# Kurds Mark 20th Anniversary of Deadly Gas Attack



## Gunny (Mar 16, 2008)

> By ERICA GOODE
> Published: March 16, 2008
> 
> BAGHDAD  Thousands of Kurds gathered Sunday in the town of Halabja, in the northern uplands of Iraq, to mark a grim anniversary: the day 20 years ago when clouds of poison gas swept through the town, killing as many as 5,000 people.
> ...



Since we know Saddam posessed no WMDs, the "chemical" that murdered these Kurds must have been a collective, overactive imagination.


----------



## onedomino (Mar 16, 2008)

The mass murder of Kurds was alone more than enough reason to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein, much less the additional crimes against humanity that came after.







Chemical Ali will soon be executed in Baghdad for his role in the mass murder of Kurds and Shiites. Argue the right and wrong of invading Iraq all night and all day. But the simple fact is that this guy would be running around free today if not for the destruction of Saddam's regime.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 16, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Since we know Saddam posessed no WMDs, the "chemical" that murdered these Kurds must have been a collective, overactive imagination.



oh it was muster gas that cheney was referring too right before the 04 election...

gotcha..


----------



## eots (Mar 16, 2008)

the mustard gas we sold to him and gave approval to use..


----------



## Gunny (Mar 16, 2008)

Shogun said:


> oh it was muster gas that cheney was referring too right before the 04 election...
> 
> gotcha..



Halabja was gassed with sarin, mustard gas, tabun and VX.  They also believe hydrogen cyanide may have been used.

All are classified as chemical weapons and fall under the heading "Weapons of Mass Destruction."


----------



## Gunny (Mar 16, 2008)

eots said:


> the mustard gas we sold to him and gave approval to use..



Incorrect.  Saddam already posessed mustard gas.  It has been reported but not substantiated that the CIA showed his chemists how to refine it.

Saddam did not require approval to do anything, and there is no evidence to support such conjecture.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 16, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Halabja was gassed with sarin, mustard gas, tabun and VX.  They also believe hydrogen cyanide may have been used.
> 
> All are classified as chemical weapons and fall under the heading "Weapons of Mass Destruction."



hehehe..


stick with that story, gunny.  wear it on a shirt to the polls.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Mar 16, 2008)

onedomino said:


> The mass murder of Kurds was alone more than enough reason to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein, much less the additional crimes against humanity that came after.




LOL

I highly doubt you were saying that in 2003, when you were cheerleading a war that we were told was based on the mortal threat of saddam giving WMD to al qaeda.   I guess you had to come up with a new reason to justify your 3 trillion dollar war. 

Worship Bush much?


----------



## jreeves (Mar 16, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL
> 
> I highly doubt you were saying that in 2003, when you were cheerleading a war that we were told was based on the mortal threat of saddam giving WMD to al qaeda.   I guess you had to come up with a new reason to justify your 3 trillion dollar war.
> 
> Worship Bush much?



And do you worship the lying 'god' much? The war in Iraq hasn't cost 3 trillion dollars.


----------



## jillian (Mar 16, 2008)

jreeves said:


> And do you worship the lying 'god' much? The war in Iraq hasn't cost 3 trillion dollars.



I'm certain you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more informed than nobel laureates and harvard economists. 

    

please, read, learn... would be good for you.



> EXCLUSIVEThe Three Trillion Dollar War: Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Economist Linda Bilmes on the True Cost of the US Invasion and Occupation of Iraq
> One week after President Bush rejected charges the war in Iraq has hurt the US economy, a new book puts a conservative estimate of the wars cost at $3 trillion so far. In their first national broadcast interview upon their books publication, Nobel laureate and former chief World Bank economist, Joseph Stiglitz, and co-author Linda Bilmes of Harvard University say the Bush administration has repeatedly low-balled the cost of the warand even kept a second set of records hidden from the American public. [includes rush transcript]



http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/exclusive_the_three_trillion_dollar_war


----------



## jreeves (Mar 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> I'm certain you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more informed than nobel laureates and harvard economists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know about this article he posted this BS on another thread, they take all of the indirect negative costs of the war but don't account for the positive gains in the economy from the war in Iraq. He is a self proclaimed anti-war, so I'm sure he was trying to portray the war in the best possible light. Also he stated in a earlier article that the cost was 1 trillion dollars....hmm...let me see here where did that extra 2 trillion dollars come from. 

