Iraqi Officer Identifies Himself as Source of 45-Minute Claim on Saddam's Arms

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I can!

1- a couple of questionable sources

Obviously, since it speaks badly about the US (we would NEVER do anything bad, right?)

2- None of it would have happened had Saddam used the money he was hording or gave in to the resolutions which he agreed to.

None of it would have happened had we not bombed the water treatment facilities OR allowed at least that kind of equipment through the sanctions

He was living the high life while killing his own people.

So were we, apparently

That was easy!

For you, obviously.

This crap makes me want to puke ! Very simple Saddam is responsible for every death in Iraq, period !

do you feel absolved now?

 

[jimnyc]

Obviously, since it speaks badly about the US (we would NEVER do anything bad, right?)

Why isn't it in the mainstream media? You liberals claim the media isn't biased and claim they are the best when they print something that backs your claims. Other than an op/ed column, where are the stories that show the USA is responsible for the deaths?

And also, they were UN imposed sanctions, not US.

None of it would have happened had we not bombed the water treatment facilities OR allowed at least that kind of equipment through the sanctions

Again, HIS treacherous ways is what brought action to his country. He agreed to abide by resolutions and he failed to do so. HE initiated his treacherous ways and we gave him ample opportunity to help his country. He could have abided by the resolutions - problem solved. He could have used the resources he had to help his people - he didn't.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
can you explain these reports then??

http://www.progressive.org/0901/nagy0901.html

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/242.html

sure i can but i'd rather have the iraqis doctors explain it themselves:

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/ma.../25/ixnewstop.html/news/2003/05/25/wirq25.xml

Saddam's parades of dead babies are exposed as a cynical charade
(Filed: 25/05/2003)


UN sanctions did not kill the hundreds of infants displayed over the years - it was neglect by the former regime, Iraqi doctors in Baghdad tell Charlotte Edwardes

The "baby parades" were a staple of Saddam Hussein's propaganda machine for a decade. Convoys of taxis, with the tiny coffins of dead infants strapped to their roofs - allegedly killed by United Nations sanctions - were driven through the streets of Baghdad, past crowds of women screaming anti-Western slogans.

The moving scenes were often filmed by visiting television crews and provided valuable ammunition to anti-sanctions activists such as George Galloway, the Labour MP, who blamed Western governments for the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children.

But The Telegraph can reveal that it was all a cynical charade. Iraqi doctors say they were told to collect dead babies who had died prematurely or from natural causes and to store them in cardboard boxes in refrigerated morgues for up to four weeks - until they had sufficient corpses for a parade.

Many of the children died, they say, as a result of the Iraqi government's own neglect as it lavished funds on military programmes and Saddam's palaces in the knowledge that it could blame sanctions for the lack of medicines and equipment in hospitals and clinics.

"We were not allowed to return the babies to their mothers for immediate burial, as is the Muslim tradition, but told they must be kept for what became known as 'the taxi parade'," said Dr Hussein al-Douri, the deputy director of the Ibn al-Baladi hospital in Saddam City, a Shia district in eastern Baghdad.

"The mothers would be hysterical and sometimes threaten to kill us, but we knew that the real threat was from the government."

Asked what would have happened if he had disobeyed the orders, Dr al-Douri replied: "They would have killed our families. This was an important event for the propaganda campaign."

Dr al-Douri, who has worked for 10 years as a paediatrician, said the parades were orchestrated by officials from the ministries of health, information and intelligence.

He said: "All 10 hospitals in Baghdad were involved in this and the quota for the parade was between 25 and 30 babies a month, which they would say had died in one day.

"We had to tell the babies' families that it was a government order and that they would be paid to keep quiet. The reward was sometimes in money, the equivalent of $10 per baby, or in food: rice, sugar and oil."

The government then ordered members of the Iraqi Women's Federation, an organisation funded by the regime, to line the streets of Baghdad and wail and beat themselves in mock grief.

"They portrayed an image of mothers in mourning for their recently dead children," he said. "It was too dangerous not to follow the orders. We were very afraid. The families were afraid, too."

