrate war crimes.

No-where in my post do I accuse you of hanging in those sites. I mearly point out that the article you hold as the truth, has got VERY shady people supporting it.

 

[gvox]

Look "Dreadsox", I am man enough to come on here and use my real name so I would appreciate you not bastardizing it. You are not welcome to call me "Gab", "Gabe" or any other such derivative of my full name.

Second of all, if you call me stating that I will lean more heavily towards sworn statements of evidence in terms of reliability over a syndicated news program an 'attack', you are in serious need of help.

The only 'attack' launched was when you decided to quote Frontline's estimates as if they were gospel truth. By doing this you implied that the estimates contained linked document were pure bunk and not to be trusted.

If you had come out with another respected link of your own or some hard facts that would have been different. All you did was recall from memory a paraphrasing of what a news program said. That's supposed to be believable??

Again, I never said that I believed the entire report to the War Crimes Tribunal was 100% accurate, however they are sworn statements and they are made by people (more than just one) who were actually there.

Also, Im not intimating that you are accusing me of hanging out on anti-tow-the-bush-party-line sites. I could care a less what sites you think I visit. You DEFLECTED by attempting to prove some silly point that just because some extremist sites have links to this very public and in no way extremist document, that in some way invalidates the document. There's an inherent logical flaw in that assumption, whether the Commie Party of Oklahoma links to it or not is irrelevant.

And finally, your contact with the photographer proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Anyone who wise enough to read his Introduction site could see that he's not attempting to point fingers, and he STRESSED this on the CNN program that got me interested in his site in the first place. What it does prove is that you in all likelihood sought to somehow get him to distance himself from my using two somewhat related links in the same post.

Reload and come again, this is boring now.

Gabriel

 

[U2Bama]

Man, chill out! I don't think he meant anything by callng you "Gab" as you seemed to infer. It is no different than people calling me "Bama" or people calling Kobeyashi "Kobe." I certainly don't think he meant to bastardize your real name.

Also, I see your diagnoses of people needing help ("you are in serious need of help") as a personal attack on those people simply because you disagree with their methods of processing information adn forming their opinions. Are you properly licensed to administer such cunseling on peopple you disagree with?

Good heavens; I don't know why you are so strongly on the offensive towards "dread," "speedy," "sting" (sans the "2") and others you disagree with; FREE YOUR MIND goes both ways.

~U2Alabama

 

[gvox]

 

[Dreadsox]

Look "Dreadsox", I am man enough to come on here and use my real name so I would appreciate you not bastardizing it. You are not welcome to call me "Gab", "Gabe" or any other such derivative of my full name.

Sorry, meant nothing by it. It is obvious this has become personal with you. I am obviously less of a man for using a name I picked out......OK...let me whipe the tears from my eyes so I can continue. Laughing this hard makes it hard to type.

Second of all, if you call me stating that I will lean more heavily towards sworn statements of evidence in terms of reliability over a syndicated news program an 'attack', you are in serious need of help.

The only 'attack' launched was when you decided to quote Frontline's estimates as if they were gospel truth. By doing this you implied that the estimates contained linked document were pure bunk and not to be trusted.

Your sworn statements come from an organization that is less than credible in my opinion as detailed above. I have reread what I typed. By pointing out that there was a sizeable gap between 400 and 10,000+. I also prefaced my statement that it was uncomfortable to think of 4-500 dying never mind 10,000+. It is a MAJOR gap in numbers. To be honest, given the history of Mr. Clark and his constant support of terrorists nations and leaders, I do trust the Frontline Stats.

If you had come out with another respected link of your own or some hard facts that would have been different. All you did was recall from memory a paraphrasing of what a news program said. That's supposed to be believable

Is this a "My link is better than yours complex?". After reading your links, I decided to do some reading on the topic myself because I had not read anything on the topic in a while. The links you were providing us, did not mix with what I recalled from that time period. Since I was on Active Military duty at the time and quite busy, I wanted to refresh my memory. I will put the link for you at the bottom.

Hey you were right about something. I did get the numbers wrong. FRONTLINE said a couple of hundred dead. That would be 200. Thanks for getting me to reread again.

Again, I never said that I believed the entire report to the War Crimes Tribunal was 100% accurate, however they are sworn statements and they are made by people (more than just one) who were actually there.

