Being gay no grounds for asylum in Holland

[Chase]

American immigration and asylum laws would most likely admit people in this situation. I'm surprised that the Dutch sit on the opposite side of this issue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=1KGQL2HADEHPDQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/03/04/wgay04.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/04/ixworld.html

[RalphyS]

Well our secretary for these issues Rita Verdonk is a bit coocoo lately.

Not only she wants to send gays back to Iran, but also Christians.

And that to a state were gay sex could be punished with the death penalty and outspoken Christianity is also a very dangerous thing.

Luckily there was lots of political debate lately, due to yesterday's national city council elections and the spokesmen and -women of most if not all parties, even the one that Verdonk herself is a member of, told outloud that it was out of the question that gays would be send back to Iran.

Although Verdonk's party the VVD is a party I have often given my vote too, including the last general elections (for the well known Ayaan Hirsi Ali), I think she has gone totally over the edge in her treatment of naturalisations, immigrations and asylumseekers, but just as all other governing parties they suffered a great loss at yesterday's elections.

[Chase]

Well our secretary for these issues Rita Verdonk is a bit coocoo lately.

Not only she wants to send gays back to Iran, but also Christians.

And that to a state were gay sex could be punished with the death penalty and outspoken Christianity is also a very dangerous thing.

Luckily there was lots of political debate lately, due to yesterday's national city council elections and the spokesmen and -women of most if not all parties, even the one that Verdonk herself is a member of, told outloud that it was out of the question that gays would be send back to Iran.

Although Verdonk's party the VVD is a party I have often given my vote too, including the last general elections (for the well known Ayaan Hirsi Ali), I think she has gone totally over the edge in her treatment of naturalisations, immigrations and asylumseekers, but just as all other governing parties they suffered a great loss at yesterday's elections.

If I'm not mistaken, there are international asylee laws that state that if anyone is fleeing their country of origin due to credible fear of persecution or death (among other things), they are eligible for asylum.

[Ana4Stapp]

^
Despite all the absurd involved in this situation I find amazing Chase's effort in find something shameful in Holland social rights...just to prove that US isnt alone in this issue..:rolleyes:

Anyway, good job honey! ;)

[Chase]

^
Despite all the absurd involved in this situation I find amazing Chase's effort in find something shameful in Holland social rights...just to prove that US isnt alone in this issue..:rolleyes:

Anyway, good job honey! ;)

You can't deny someone asylum because they're gay or of a specific ethnicity. America takes asylee cases pretty seriously and often times.

It's not like I dislike the Dutch... but since people dedicate so many posts to why they think the U.S. is wrong... I felt it necessary to present new stories about other nations.

[Ana4Stapp]

You can't deny someone asylum because they're gay or of a specific ethnicity. America takes asylee cases pretty seriously and often times.

It's not like I dislike the Dutch... but since people dedicate so many posts to why they think the U.S. is wrong... I felt it necessary to present new stories about other nations.

Well...I agree with you. ;)


But anyway..I wasx right....:D

[RalphyS]

If I'm not mistaken, there are international asylee laws that state that if anyone is fleeing their country of origin due to credible fear of persecution or death (among other things), they are eligible for asylum.

Well Verdonk's point was that you cannot just claim asylum, because you are gay. As long as you refrain from having gay sex, you are not in any danger in Iran, she stated. Her viewpoint is very alike that of the religious right in the USA, who have nothing against homosexuals as long as they don't act on their feelings. :)

Ofcourse I totally disagree with her.

[RalphyS]

It's not like I dislike the Dutch... but since people dedicate so many posts to why they think the U.S. is wrong... I felt it necessary to present new stories about other nations.

I do not deny that The Netherlands are far from perfect, but most of our issues are domestic ones or at least not of much meaning on a worldwide level. What the USA does, right or wrong, is on a global scale as they are the only remaining superpower. And especially if the actions of the USA involve going to war far from home for dubious reasons, you cannot expect the rest of the world to turn a blind eye. We have a saying here in Holland: "High trees catch a lot of wind".

Btw you are a true Republican with your tactics of attacking the enemy instead of adressing the issues on hand and no, I have not been captain of a swift boat.

[Chase]

I do not deny that The Netherlands are far from perfect, but most of our issues are domestic ones or at least not of much meaning on a worldwide level. What the USA does, right or wrong, is on a global scale as they are the only remaining superpower. And especially if the actions of the USA involve going to war far from home for dubious reasons, you cannot expect the rest of the world to turn a blind eye. We have a saying here in Holland: "High trees catch a lot of wind".