Dr al-Douri showed The Telegraph the morgue where babies' bodies would be stored in cardboard boxes before being transferred to wooden coffins carrying their names and sometimes photographs.

Dr Amer Abdul al-Jalil, the deputy resident at the hospital, said: "Sanctions did not kill these children - Saddam killed them. The internal sanctions by the Saddam regime were very effective. Those who died prematurely usually died because their mothers lived in impoverished areas neglected by the government.

"The mortality rate was higher in areas such as Saddam City because there was no sewerage system. Infectious diseases were rampant.

"Over the past 10 years, the government in Iraq poured money into the military and the construction of palaces for Saddam to the detriment of the health sector. Those babies or small children who died because they could not access the right drugs, died because Saddam's government failed to distribute the drugs. The poorer areas were most vulnerable."

He added: "We feel terrible that this happened, but we were living under a regime and we had to keep silent. What could we do?"

----------------

there you have it. first hand accounts fromt those who know what happend.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Why isn't it in the mainstream media?

mainstream media is in the pockets of this government, has been for over 30 years.

You liberals claim the media isn't biased and claim they are the best when they print something that backs your claims.

Not this liberal, I don't trust ANY mainstream media.

And also, they were UN imposed sanctions, not US.

UN sanctions that were unable to be modified in any way, shape, or form at the objection of the US and britain governments.

Also, whether by husseins treacherous actions or not, bombing civilian infrastructure sites like water treatment plants is against geneva conventions, is it not?

we gave him ample opportunity to help his country.

and thats where the world screwed up. we punished the people of that country instead of punishing hussein.

 

[DKSuddeth]

there you have it. first hand accounts fromt those who know what happend

I wonder if they were even aware of how and why the sanctions were put in place. Of course they are going to put this on hussein, as everyday people they look to the government of their country to make things right ( a bunch of us here are doing it right now ).

Anyway, we have a handful of accounts compared to groups of hundreds of people, many reports stating something completely different. Its all in how you want to believe.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I wonder if they were even aware of how and why the sanctions were put in place. Of course they are going to put this on hussein, as everyday people they look to the government of their country to make things right ( a bunch of us here are doing it right now ).

Anyway, we have a handful of accounts compared to groups of hundreds of people, many reports stating something completely different. Its all in how you want to believe.

they knew why they were in place. even the un of all places puts any blame right at saddams feet. they said he had about 10 billion bucks in the bank from the oil for food program that he did nothing with except buy uday his cars, gold plated toiliet seats etc etc etc. the medicines were allowed uder un sanctions. things that were blocked we things like tank parts, jet part and "dual use" items.

 

[DKSuddeth]

things that were blocked we things like tank parts, jet part and "dual use" items

dual use items, like those that were needed for Iraqs water treatment plants. but don't trust those 'questionable sources'.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
dual use items, like those that were needed for Iraqs water treatment plants. but don't trust those 'questionable sources'.

theres a difference here though: all of your were pre saddams removal. mine's post saddam removal. now people can say how things really were under saddam. saddam from 91-03 was a master at propaganda. the article i posted points that out. the west took everything saddam said as fact even though it wasen't.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I get it, saddam snookered the world with the exception of the US and the brits, that about it?

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I get it, saddam snookered the world with the exception of the US and the brits, that about it?

well the rest of the world doesn't seem to be very smart. the french all bought books saying that no plane hit the pentagon and that it was a truck bomb. but lets get real it took 15 votes to put those sanctions on,15 votes to keep them. everyone else knew what saddam was up to.

 

[DKSuddeth]

15 votes to keep them

actually, it only took two. the US and great britain.

as madeline albright once said, the cost (in iraqi lives) is worth it.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by Lefty Wilbury
how about dozens of un resoltuions calling on iraq to disarm?

How about you address my issue first, since you quoted it?

