0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 03:16 pm
this is on North Korea of which Bush decided that he could actually work with other people and not rush to war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,757783,00.html

Quote:
Tens of thousands of political prisoners face starvation, torture and summary execution in prison camps in North Korea, according to the testimony of a prisoner to a US Senate inquiry.
In a detailed, frequently harrowing first-hand description of conditions inside Kaechon camp and other detention centres run by North Korea's communist regime, Soon Ok Lee has told the inquiry of apparent biological and chemical weapons experiments on prisoners.

She said she had witnessed numerous other atrocities, including the murder of newborn babies by guards and doctors.

"While I was there, three women delivered babies on the cement floor without blankets," Ms Soon told a Senate judiciary sub-committee chaired by the Democrat Edward Kennedy. "It was horrible to watch the prison doctor kicking the pregnant women with his boots. When a baby was born, the doctor shouted, 'Kill it quickly. How can a criminal expect to have a baby? Kill it.'

"The women covered their faces with their hands and wept. Even though the deliveries were forced by injection, the babies were still alive when born. The prisoner-nurses, with trembling hands, squeezed the babies' necks to kill them," Ms Soon said.

Ms Soon, who was first arrested in 1984, said she was tortured in pre-trial interrogation before being sentenced to a 13-year jail term for crimes against the state.

She said she had managed to survive in the camp only because, with a background as an accountant, she had been given work keeping the camp's records. She was released in an amnesty in 1992 and escaped to South Korea in 1995.

Despite the time that has elapsed since the events she describes took place, international human rights organisations and independent Korean groups say executions, torture and other serious abuses continue in the camps.

One group, the non-governmental Citizens' Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, has published testimony from other camp survivors. In one such account, Yong Kim described the horrors of "No 14 political prison", where he was held until he escaped in 1998 and made his way to South Korea the following year.

The total number of prisoners held in the North Korean gulag is not known but one current estimate puts it at about 200,000, held in 12 or more centres. A source on the Democrat-controlled judiciary committee said the location of many camps had been identified and there were plans to publish satellite photographs of them.

Amnesty International's latest annual report says that North Korea continues to refuse access to independent observers, that executions for political offences are continuing, and that freedom of religion is severely restricted.

"Several thousand Christians were being held in labour camps where they reportedly faced torture, starvation and death," Amnesty said.

The UN human rights committee and the EU expressed serious concerns about human rights to Pyongyang last year.

Senator Sam Brownback, who sits on the judiciary sub-committee, said: "North Korea is today's 'killing field' where millions of people considered politically hostile or agitators - or just being innocent children - starve to death while those in power enjoy luxurious lifestyles."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 05:10 pm
Now that we're into comparing celery and lettuce, where's the beef? LOL
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 05:49 pm
Revel always misses the point, Foxy. I hope for her sake it's deliberate.

revel wrote:
bill, like foxfrye said we are not the savior of the entire world. Iraq was not worse than other nations in the same way that Saddam starved and oppressed his citizens. Some of those nations actually do have WMD.
Revel, this is a statement borne of pure ignorance. Saddam was a damn sight worse than virtually every other tyrant on the Planet. When compared to others with the means to feed their people, only Kim Jong IL is worse and that sonofaXXXX may have already killed a third of his population. His WMD means he may be able to kill millions more. Did you want we should wait for wannabe Hussein to get there?

Gel Of course I think a trillion murders are worse. Are you going to explain the idiotic question or aren't you?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 06:02 pm
Calling me ignorant and all that is very typical of your style which quite frankly is very boorish.





edited to keep from going into another insulting match of which I admit that I am out of my depth.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 06:09 pm
Bill, you need to retire 'idiotic'.

Like 'hyper-partisan' and that old Packers sweatshirt from the second Super Bowl in '68 (the one your last girlfriend hated so much she finally left you because of it) it's completely worn out.

Think of some other insult to toss off. Be creative.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 06:47 pm
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary wrote:
Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence


Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary wrote:
Main Entry: id·i·ot·ic
Pronunciation: "i-dE-'ä-tik
Variant(s): also id·i·ot·i·cal /-'ä-ti-k&l/
Function: adjective
1 : characterized by idiocy
2 : showing complete lack of thought or common sense : FOOLISH
- id·i·ot·i·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb


No, those seem to be appropriate word choices to me.
Revel, frankly I'm astounded that after all this time you didn't know Saddam was a standout fiend among fiends. It is astonishing that anyone could participate this much on a thread about Iraq and remain ignorant of that FACT.

And seriously PDiddie; That sweatshirt is never going to leave my wardrobe and what word would better describe Gel's Trillion murders Vs. Jim Jones in terms of evil question than idiotic?

Did you ever look up the word "idiotic"in the Harvard Dictionary? Check out what it uses for an example:

Code:Harvard Dictionary

Main Entry: id·i·ot·ic
Pronunciation: "i-dE-'ä-tik
Variant(s): also id·i·ot·i·cal /-'ä-ti-k&l/
Function: adjective
1 : characterized by idiocy
2 : showing complete lack of thought or common sense : FOOLISH

Example question:
would a million million murders place Saddam above or below Jim Jones?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 06:53 pm
There is the other sticky wicket that the followers of Jim Jones were followers. They were not forced or coerced other than through ideological brain washing.