Btw you are a true Republican with your tactics of attacking the enemy instead of adressing the issues on hand and no, I have not been captain of a swift boat.

Dubious or not... a lot of countries felt that Saddam's weapons program was a threat. It wasn't just the United States. If I'm not mistaken, your own country also participated in the alliance against Saddam Hussein. What I don't understand is how so many countries came to the conclusion that it was worth their own time and money to go into Iraq... while people like yourself claim that it was a war based on lies. If anything, it was a war based on a consensus of faulty intelligence. I seriously doubt that nations like South Korea, Italy, and Poland are governed by liars.

[RMadd]

I do not deny that The Netherlands are far from perfect, but most of our issues are domestic ones or at least not of much meaning on a worldwide level. What the USA does, right or wrong, is on a global scale as they are the only remaining superpower. And especially if the actions of the USA involve going to war far from home for dubious reasons, you cannot expect the rest of the world to turn a blind eye. We have a saying here in Holland: "High trees catch a lot of wind".
I'm glad you realize we're not the only shitty country out there lol

Btw you are a true Republican with your tactics of attacking the enemy instead of adressing the issues on hand and no, I have not been captain of a swift boat.
that's a two-way street in American politics, fella. Repubs aren't the only ones who verbally attack their opponents. Dems do just as well.

[Chase]

I'm glad you realize we're not the only shitty country out there lol


that's a two-way street in American politics, fella. Repubs aren't the only ones who verbally attack their opponents. Dems do just as well.

The Dems were far worse than the Republicans in the past election... and that negativity turned out work against them.

[RMadd]

<~~ ay, that's very true. i was clarifying for ralphy that republicans aren't the only party guilty of it.

[Ana4Stapp]

Dubious or not... a lot of countries felt that Saddam's weapons program was a threat. It wasn't just the United States. If I'm not mistaken, your own country also participated in the alliance against Saddam Hussein. What I don't understand is how so many countries came to the conclusion that it was worth their own time and money to go into Iraq...while people like yourself claim that it was a war based on lies. If anything, it was a war based on a consensus of faulty intelligence.I seriously doubt that nations like South Korea, Italy, and Poland are governed by liars.

Doubts??:rolleyes:

Anyway Im reposting this link...
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

[Ana4Stapp]

Well Verdonk's point was that you cannot just claim asylum, because you are gay. As long as you refrain from having gay sex, you are not in any danger in Iran, she stated. Her viewpoint is very alike that of the religious right in the USA, who have nothing against homosexuals as long as they don't act on their feelings. :)

Ofcourse I totally disagree with her.

Pretending that they dont existe ...:eek:

[Chase]

Again Ana... if you're going to accuse my nation of being liars... then you might as well as accuse the entire coalition for concluding that Saddam Hussein was a threat. One thing is certain... Saddam Hussein is guilty of MULTIPLE human rights violations and genocide. Go defend that and see how far that gets you.

[GrafiTTied]

ARGHH! american politics! coming back to holland. what i dont understand is why is holland so against gays when they have legalized prostitution being practised?
Im not sure if that has a very strong connection, just trying to make a point.
Maybe im a bit too immature to understand such talks.

[Ana4Stapp]

Again Ana... if you're going to accuse my nation of being liars... then you might as well as accuse the entire coalition for concluding that Saddam Hussein was a threat. One thing is certain... Saddam Hussein is guilty of MULTIPLE human rights violations and genocide. Go defend that and see how far that gets you.


Again, Chase ...if you are going to accuse me of being a fan of Saddam Hussein you are too wrong.

Well its obvious that the Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were 'strong' evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons were fake ones...and as the link says its very 'embarassing' to your governement starting a war, sending troops to invade a country WITHOUT any proof ...so I can conclude that this is a war based on LIES, Chase.

At least admit that your governement made an huge 'mistake'...:rolleyes:

[Chase]

ARGHH! american politics! coming back to holland. what i dont understand is why is holland so against gays when they have legalized prostitution being practised?
Im not sure if that has a very strong connection, just trying to make a point.
Maybe im a bit too immature to understand such talks.

