Yes this site is predominatley American but we do have active members from other countries. If this site isn't biased enough for your ideas, either convince us that your right or find another site.
cherrio

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

US Army 1977-2007

Go Sooners

How can you talk about the US government dumbing down the masses when Australia went along with the Iraq war too.

In answer to the title question of this thread; "Was Saddam mean to his own people?" I don’t think “mean” is a strong enough word. My son just returned home from his 2nd one year tour in Iraq. He trained medics this tour and one of the worst stories told to him by some of the men he was training was how Saddam held back medicine and food that was intended for infants and children that were brought to Iraqi hospitals. The pediatricians were ordered to not treat certain babies and not to send them back home. When they died, which they all eventually did, their bodies were to be turned over to one of his special units. Any pediatrician who refused was dealt with severely.

Do you have any idea what all those dead babies’ bodies were used for? They were used to convince the world that the U.S. sanctions were causing countless Iraqi children to needlessly die. According to one pediatrician more than 60,000 infants and children were murdered for this reason by the man who should have been doing all he could to make sure they were cared for.

As my son prepared to leave Iraq and come home, all of the men that he trained broke down and cried. Their biggest fear was not of some civil war because they know the truth about that. No, their fear was and is that if all the U.S. troops leave Iraq, Saddam’s followers will break him out of prison and he will be returned to power.

I have a few questions for someone as "open-minded" as you.

1. Perhaps I just missed it, but other than your post, where was abortion mentioned in this thread?

2. What does Saddam's mistreatment of Iraqi's have to do with the U.S. Government and its position on oil resources?

3. Please clarify which "absolute bulls#*@!~" you're complaining about.

saddam ruled iraq with ultra control and force. in saddams iraq the only violence was on his end. he would kill anyone who dare oppose him. this included members of his own family.the result of this policy was 1) people were in much fear of the goverment. 2) most did as they were told. now the violence is wholesale. every cleric has a private army. al sadr controls 1/3 of baghdad. there are more divisons and fractures everday in iraq. tolerence is an important part of a free and open goverment that serves all of its citizens. iraq has none. just maybe saddam ruled iraq the only way you can....at the end of a tank barrel.

To Kix:
Nice picture...

When the West decided to cobble Iraq together in a vision of their liking, they didn’t take into consideration the 1300-year-old divide between the Sunni and Shia sects. They didn’t consider the Kurds as being peoples unto themselves.
The turmoil we now witness in the region is in part because of the shortsightedness of the League of Nations when they carved up the region and attempted to force together people who have historically been enemies.

http://www.solami.com/a3a.htm#DECLARATION

__________________
"If you don't know where you are going, you will probably wind up somewhere else."
- Laurence J. Peter

GB, wow that is alot of information to sort through, but it clearly supports your position that the League of Nations couldn't see past their noses.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

US Army 1977-2007

Go Sooners

It suggests we learned little from the history of the region. Yes, we were treated as “liberators” to the people we know as Iraqis. But the door was opened for the deep-rooted sentiments of the individual peoples of the region.
The years of repression of the Shia by the Sunni minority and the ensuing revenge perpetrated upon them is a factor the administration failed to realize.
Will there be a civil war? IMO yes, but there is also a good chance the entire region could erupt. The Sunni majority in Saudi Arabia could become involved; the Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran could be drawn into the fray.
These are all scenarios that this administration failed to consider, IMO, and the results of this failure are: we now witness the infancy of a regional war that I don’t believe we can stop. Iran is already heavily involved; the Kurds refuse to fly the Iraq flag. The Saudi monarchy is already dealing with a growing insurgency of it’s own and could easily fall to the radicals who claim allegiance to UBL It’s been one setback after another.
Should we, or better yet can we withdraw from the region? I don’t think it matters.

__________________
"If you don't know where you are going, you will probably wind up somewhere else."
- Laurence J. Peter

Whites are car bombing blacks?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Liberal-a person who has his cake, eats his cake, and complains that other people don't have cake, and believes that you should donate your cake to them