But I will agree with you that smart economists can shape an outlook of a war very well without taking into account the positive gains.


----------



## onedomino (Mar 17, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL
> 
> I highly doubt you were saying that in 2003, when you were cheerleading a war that we were told was based on the mortal threat of saddam giving WMD to al qaeda.   I guess you had to come up with a new reason to justify your 3 trillion dollar war.
> 
> Worship Bush much?


Then you would be completely wrong, as you most often are. When I read the history, I thought that Saddam should have been taken out in 1991 during the first Gulf War. Not doing so led to the no-fly zone stalemate, ineffective sanctions, the oil for palaces program, and the second Gulf War. In 2003, I thought that possible WMD was one of many reasons for ridding the world of Saddam. Mass murder of Kurds and Shiites was always an important reason he needed to be brought to justice and his regime destroyed. And the Administration erred in not emphasizing it. Payment to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers was another good reason. Invading Kuwait another. Shooting at US and UK aircraft another. Ignoring many UNSC resolutions another. But to some people the fact that Saddam was a mass murderer was not a reason to intervene and dispose of him. It was instead a reason to stand by and watch, or pass yet another utterly pointless UN resolution.

It is astonishing that even an extreme Leftist like you can belittle every accomplishment regarding Iraq, even if it involves getting a mass murderer like Chemical Ali behind bars. Post the categories of spending and their specific amounts that add up to $3 trillion. Show us where the amounts spent on war transportation, weapons, supplies, housing, medical care, etc., add up to $3 trillion. Since that amount is about 350 percent more than commonly referred to in the media, you need to post links to the specific dollar amounts for categories of war expense that add up to your claimed $3 trillion.


----------



## onedomino (Mar 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> I'm certain you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more informed than nobel laureates and harvard economists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If being a Harvard professor necessarily entailed that one delivered correct and practical economic theory, then we would all greatly benefit. About Stiglitz:  he has spent his academic career justifying government intervention in free markets. He is opposed to the free market economies promoted by conservative administrations. For example, he argued in favor of the nationalization of Bolivian oil and gas, as the Russians did to Yukos. For economic theory justifying government intervention in free market capitalist economies, it is hardly surprising that Stiglitz was given an award in Europe, where state ownership and interference with economic assets is not unusual. His views have been the subject of many refutations. Back to the topic at hand: what are the claimed war category expenses and their dollar amounts that when added together equal $3 trillion? That amount is at least $500 billion greater than all other defense spending _combined_ during the five year period of the war, and 350 percent more than reported in the media.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> I'm certain you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more informed than nobel laureates and harvard economists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8690/10-24-CostOfWar_Testimony.pdf

Seems as though the CBO disagrees with this blantant lie.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8690/10-24-CostOfWar_Testimony.pdf
> 
> Seems as though the CBO disagrees with this blantant lie.



For those of you that can't read...
Including both funding provided through 2007 and projected funding under the
two illustrative scenarios, total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between
$1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017 (see Table 1).1 A
final section of this testimony briefly compares parts of CBOs estimate to a frequently
cited estimate prepared by two academic researchers, Linda Bilmes and
Joseph Stiglitz.2
Funding Through Fiscal Year 2007
From September 2001 through the end of fiscal year 2007, the Congress appropriated
$602 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities
associated with the war on terrorism. In addition, although not explicitly
appropriated for that purpose, an estimated $2 billion has been spent by VA for
war-related benefits. Including VAs spending, funding for the war has amounted
to $604 billion. Those sums do not include any funding for fiscal year 2008; activities
currently are being funded by a continuing resolution (which is in effect
through November 16, 2007).
1. To the extent that those sums are not offset by reductions in other spending or increases in
revenueand therefore are financed by higher budget deficitsadditional budget costs would
occur through higher debt-service costs.
2. Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz, The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three
Years After the Beginning of the Conflict, Working Paper No. 12054 (Cambridge, Mass.:
National Bureau of Economic Research, February 2006).


That was an estimate for both wars, Iraq and the Afgan war.


----------



## jillian (Mar 17, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Since we know Saddam posessed no WMDs, the "chemical" that murdered these Kurds must have been a collective, overactive imagination.



It also happened BEFORE the first time we invaded... I figure the statute of limitations ran.

So point?


----------



## Gunny (Mar 17, 2008)

Shogun said:


> hehehe..
> 
> 
> stick with that story, gunny.  wear it on a shirt to the polls.