EXACTLY. Amsterdam is, in a sense, infamous for its Red Light District... and Amsterdam is one of most popular destination for sex tourism in the world. Marijuana is a legalized drug... and someone in the government has a problem accepting gays escaping persecution? I really don't understand this logic.

[Ana4Stapp]

ARGHH! american politics! coming back to holland. what i dont understand is why is holland so against gays when they have legalized prostitution being practised?
Im not sure if that has a very strong connection, just trying to make a point.
Maybe im a bit too immature to understand such talks.

You cant see the connection, because theres no connection... Holland isnt against the gay people...you cant accuse the whole country because the absurd that the politician claimed.

[Chase]

Again, Chase ...if you are going to accuse me of being a fan of Saddam Hussein you are too wrong.

Well its obvious that the Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were 'strong' evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons were fake ones...and as the link says its very 'embarassing' to your governement starting a war, sending troops to invade a country WITHOUT any proof ...so I can conclude that this is a war based on LIES, Chase.

At least admit that your governement made an huge 'mistake'...:rolleyes:

Okay then... start a rant about Vladimir Putin advising President Bush about Hussein being a threat. While you're at it, I've graciously given you the names of some countries that initial participated in ending Saddam Hussein's, well to you, ficticious tyranny: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. Go ahead Ana, fire away. I'm sure the Macedonians would love for you to call them a bunch of "liars" as well.

But shhhhhh, let's refrain from discussing the corruption and lies fed by the near communist Brazilian government and social violence that has plagued the Brazilian nation for decades. Behold, an article about the devine entity of the former Portuguese colony: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041020-015343-4602r.htm

There is one sad twist of events here... you think that the tyrannical human rights violations of Saddam Hussein made him worthy enough wear the crown of Stalin-esque Iraqi dictator because, of course, his mass murder are "lies." Well, upon reviewing the human rights status of Brazil, I've concluded that maybe you overlook the torture and murder that Saddam Hussein advocated because your country, indeed, is guilty of some pretty disgusting social policies (or lack thereof). Why don't you review this and right some wrongs that are done in your country. http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas_pub&c=brazil

[Chase]

You cant see the connection, because theres no connection... Holland isnt against the gay people...you cant accuse the whole country because the absurd that the politician claimed.

Amazing, you won't accuse the entire Dutch population... but you do that quite a bit with Americans.

[Ana4Stapp]

Okay then... start a rant about Vladimir Putin advising President Bush about Hussein being a threat. While you're at it, I've graciously given you the names of some countries that initial participated in ending Saddam Hussein's, well to you, ficticious tyranny: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. Go ahead Ana, fire away. I'm sure the Macedonians would love for you to call them a bunch of "liars" as well.

But shhhhhh, let's refrain from discussing the corruption and lies fed by the near communist Brazilian government and social violence that has plagued the Brazilian nation for decades. Behold, an article about the devine entity of the former Portuguese colony: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041020-015343-4602r.htm

There is one sad twist of events here... you think that the tyrannical human rights violations of Saddam Hussein made him worthy enough wear the crown of Stalin-esque Iraqi dictator because, of course, his mass murder are "lies." Well, upon reviewing the human rights status of Brazil, I've concluded that maybe you overlook the torture and murder that Saddam Hussein advocated because your country, indeed, is guilty of some pretty disgusting social policies (or lack thereof). Why don't you review this and right some wrongs that are done in your country. http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas_pub&c=brazil


I think you and your comments are getting out of control...but anyway Ill answer this:

You are stil very wrong in your biased comments :1) I never said Saddams in Iraq was a ficticious tiranny...

2) My country also condemned the Saddam's tiranny --we have brazilians who were kidnapped and killed in Iraq..btw...you probably dont know but Brazil has a big part in the 'building' of Iraq--in the 80's -90's --we had lots of companies enginers/employees working there...

3) Im surprised why you are so worried about the human rights in Brazil:
we dont allow death penalty, we dont supported dictatorships, we dont have prisoners at Guantanamo Bay or Abu Garib who are humiliated and suffered tortures ...

4) My country was NEVER a comunist state...even though we lived 25 years under a dictatorship that YOUR country supported...

5) ALL the countries involved in the War of Iraq were responsible for keeping the lies...but US and Britain were the leaders --so they are the first ones to blame for using lies as the reason to invade a country.

6)Its a amzing the way you prefer to attack other countries (Brazil/Holland) when you clearly have nothing to say in your country's defense...