I am sincerely curious as to what you believe to be false from the "War Crimes Tribunal"? I would like to know what innacuracies you believe to be in there.

Also, Im not intimating that you are accusing me of hanging out on anti-tow-the-bush-party-line sites. I could care a less what sites you think I visit. You DEFLECTED by attempting to prove some silly point that just because some extremist sites have links to this very public and in no way extremist document, that in some way invalidates the document. There's an inherent logical flaw in that assumption, whether the Commie Party of Oklahoma links to it or not is irrelevant.

To you it is a silly point. To me, when organizations that place my country's flag and stick a Swastika on it links to it I have the right to question how seriously valid it is. When there are no links from credible sites to it, I question the validity. When the man you said in your own words is "HIGHLTY RESPECTED" started in 1980 to associate with terrorists, writes a self proclaimed "War Crimes Tribunal" accusing my country of atrocities, I can question the validity of things.

And finally, your contact with the photographer proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Anyone who wise enough to read his Introduction site could see that he's not attempting to point fingers, and he STRESSED this on the CNN program that got me interested in his site in the first place. What it does prove is that you in all likelihood sought to somehow get him to distance himself from my using two somewhat related links in the same post.

The contact with the photographer proves many things. First of all, it 100% does not support your beliefs. Your statements that WMD's were used. It does not support your statements that they were non-combatants. The links are not related. It is a twisted attempt to slander my country.

Reload and come again, this is boring now.

Gabriel

Well, I am done. One thing as I pointed out earlier is that I am horrified by the pictures. I hate death and destruction. I hate the fact that 200-10,000 people died because of their leader Saddam Hussein. They were living people. That is the point the photographer wished to make.

MATT aka (MATTHEW, DREADSOX, DREAD)

oops...almost forgot here is the link to the FRONTLINE interviews.



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/

 

[nbcrusader]

Gabrielvox,

Curious - not knowing your stance on abortion, would a picture of an aborted fetus change your position?

 

[diamond]

dread
bama
sting
nb have it right in this thread.

gab is silly.

db9

 

[hiphop]

Good points, all.

Keep talking, Gabriel - I appreciate it, but I have too much to work at the very moment.

diamond: you should post one argument at least. Or do you have too much to work?

 

[Dreadsox]

Hiphop,

If I may call you "hiphop" without having my manhood challenged...hehe

How dare you tease us with a short post! I see in my email you posted. This is quite disappointing!

Good luck on the work.

Matthew Dominic Saracen AKA Dreadsox, Dread, Joker, Count, ......

Peace

 

[hiphop]

No, really, Matt, I am sorry, but I don?t have any time! Next week, ok?

 

[Dreadsox]

No, really, Matt, I am sorry, but I don?t have any time! Next week, ok?

 

[Dreadsox]

The sad part is, what some people fail to understand, is that I respect the anti-war movement. I respect their beliefs and that they have taken a stand. Some of you get it, understand this is my position. I want to make it clear that I too believe war is a horrible thing. Those pictures support that. Ihave been very steady in my belief that a case has not been made by the leader of my country for war. Until a CONVINCING ONE is made, I will not support the use of force.

As for this thread. While I may respect the beliefs you have Gabrielvox I do not respect the way you have chosen to present your case. The pages you have linked to are not valid historically in my mind. That is my opinion and I have formed it with much thought and reading over the past two or three days. You may not agree with it and that is fine with me, you are entitled to your opinion. When I see untruths posted, I have the right to counter that point.

AS I said in my first post, I do agree with you, war is horrific. Those pictures are horrific. If peace can work, I am with you 100%. After all of the reading I have done on Iraq's leader, I have my doubts.

Peace

Matt

 

[gvox]

Gabrielvox,

Curious - not knowing your stance on abortion, would a picture of an aborted fetus change your position?

I'm not too sure what you are saying.

I am against abortion, it is murder.

I'm done on that.

 

[gvox]

Ihave been very steady in my belief that a case has not been made by the leader of my country for war. Until a CONVINCING ONE is made, I will not support the use of force.

Matt

And on this we totally agree, even while we may have arrived there by different paths.

And it is this that we should be concentrating on right now, that a solid case has not been made, and thus this threat of military force, while seemingly necessary to get Saddam to act, is all the same very troubling.

Gabriel