Produce some hard evidence of one threat to the US

"A growing threat", them's the words that came out GWBs' mouth. That was why we were attacking (October 2002). The rest is obfuscation, we didn't attack Iraq at the request of the UN and the UN is the authority when it comes to the 91 treaty and the sanctions. Bringing them up in this argument is just waving a red herring, we attacked Iraq under the doctrine of pre-emption, which requires Iraq presented a threat to the US or we just attacked Iraq 'cause we wanted to. Jeez, don't you people remember your own arguments, GWB was making it only last year?????

only problem with that arguement is that iraqs own statements and actions show they still had wmd.

Bull. Show me an Iraqi statement from 2002 that says "we got WMDs'" in any way or admit the prior statement to be nothing but hyperbole. According to all evidence, Iraq ceased their involvement in WMD in 1998, so Bill Clinton, of all people, was repsonsible for disarming Saddam. Unless you can prove (I mean with evidence, not somebodies unverified faery tale) otherwise .

it's funny you say there no evidence to back the guys claim up but you'll belive that pnac bullshit all day long.

There's a lot of evidence to back that pnac bullshit up, written and signed by the principles (Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al). I've linked to it a dozen times, nobody has disputed it. You cons may not like it, but that doesn't make it any less true. As for "not taking this guy at his word", I've been following this thing for while, lefty, I've heard lot's of words from lot's of "guys" the administration and its' allies have trotted out. Now that GWB is sitting in Iraq, without WMD one to use as evidence for the validity of his pre-war claims, you think I'm full of bs?
You want me to take a word of guy that claims to have had a WMD RPG shell, how about you show me one first (cause I've never even heard of the weapon he's claiming he was issued...

funny iran is now letting un inspectors into sites they calimed didn't exist a few months ago, syria is turning over cash and kicking out former iraqi leaders

Iran has built its' bomb, they don't mind if the UN comes and looks, and you think Syria is cooperating, huh?

Right back at ya'

since when are japan,spain,england,denmark,austrailia,netherlands amoung many many others our "economic lackeys and bribeseekers "

Lefty, a trade war is in progress over protectionist policies both here and abroad. All the countries you mention are interested in mending fences politicaly with the lone super power. If you'll take that as an accurate statement, I'll retract my prior charachterization.
I know your frustrated with a lot of peoples unwillingness to grab a Bush banner and hop on the victory wagon. Deal with it. Some of us remember what he said, some of us remember who his friends are and what they said. We're not going to shut up and play along. If you think I spouting BS, prove it. If GWB could prove his claims, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

 

[jimnyc]

Bull. Show me an Iraqi statement from 2002 that says "we got WMDs'" in any way or admit the prior statement to be nothing but hyperbole.

May not be directly from their mouths, but they admitted this much:

http://armedservices.house.gov/pressreleases/2003/IraqiWMDs.pdf

Now that GWB is sitting in Iraq, without WMD one to use as evidence for the validity of his pre-war claims, you think I'm full of bs?

I don't, I just think this comment is. It's the United States Miltary that sits in Iraq - as requested by Republicans and Democrats alike.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Hey, whatever you say! Like you stated yourself earlier, the analysts read the data given to them, not us! They saw it as a real threat.

The CIA never backed that claim. The idea that you would issue man portable WMDs' to an air defence unit propbably seemed a little incredible to them too. Also, the fact that this weapon has never been seen before also probably lead them to beleive this was just another clown with an axe to grind, and therefor a story to tell.

Claim credibility with the administration all you want. The invasion still continues, and the president with no credibility is going to be around for another 5 years. Apparently you are in the minority.

We'll see, Jimmy. 11 months is a very long time in politics. Dean, in particular, can make the same arguments I can and I doubt Bush would be any better at refuting them than you are.

Whine, cry, bitch & cry foul all you want - it's not going to change anything.
Liberals whined during the election - Bush got elected.
Liberals whined during meetings about war - The USA invaded.
Liberals whined it was an illegal war - not one damn charge can be brought fourth.
Liberals continue to whine about the current administration - it's going to be around for awhile (that's the part I love the most!)