[Ana4Stapp]

Amazing, you won't accuse the entire Dutch population... but you do that quite a bit with Americans.

I never said that...but the Americans who voted for Bush...:rolleyes:

[Chase]

I never said that...but the Americans who voted for Bush...:rolleyes:

Give me three good reasons why John Kerry and all of his pandering ways was better for America.

Why don't you criticize the people that put this homophobe in power?

[Ana4Stapp]

Give me three good reasons why John Kerry and all of his pandering ways was better for America.

Why don't you criticize the people that put this homophobe in power?


You know that I wont answer this because I dont have enough knowledge of all the Kerrys ideas even though I know that some of them were very far from good ones...and frankly Im sorry that you have this kind of politicians to choose...
but Im voicing my opinion based in Bush foreign policy...

Anyway...I think you can answer me what are the reasons to think that Bush is better...

[Ana4Stapp]

But shhhhhh, let's refrain from discussing the corruption and lies fed by the near communist Brazilian government and social violence that has plagued the Brazilian nation for decades. Behold, an article about the devine entity of the former Portuguese colony: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041020-015343-4602r.htm

There is one sad twist of events here... you think that the tyrannical human rights violations of Saddam Hussein made him worthy enough wear the crown of Stalin-esque Iraqi dictator because, of course, his mass murder are "lies." Well, upon reviewing the human rights status of Brazil, I've concluded that maybe you overlook the torture and murder that Saddam Hussein advocated because your country, indeed, is guilty of some pretty disgusting social policies (or lack thereof). Why don't you review this and right some wrongs that are done in your country. http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas_pub&c=brazil


LOL....seriously only now I had the curiosity in read the link you put here...but you know Im so disappointed Chase!!!! :eek: And no my disappointement isnt about my problematic country of the Third World...Im disappointed because your link its sooooooo old!!!!!! October 21 2004???? Wow! I thought you had enough knowledge about what you were talking...but you DONT...so you discovered an OLD link to provoke me... Im so disappointed that you have no idea...
lol

Well as for the second link ( that is a liitle bit newer 2005 )--you are right: the juvenile detention centers are horribles...the system needs to change...because the present situation is too serious--and obviously it wont help these teens in coming back to society...anyway the governement is trying to modify this sad situation through the spread of education(IMO the most important thing to do) especially the public education ...

And you know Chase that its also good to know about these reports Human Rights Watch do...because they generally have important points to consider like in the case of Guantanamo Bay ...:rolleyes:

[GrafiTTied]

You cant see the connection, because theres no connection... Holland isnt against the gay people...you cant accuse the whole country because the absurd that the politician claimed.

when someone representing a country is been talked about the whole country is brought along with it.
For example Bush, look how infamous he is and inturn so is America. Well atleast here in India we think that america isnt doing very well under Bush. No offense Chase, but its true.

[Ana4Stapp]

when someone representing a country is been talked about the whole country is brought along with it.
For example Bush, look how infamous he is and inturn so is America. Well atleast here in India we think that america isnt doing very well under Bush. No offense Chase, but its true.

I dont agree with this point of view...of course that politicians must represent the nation but most of the times isnt the reality......and I clearly dislike Bush ...but I cant say the same about American people ...
In my opinion this is a naive point of view.

[Chase]

when someone representing a country is been talked about the whole country is brought along with it.
For example Bush, look how infamous he is and inturn so is America. Well atleast here in India we think that america isnt doing very well under Bush. No offense Chase, but its true.

Well, Bush is allowing a lot of Indian computer programmers to have jobs... so you'd think that you guys would be somewhat thankful.

[Ana4Stapp]

Well, Bush is allowing a lof of Indian computer programmers to have jobs... so you'd think that you guys would be somewhat thankful.

WOW! His generosity is immense...

lol --

[RalphyS]

Chase, I can understand that you want to defend your country, but I have a hard time understanding that you keep on defending it on issues that time has proven they were wrong on.

The 2 main issues that the invasion on Iraq was based on was the threat by WMD's (not only to neighbouring countries, but even to the West) and the connection between Iraq (Saddam) and Al-Queayda (or however you spell that?). These were not arguements that the liberals invented, but these were the issues given by the Republican government of Dubya and friends.

There was little to no proof of both arguements, before the invasion of Iraq, which is exactly why several nations did not buy into the 'intelligence' provided, the same goes for countless people who protested against a war beforehand.