I have stuck with the story since it's fact.  Chossing to believe otherwise is purposefully ignoring the facts for no more than political partisanship.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 17, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> LOL
> 
> I highly doubt you were saying that in 2003, when you were cheerleading a war that we were told was based on the mortal threat of saddam giving WMD to al qaeda.   I guess you had to come up with a new reason to justify your 3 trillion dollar war.
> 
> Worship Bush much?



Never fails to amaze me how you lefties cherrypick facts to suit your accusations.  Iraq was not invaded solely for WMDs and some link to AQ.  But then you KNOW that.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> I'm certain you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more informed than nobel laureates and harvard economists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What seems conveniently unavailable is how much money was put into tying up a good percentage of our forward deployed military babysitting Saddam for 13 years.  

For some reason, those dollars don't count.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 17, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I have stuck with the story since it's fact.  Chossing to believe otherwise is purposefully ignoring the facts for no more than political partisanship.



hehehe..


YEA!  I KNOW..  and the economy is a purring kitten and the iraq war will be over in three weeks.. mission accomplished, right?

 


Like I said.. wear it on a shirt to the polls.  Hindsight just doesn't agree with you.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 17, 2008)

Shogun said:


> hehehe..
> 
> 
> YEA!  I KNOW..  and the economy is a purring kitten and the iraq war will be over in three weeks.. mission accomplished, right?
> ...



You liberals are all the same you state the war has cost 3 trillion dollars then when you have been shown to lie. You ignore your original comments....funny how that works


----------



## Gunny (Mar 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> It also happened BEFORE the first time we invaded... I figure the statute of limitations ran.
> 
> So point?



What statute of limitations?  I wasn't aware there was one for attempted genocide.  I know there isn't for murder.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 17, 2008)

Shogun said:


> hehehe..
> 
> 
> YEA!  I KNOW..  and the economy is a purring kitten and the iraq war will be over in three weeks.. mission accomplished, right?
> ...



The facts agree with me.  It's your politically-biased opinion that does not.  

Might want to bone up on what has caused the current problem with the economy.  It's irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> You liberals are all the same you state the war has cost 3 trillion dollars then when you have been shown to lie. You ignore your original comments....funny how that works



it's cool dude.. like I said.. wear it to the polls.  people believe all sort of strange things...  Enjoy your liberty to do so.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 17, 2008)

Shogun said:


> it's cool dude.. like I said.. wear it to the polls.  people believe all sort of strange things...  Enjoy your liberty to do so.



Yeah and way to deflect a outright lie, the CBO states the cost of the war is half of what was claimed on this board.  I don't believe I will have to wear anything to the polls because Obama's racist pastor will be playing in everyone's minds. Except for the people with no minds.


----------



## jillian (Mar 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Yeah and way to deflect a outright lie, the CBO states the cost of the war is half of what was claimed on this board.  I don't believe I will have to wear anything to the polls because Obama's racist pastor will be playing in everyone's minds. Except for the people with no minds.



Do you not understand the point? That the government has hidden the actual cost of the war?

Nah... you're too busy being a racist and trying to fan those flames.

Don't worry, though. It only works on people like you who are racist anyway.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> Do you not understand the point? That the government has hidden the actual cost of the war?
> 
> Nah... you're too busy being a racist and trying to fan those flames.
> 
> Don't worry, though. It only works on people like you who are racist anyway.



I don't believe in racism toward any race. I believe you have Obama's talking points stuck to your forehead. If you confront him on the issues obviously your a racist.Lmao  Oh so your saying the CBO is wrong?


----------



## jillian (Mar 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> I don't believe in racism toward any race. I believe you have Obama's talking points stuck to your forehead. If you confront him on the issues obviously your a racist.Lmao  Oh so your saying the CBO is wrong?



That would be interesting, except I'm not an Obama supporter. I just don't like race hustlers or seeing people treated unfairly. I particularly don't like watching the right swiftboat yet another person.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> That would be interesting, except I'm not an Obama supporter. I just don't like race hustlers or seeing people treated unfairly. I particularly don't like watching the right swiftboat yet another person.



It would seem we are still in primary season, so maybe you should look within your own party. It wouldn't be the first time, a person has released a certain picture of a canidate in muslim garb??


----------



## jillian (Mar 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> It would seem we are still in primary season, so maybe you should look within your own party. It wouldn't be the first time, a person has released a certain picture of a canidate in muslim garb??