I guess you have to substitute something for the total lack of hard evidence. You choose to fill the space with an insult. Impressive. If I was 12, maybe I would be convinced since you called me whiner. Unfortunately I'm 42 and find your diatribe boring, factually incorrect and off point. :yawn:
As for comparisons to Baghdad Bob, it is juvenile to insult me for my political opinions, especially since you present nothing to mend your broken faery tale.
Better luck next time....Try to find something that has a shred of evidence to back it up.

 

[jimnyc]

The evidence has been posted so many times I think I'll puke if I post it again. You choose to ignore it, the government didn't.

There you go, whining as usual again! Whine all you want about my ridiculing, you were doing the same about Bush and the current administration, I stepped up to their defense in this forum since they obviously can't.

We'll see, Jimmy. 11 months is a very long time in politics. Dean, in particular, can make the same arguments I can and I doubt Bush would be any better at refuting them than you are.

And he wouldn't need to. Those pinheads can barely beat one another in the democratic race let alone stand a chance at being elected President of the USA.

Hook up with Psychoblues, he likes conspiracy theories too.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
The evidence has been posted so many times I think I'll puke if I post it again. You choose to ignore it, the government didn't.

The Bushies have changed there tune as to why we went to Iraq no less than three times. The lack of evidence to back up there claims were the reason. Now were on the "humanitarian" rant. You and I have done this dance before so there is little reason to go back into it.

There you go, whining as usual again! Whine all you want about my ridiculing, you were doing the same about Bush and the current administration, I stepped up to their defense in this forum since they obviously can't.

You called me a whinner, that is not a defence for the actions of the Bush administration. One might think that since you haven't presented a defence, choosing instead to throw an insult, you have no faith in your defence of their actions.

And he wouldn't need to. Those pinheads can barely beat one another in the democratic race let alone stand a chance at being elected President of the USA.

He will debate the Dem candidate, that is almost a given. I'm sure Iraq will come up in that forum and we'll see if the master of low expectations calls his opponent a "whinner".

Hook up with Psychoblues, he likes conspiracy theories too.

You don't like my PNAC theory, because you can't refute it. I've got there names on the documents that call for military action against Iraq in 98, I've got their manifesto where they propose to pacify the ME with the US army. It aint a theory, it's a fact. If you can't refute it, I'd suggest you drop it.
I haven't looked at Psychos' theories, he seems to hold his own in most arguments and requires little help from me. A second point I'd like to throw at you is, if you haven't notice, the libs are not a monolithic group. I've disputed with Dan, SLClemmons, psycho, and 7 dogs over their statements. They are welcome to do so with me if they don't agree. With that in mind, attempting to paint one of us with the same brush you paint another is not going to work. If I feel strongly enough about one of "psychos" conspiracy theories, I'll weigh in on my own. If your talking to me, you need to direct your attention at what I say, not what a person you percieve as my ally said.

 

[jimnyc]

The Bushies have changed there tune as to why we went to Iraq no less than three times. The lack of evidence to back up there claims were the reason. Now were on the "humanitarian" rant. You and I have done this dance before so there is little reason to go back into it.

And I'll state now as I've stated every other time - there were a whole slew of reasons for invading Iraq. I never once went away from that stance, nor did the administration. Portions may have been highlighted, but the other reasons were always included.

You called me a whinner, that is not a defence for the actions of the Bush administration. One might think that since you haven't presented a defence, choosing instead to throw an insult, you have no faith in your defence of their actions.

Why is a defense needed? I don't think I, nor the current administration, needs a defense for unfound accusations.

He will debate the Dem candidate, that is almost a given. I'm sure Iraq will come up in that forum and we'll see if the master of low expectations calls his opponent a "whinner".

I tried to stay away from calling out spelling errors, but what the hell is a "whinner"? Is the democratic field a bunch of horses? I just think they are a bunch of whiners.

You don't like my PNAC theory, because you can't refute it.

There's nothing to refute, you said yourself that it is a theory. I stated many times before that I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
And I'll state now as I've stated every other time - there were a whole slew of reasons for invading Iraq. I never once went away from that stance, nor did the administration. Portions may have been highlighted, but the other reasons were always included.