Still the invasion went on, and what came out, for both contentions there still is no proof and it is blamed on faulty intelligence, exactly what the adversaries of the invasion claimed, there is not enough proof.

In advance of the war there were also middle east experts who stated that Iraq would become a civil war zone and that the USA did'n't think through, what would happen in a after-war Iraq? These experts have been proven right for a great deal also.

Was The Netherlands part of the coalition of the willing, yes! Am I proud of that, no! To I defend that my country had any part in this, no! I was opposed to it from the beginning. Would I ever defend that decision, no.

Clearly it was based either on lies or as you might call it, 'faulty intelligence', but if I go to war I would rather have my elected leader not only double-check, but triple or quadruple-check that he is positively sure about what the decision is based on. People lifes are involved and not only those trained for combat, but also thousands of innocents, who live there.

And through all of it, Dubya not once stated that he might have been wrong or excused himself for leading his country to war on grounds that may not be correct. No, if the original reasons fail to proof itself, just invent other ones, and still claim righteousness. This is the absolute climax of arrogance.

Even you, who at times seems to be a smart guy, are jumping through hoops to condone the obvious mistakes that were made. And time and time again you change the subject and counterattack, like it seems usual business in American politics (both by Republicans and Democrats, if you want) and fail to admit any wrongdoing or even the slightest mistake made, like it would be the most terrible thing to do to admit it. It looks alot like Americans think that as long as they don't admit to mistakes, there aren't any.

We've talked about history around here too, and the biggest lesson of history is learning from the mistakes that were made, not ignoring them and going on and on and on.

And the biggest gift that you can give in a free state, is not defending your elected leader in his mistakes/failures, but to make him accountable for them, this is how checks and balances work in a democracy/republic. You judge your leaders on their actions and if they mislead you, or make severe decisions with not enough proof to back them up you get rid of them.

My biggest frustration with the American people (the majority of the electoral that is) is that they were fooled for over 4 years and I even believe that they could be fooled again, a thing that I would not have believed possible for Bush's (re-)election.

[Chase]

I can't repsond right now because I need to go to sleep... but I can guarantee that Ana is going to say something to the effect of "I love your words!" Whatever that means.

If you had your way Saddam Hussein would still be living in his lavish palaces while ruling Iraq with a tyrannical iron fist.

[Ana4Stapp]

I can't repsond right now because I need to go to sleep... but I can guarantee that Ana is going to say something to the effect of "I love your words!" Whatever that means.


:rolleyes:

Hahaha..dont be jealous, Chase... ;)

I didnt know that my words to Ralphy's comments meant too much to you...
LOL


And I cant respond properly because Im going to work and I havent enough time but I can say that Raplhy's words are ...(sorry Chase) the best...lol :D

[RalphyS]

I can't repsond right now because I need to go to sleep... but I can guarantee that Ana is going to say something to the effect of "I love your words!" Whatever that means.

If you had your way Saddam Hussein would still be living in his lavish palaces while ruling Iraq with a tyrannical iron fist.

If I had my way over a thousand US soldiers would still be alive and in the tens of thousands Iraq citizens, but in your eyes the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth their (for some) involuntary sacrifice.

Chase, have you ever heard of the color grey, or for that matter the colors green, red, yellow, magenta and whatever. Not every issue is black or white. There were other options to remove Saddam out of power instead of invading Iraq.

And why were cruel dictators in Zimbabwe, North Korea (especially the latter of whom it was know for sure that they had WMD's) treated differently.

[uncertaindrumer]

Does this have to degrade into another war thread? Geez. So Bush screwed us over in Iraq. Don't we know that by now? America is still the best, and most powerful, country in the world and I can guaruntee you that we would never deny a homosexual asylum if he was in danger.

I will say, though, that if the U.S. doesn't turn around fast (I hope 2008 gets here quickly...) we are quite in danger of becoming the former best and most powerful country in the world...

[Ana4Stapp]

Does this have to degrade into another war thread? Geez. So Bush screwed us over in Iraq. Don't we know that by now? America is still the best, and most powerful, country in the world and I can guaruntee you that we would never deny a homosexual asylum if he was in danger.

I will say, though, that if the U.S. doesn't turn around fast (I hope 2008 gets here quickly...) we are quite in danger of becoming the former best and most powerful country in the world...