I'm talking about the anti-Obama hysterics on this and the other Obama threads here.

Nice try.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> I'm talking about the anti-Obama hysterics on this and the other Obama threads here.
> 
> Nice try.



On here, yes it's conservatives. But I do feel like its a legit debate, his racial views could influence his public policy don't you agree?


----------



## jillian (Mar 17, 2008)

jreeves said:


> On here, yes it's conservatives. But I do feel like its a legit debate, his racial views could influence his public policy don't you agree?



Except that you're not discussing Obama's racial views, are you?

No... you're discussing Wright's racial views.

So, unless you have some evidence they are one and the same, I'll go back to pointing out that you're doing nothing but race-baiting.


----------



## jreeves (Mar 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> Except that you're not discussing Obama's racial views, are you?
> 
> No... you're discussing Wright's racial views.
> 
> So, unless you have some evidence they are one and the same, I'll go back to pointing out that you're doing nothing but race-baiting.



If he didn't agree with his racial conclusions then why didn't he refute the comments when he first became aware of them. Also it would appear that he has the same general racial views as he outlined in his first book. I'm not saying he is as extreme with them but it does appear that he holds the same, 'blacks can't achieve because of the whites' mentality.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 17, 2008)

why would Obama associate himself with this guy?  And then once he sees peoples' reaction, distance himself from him?  

Jillian, you're a smart guy, but you don't attend a church for 20 years if you don't agree with the message.  

I try not to pick a party, but the candidate.

Obama is now claiming (which may be true) that he was not present when Wright was giving is infamous sermon.  But I have a hard time believing that in 20 years, this was the first time that Wright has given a sermon like this.

You don't eat at a buffet if you don't like the food.  

I garauntee if the church, school, job I was out was preaching racial inequality and racism, I would not stay their for one more week.


----------



## eots (Mar 18, 2008)

BrianH said:


> why would Obama associate himself with this guy?  And then once he sees peoples' reaction, distance himself from him?
> 
> Jillian, you're a smart guy, but you don't attend a church for 20 years if you don't agree with the message.
> 
> ...



the media picks what will be made a issue ans silences the rest they are willing to make a news story out of obamas connection to a preacher and basically very decent man..but Chaney lying to voters about his involvement and support of the buffet served by the anti American CFR OR BUSH AND KERRY'S ALLEGIANCES TO SKULL AND BONES OR INVOLVEMENT IN BOHEMIAN GROVE ACTIVITY'S
ARE NEVER SERIOUSLY QUESTIONED

Dick Cheney ex-director of CFR talks to David Rockefeller 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg[/ame]


Bush and Kerry in Skull and Bones
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pUogbYkoHc[/ame]

David Gergen - Alex Jones 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32z6Cw21OAk[/ame]

WHY IS NOT THE SAME REASONING NOT APPLIED TO THIS ?


----------



## Shogun (Mar 18, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> I have stuck with the story since it's fact.  Chossing to believe otherwise is purposefully ignoring the facts for no more than political partisanship.



riiiiight... it probably really is partisanship to hold the bush admin accountable for the phantom WMDs...  


like I said.. take it to the polls.  You put your eggs in Bush's basket and are free to pretend that his tenure WASN'T a giant lesson in fubar if yu want..  Pretending that hindsight clarification is partisan is like saying gravity is atheist.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 18, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> The facts agree with me.  It's your politically-biased opinion that does not.
> 
> Might want to bone up on what has caused the current problem with the economy.  It's irrelevant to this discussion.



well no.. It's relevant insomuch that it indicates how far the right will go to fool itelf into disbelieving reality while the rest of us know damn well othwerwise.


after all.. who was insisting, much like phantom WMDs, that our economy is strong?


oh yea.. that guy and his cult of right wingers..


----------



## jillian (Mar 18, 2008)

BrianH said:


> why would Obama associate himself with this guy?  And then once he sees peoples' reaction, distance himself from him?
> 
> Jillian, you're a smart guy, but you don't attend a church for 20 years if you don't agree with the message.
> 
> ...




Well, I think he spoke to the questions, Brian. And I answered you on the other Barack-bashing thread.

And I'm a gal, not a guy.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 18, 2008)

Oh my, well my apologies then.  Let me rephrase, "You're a smart gal."

I kind of picked up on that vibe a little bit on the Obama thread, but I didn't want to be wrong and accuse a guy of being a gal.

Thanks for the heads-up.


----------