The followers of Saddam Hussein are now some of the car bombers or those dead or wounded from coalition weaponry because they still are insisting on having their way via Saddam's methodology. There is no way anybody else in Iraq was a follower as they toed the line under threat of torture or loss of freedom, limbs, or life.

Yeah, I agree. Comparing the two is pretty idiotic.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 08:04 pm
MORE REALLY STUPID ASSERTIONS

www.m-w.com
Quote:
Main Entry: 1stu·pid
Pronunciation: 'stü-p&d, 'styü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stupEre to be numb, be astonished -- more at TYPE
1 a : slow of mind : OBTUSE b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH
2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : TORPID <still stupid from the sedative>
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : SENSELESS
4 a : lacking interest or point b : VEXATIOUS, EXASPERATING <this stupid flashlight won't work>



#11 If we cannot rescue everyone from tyranny we should not attempt to rescue anyone until we can rescue everyone.

#12 Until we can meet the needs of the most needy we should not attempt to meet the needs of any less needy.

#13 Until we can stop the worst murderers we should not try to stop lesser murderers.

#14 We should not defend ourselves against those who hate and murder us in order to avoid encouraging more people to hate and murder us.

#15 The US has committed many wrongs, therefore the US should not attempt to commit any rights.

#16 The fact that millions of Iraqis risked their lives to vote doesn't mean millions of Iraqis are willing to risk their lives to build their democracy.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 08:06 pm
Isn't it just grand that people on a2k know how to find the dictionary definition of words.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 08:17 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Isn't it just grand that people on a2k know how to find the dictionary definition of words.


ANOTHER REALLY STUPID ASSERTION

#17 Isn't it just grand that people on a2k know how to find the dictionary definition of words.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 08:34 pm
Laughing Some fools just hate it when you insist on dictionary definitions, don't they?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 09:00 pm
Some people just don't know how to take a compliment. boo hoo...
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 09:54 pm
Evil:
6 entries found for evil.
e·vil Audio pronunciation of "evil" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.


n.

1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.


We kill the bad guys, the insurgents ....ipso facto we are the good guys.
The insurgents kill the bad guys, us .... ipso facto they are the good guys.Wherein lies the difference? Is it in how we live?No, I think we all live, love eat, sleep, work and laugh the same way ..... we certainly all die the same way ....just for different reasons .... for different ideas, few of us have death wishes and dying is not a basic. instinct, something has gone drasticaly wrong when good men kill each other for no apparent reason.
Or have we missed something? Jim Jones ..... was evil, he killed by playing on religious fears and whether he killed 1,011 or a million million, does not change the fact that evil is evil.. When you quote the numbers what are you accomplishing ........ proving that Saddam was more evil? More evil than what or who?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 10:32 pm
All sins are equal is your point Gel? A trillion suffering families doesn't equal more "bad"?

And if it does; shouldn't the goal be to reduce the number as much as possible?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2005 11:28 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
All sins are equal is your point Gel? A trillion suffering families doesn't equal more "bad"?

And if it does; shouldn't the goal be to reduce the number as much as possible?


That is what I'm trying do figure out. At what point do you feel it is time to intervene and when do you stop. You say 'reduce' ....to what number?Nam would still be going on if not for the loss of popular support
58,000 American and a couple million Viet Cong. How does one decide ..... for me, I stop at number one for obvious reasons.

BTW, I think you can give orignal sin a bit of slack, although I can't see why you bring God into it.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2005 07:20 am
Theocracy ..?

Quote:
Last update: February 5, 2005 at 10:14 PM
Shiites plan to assert Islamic values in country's constitution
Edward Wong, New York Times
February 6, 2005 SHIITE0206

NAJAF, IRAQ -- With religious Shiite parties poised to take power in the new constitutional assembly, leading Shiite clerics are pushing for Islam to be enshrined in the new constitution, governing such matters as marriage, divorce and family inheritance.

On other issues, opinion varies, with the more conservative leaders insisting that Shariah, or Islamic law, be the foundation for all legislation.

Such a constitution would be a sharp departure from the transitional law that the Americans enacted before appointing the interim government led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. One focus of the U.S. effort then was to secure equal rights for women and minorities. But in the constitutional assembly, the U.S. influence will be much reduced. Under Shariah, for instance, daughters would receive half the inheritances of sons.

When the interim law was written in early 2004, U.S. officials persuaded Iraqi drafters to designate Islam as just "a source" of legislation. That irked senior Shiite clerics, who, confident they now have a popular mandate from the elections, are advocating for Islam to be recognized as the underpinning of the government.

The clerics' demands underscore the biggest question surrounding the new government: How Islamic will it be?

Many factors could force the clerics to compromise their vision. The alliance of Shiite politicians in the constitutional assembly could splinter as its members vie against one another for power and trade favors with rival politicians like Allawi. Too strong a push for a Shiite religious state could prompt opposition from Sunni Arabs, the formerly dominant minority that already feels disenfranchised, or from the Kurds, who can exercise veto power over the new constitution.