Its' called bait and switch. To invade Iraq we created a doctrine. When we apply the doctrine to the situation we find in Iraq, we find it doesn't apply and we now invaded for humanitarian reasons. It makes us look silly, doesn't it?

Why is a defense needed? I don't think I, nor the current administration, needs a defense for unfound accusations.

Unfounded:
Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless. See Synonyms at baseless.
Not yet established.
PNAC is real, I've linked you to the documents, the signatures on the documents actually do belong to R. Cheny, D. Rumsfeld, etc. etc., but your defence is it is not "established". You wont find it on Fox, that's true, but the facts are available for anyone to peruse.

I tried to stay away from calling out spelling errors, but what the hell is a "whinner"? Is the democratic field a bunch of horses? I just think they are a bunch of whiners.

Jimmy, I'm going to spare you my normal diatribe when someone with whom I am debating politics stops to point out a spelling error. The difference between the 2 words is an "n", so you obviously knew what I was saying to you. I only object when I can't discern a posters meaning from his words. Spelling doesn't count in political debate, when it does come up, the complainer is trying to use it to butress a weak position

There's nothing to refute, you said yourself that it is a theory. I stated many times before that I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories.

PNAC is a fact. The depth and breadth of the impact of these men on GWB and the administration is the only theoretical part of the argument. You've got militarists in your government, Jim. People who want to use the US military to impose a "Pax Americana" on the middle east. The question I have is why would you support an administration who employs these people in decision making positions?
P.S. You subscribe to every half baked conspiracy theory linking Saddam Hussein to WMDs' or OBL that come up on this board. This thread is another of the "a guy says" conspiracy theories linking Husseins regime to a Chem/Bio RPG round. You're defending the ridiculious story, even though no such round has ever been discovered or used in Iraq. I have a space alien in my basement, Jim. Come over to see him? No, he just left. Guess that proves the government has been lying about space aliens all these years though, huh?
Who are you kidding?

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Originally posted by dijetlo

How about you address my issue first, since you quoted it?

how about an attempt to kill a president? that enough for you? or how about paying homide bombers that have killed americans? or how about harbouring terrorist like abu nidal and Abdul Rahman Yasin that have killed americans. how about issuing iraqi diplomatic passports to carlos the jackel?

Originally posted by dijetlo
"A growing threat", them's the words that came out GWBs' mouth. That was why we were attacking (October 2002). The rest is obfuscation, we didn't attack Iraq at the request of the UN and the UN is the authority when it comes to the 91 treaty and the sanctions. Bringing them up in this argument is just waving a red herring, we attacked Iraq under the doctrine of pre-emption, which requires Iraq presented a threat to the US or we just attacked Iraq 'cause we wanted to. Jeez, don't you people remember your own arguments, GWB was making it only last year?????

no the un isn't any authority on any treaty. it was signed with us no one else. they signed OUR ceasefire agreement. they had to ask US to use helicopters in 91 not the un

Originally posted by dijetlo
Bull. Show me an Iraqi statement from 2002 that says "we got WMDs'" in any way or admit the prior statement to be nothing but hyperbole. According to all evidence, Iraq ceased their involvement in WMD in 1998, so Bill Clinton, of all people, was repsonsible for disarming Saddam. Unless you can prove (I mean with evidence, not somebodies unverified faery tale) otherwise .

iraqs own weapons paper turned over to the un stated they still had wmd. they said they had x number of gallons of this and x number of gallons of that but they couldn't say they destoryed it. therefore they still had it.

Originally posted by dijetlo
There's a lot of evidence to back that pnac bullshit up, written and signed by the principles (Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al). I've linked to it a dozen times, nobody has disputed it. You cons may not like it, but that doesn't make it any less true.

really you have pnac info to back up your claims? where is it? did any pnac defectors provide any info? how about any seized pnac documents? how about satilite photos of pnac at work? any intercepted phone calls between pnac members? how about anything more then an internet rumour of pnac? are there any un resolutions calling on pnac to disarm and allow weapons inspectors in? any pnac members break from the group and form a new group called "the real pnac"? any interviews of pnac members on tv lately? if there was any were they hiding behind ski masks to hide their identities so no to jepordize pnac secret workings? is pnac a side project of nsync? is the Bilderberg Group controlling pnac ? we've got all that stuff on iraq but thats not enough for you. i've always found it amazing that people rant and rave about pnac without anything real to back it up. all they have is some internet rumour or leftist website crap to go on. oh wait all you probably have is some letter telling clinton to take out iraq right?thats good enough for you but an interview done by a newspaper with someone isn't good enough. yep thats it people. pnac is pulling the strings yet no one can produce documents saying lets attack iraq ,no interviews saying it either or any proof , yet when someone provides stuff on saddam from creditable sources weather its interviews, intercepts or documents it's not real. their all fakes and the "corperate media" is covering everything up

Originally posted by dijetlo
As for "not taking this guy at his word", I've been following this thing for while, lefty, I've heard lot's of words from lot's of "guys" the administration and its' allies have trotted out. Now that GWB is sitting in Iraq, without WMD one to use as evidence for the validity of his pre-war claims, you think I'm full of bs?
You want me to take a word of guy that claims to have had a WMD RPG shell, how about you show me one first (cause I've never even heard of the weapon he's claiming he was issued...

i've been on this stuff for a lot longer then you and here you have a guy telling you what he knows,first hand accounts but thats not enough. you had the kay report showing the found boutcholism in iraq but thats not enough.how about saddams own son in laws coming to the west years ago saying saddam still had and was still working on wmd? that not enough? you had iraq intel documents talking about a meeting with obl but thats not enough. that north korea deal,which was even mention in the kay update report in sept still not enough. like i said you'll dismiss stuff that goes againest you theories and you'll live on bs internet rumours.


as far as an rpg shell the front part of an rpg shell is hollow. it's designed that what because when a shell impacts armour the space thats at the to allows for the explosives to be concertratedi nto a small area. think of the inside of it wa V and as it hits the V gets tuned up side down to ^ which focuses the explosives into a smaller area allowing it to cut into armour.

Originally posted by dijetlo

Iran has built its' bomb, they don't mind if the UN comes and looks, and you think Syria is cooperating, huh?

anything to back that up? i din't think so. syria is cooperrating with us and the war on terror in general.

Originally posted by dijetlo
Right back at ya'

Lefty, a trade war is in progress over protectionist policies both here and abroad. All the countries you mention are interested in mending fences politicaly with the lone super power. If you'll take that as an accurate statement, I'll retract my prior charachterization.

the aussies really don't have much to gain from us. neither do the danes. they all recognize iraq was the right thing to do. hell look at the rich countris in the middle east that were in on operation iraqi freedom. bahrain,qutar saudi arabia,kuwait our actions only caused problems for them but still they recognize it was the right thing to do.

Originally posted by dijetlo
I know your frustrated with a lot of peoples unwillingness to grab a Bush banner and hop on the victory wagon. Deal with it. Some of us remember what he said, some of us remember who his friends are and what they said. We're not going to shut up and play along. If you think I spouting BS, prove it. If GWB could prove his claims, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

i have patience with iraq you don't. i'm not quick to dismiss all the evidence produce by everyone worldwide and say there aren't any wmd in iraq. even france conceded iraq had them they didn't join in because they didn't think there the threat was clear and present. the only problem with you argument is the the concept of regime change goes back even to clinton. even he is on record saying saddam had wmd. what was he lying as well? oh wait let me guess the cia was lying ot him i should have known. how about the french saying iraq had them? austrailia? england? but no no there all wrong right?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by dijetlo
PNAC is a fact. The depth and breadth of the impact of these men on GWB and the administration is the only theoretical part of the argument. You've got militarists in your government, Jim. People who want to use the US military to impose a "Pax Americana" on the middle east. The question I have is why would you support an administration who employs these people in decision making positions?

dijetlo,

Any links or sources on the fact of PNAC's existence?