And Shiite politicians, recognizing a possible backlash from secular leaders and the Americans, have publicly promised not to install a theocracy similar to that of Iran or allow clerics to run the country.

Enormous influence

But the clerics of Najaf, the holiest city of Shiite Islam, have emerged as the greatest power in the new Iraq. They forced the Americans to conform to their timetable for a political process. Their standing was bolstered last Sunday by the high turnout among Shiite voters and a widespread boycott by the minority Sunni Arabs, and the clerics will now wield enormous behind-the-scenes influence in the writing of the constitution by their coalition built around religious parties.

The leading Shiite clerics say they have no intention of taking executive office and following the Iranian model of direct government by religious scholars. But the clerics also say that the Shiite politicians ultimately answer to them and that the top religious leaders will shape the constitution through the politicians.

It was the country's most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who initially demanded speedy elections, knowing that a popular vote would bring to power a legitimate government run by the majority Shiites. When the Bush administration objected, the ayatollah forced the White House to back down by calling protesters into the streets of Iraq.

Al-Sistani's power was felt again when his office assembled the United Iraqi Alliance and exhorted voters to turn out last Sunday.

Adnan Zurfi, the governor of Najaf and a former student in the Shiite seminary there, said of the clerics: "The most important thing for them is to write the constitution. This is why they supported the elections."

But how much Islamic influence the clerics manage to get into the constitution could come down to the sentiments of ordinary Iraqis. Saddam spent much of his rule molding Iraq into one of the most secular nations in the Middle East. That indoctrination is not easily cast off.

"There are some people who are close to Iran, who lean toward Iran," said Shakir Mahmoud Abdul-Hussein, 47, a union leader who voted for the secular slate led by Allawi. "Those with turbans will ruin our country. They just want to permit things for themselves and not for others."
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2005 08:54 am
Gelisgesti wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
All sins are equal is your point Gel? A trillion suffering families doesn't equal more "bad"?

And if it does; shouldn't the goal be to reduce the number as much as possible?


That is what I'm trying do figure out. At what point do you feel it is time to intervene and when do you stop. You say 'reduce' ....to what number?Nam would still be going on if not for the loss of popular support
58,000 American and a couple million Viet Cong. How does one decide ..... for me, I stop at number one for obvious reasons.
Gel, your unqualified, unprovable assumptions about Vietnam are wholly irrelevant to any discussion you're having with me. What does "stop at one" mean? You were perfectly content to have our country remain on the sidelines while Saddam continuously added to his already million-plus body count. You're not making any sense at all?
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2005 09:54 am
You know I'm interested in changes. I changed on the VietNam War and I can pretty much tell when that change occurred. And I changed on this war, this invasion of Iraq. I don't have to tell you that I was convinced by the evidence, reassured by the rhetoric and, albeit reluctantly, behind the President's plan to remove Saddam from power because of the danger that he posed to us.

When it became apparent that he was no danger to us, or it seems, anyone else other than his own people and family members, I changed my opinion about both the advisability of the invasion and the competence of those who brought us this war's aftermath of chaos. (And who were inexplicably awarded the Medal of Freedom for doing so.)

Now I know there is a difference between deciding to change one's opinion and changing the reasons to hold an opinion, but continuing to hold the same opinion. So, I'm interested in when the change of reasoning occurred, when did the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction as a reason for this war change into the humanitarian, freedom bearing, democracy sprouting campaign it has now, belatedly it seems to me, become?

And did it pre-date the President's own conversion from being an anti-nation building stalwart to the champion of freedom everywhere he appears now to be?

And ask yourself this: If Al Gore was President and he said in a State of the Union address that he wanted to end tyranny throughout the world, wouldn't the conservatives sneer rather than cheer as they did when President Carter tried to make Human Rights the center of his administration's foreign policy?

Or has my Rule of Opposites been proven again? Only Nixon could open China, only the Southerner LBJ could pass the Civil Rights Laws, only Clinton could pass Welfare Reform, only Reagan could ballon deficit spending, only George W. Bush, the former anti-nation-building stalwart, could go forth to build many nations dragging his confused and a little pissed off conservative party behind him.

This liberal looks forward to the day when tyranny is goine from the world and thanks in advance the conservatives who are the only ones who could accomplish such a task because there will be no opposition from us.

Joe(US Presidents alway do the opposite of what you expect ) Nation
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2005 09:58 am
Quote:
confused and a little pissed off


The definition of the Democrat Party.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Feb, 2005 10:46 am
Joe, my desire to spread Democracy by force predates Bush's tenure altogether. I hope that makes it any easier for you swallow. If Al Gore had convincingly announced that was his agenda, he'd have received my vote along with everyone I could convince. We don't all choose direction by partisan lines. Jimmy Carter's incredibly huge heart and irreproachably benevolent intentions have in practice resulted in Kim Jong IL secretly murdering millions of his citizens and obtaining the weapons to threaten millions more. While Jimmy's message may have been similar, his intentions and predictable results were not.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 07/23/2025 at 04:27:57