I dont understand your point of view...why not discuss about war that by the way your powerful and best country started ( well..powerful I can agree...but the best?) Anyway isnt it a real war? And if this is so repetative to you... you still have the possibility to avoid the thread...:rolleyes:

[Ana4Stapp]

And why were cruel dictators in Zimbabwe, North Korea (especially the latter of whom it was know for sure that they had WMD's) treated differently.

Just a little word here: OIL :rolleyes:

[Chase]

If I had my way over a thousand US soldiers would still be alive and in the tens of thousands Iraq citizens, but in your eyes the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth their (for some) involuntary sacrifice.

Chase, have you ever heard of the color grey, or for that matter the colors green, red, yellow, magenta and whatever. Not every issue is black or white. There were other options to remove Saddam out of power instead of invading Iraq.

And why were cruel dictators in Zimbabwe, North Korea (especially the latter of whom it was know for sure that they had WMD's) treated differently.

"Involuntary sacrifice?" Thousands of brave Americans enlisted after the war had started and were willing to get rid of this blood thirsty tyrant and his equally sadistic sons, Uday and Qusay.

"In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern and Southern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations."

"In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 40,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites."

In June of 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion.
On March 23, 2003, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iraqi television presented and interviewed prisoners of war on TV, violating the Geneva Convention.
In March of 2003, Britain released video footage of Iraqi soldiers firing on fleeing Iraqi citizens near the town of Basra in southern Iraq.
Also in April of 2003, CNN revealed that it had withheld information about Iraq torturing journalists and Iraqi citizens in the 1990s. According to CNN's chief news executive, the channel had been concerned for the safety not only of its own staff, but also of Iraqi sources and informants, who could expect punishment for speaking freely to reporters. Also according to the executive, "other news organizations were in the same bind."
After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, several mass graves were found in Iraq containing several thousand bodies total, and more are being uncovered to this day. While most of the dead in the graves were believed to have died in the 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein, some of them appeared to have died due to executions or died at times other than the 1991 rebellion.
Also after the invasion, numerous torture centers were found in security offices and police stations throughout Iraq. The equipment found at these centers typically included hooks for hanging people by the hands for beatings, devices for electric shock, and other equipment often found in nations with harsh security services and other middle eastern nations.
According to some reports, torture was used to improve the performance of the Iraqi soccer team.

[Chase]

Saddam Hussein's U.N. violations:

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:


UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990



Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."


Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."


UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991



Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.


UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991



Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."


Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."


Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.


Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.


Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.


Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991



"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."


Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.


Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.


UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991



"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.


"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.


Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.


Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991



Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994



"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.


Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.


Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.


UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996



Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996



"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997



"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.


UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997



"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.


UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997



"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.


Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998



Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."


UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998



"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998



"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.


Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999



Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).


Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.


Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.


Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

Additional UN Security Council Statements


In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The list of statements includes:

[Chase]

So, United Nations diplomacy obviously didn't work... nor did sanctions. His massacres and human rights still went on... as did his ambitions to develop biological and chemical weapons. So... please tell me how you would get Saddam Hussein to end his tyranny...

[Chase]

Just a little word here: OIL :rolleyes:

Michael Moore just called and asked me to tell you to stop plagiarizing his conspiracy theories.

[Ana4Stapp]

Michael Moore just called and asked me to tell you to stop plagiarizing his conspiracy theories.

:rolleyes: Well I dont NEED to plagiarize anyone since I have my own ideas and of course enough knowledge. ..but at least ..you are a creative guy..

But answer Raplhys question: why the best and powerful country in theworld didnt start a war to eliminate the cruel dictators in Zimbabwe, North Korea etc...? I remember asking you this same question...but not your answer ...

[RalphyS]

"Involuntary sacrifice?" Thousands of brave Americans enlisted after the war had started and were willing to get rid of this blood thirsty tyrant and his equally sadistic sons, Uday and Qusay.

This answer I find typically American. In the original sentence I mentioned over a thousand US soldiers AND tens of thousands of Iraqis. I also mentioned "for some" involuntary sacrifice, meaning the Iraqis, not the enlisted men, who are trained for combat and know the risks of their job.

So much do the poor oppressed people of Iraq mean to you, that if I mention the words 'involuntary sacrifice' you automatically assume I'm talking about the brave Americans?

These are the people, who were oppressed by Saddam, they should have a choice whether they choose to live under a dictator or die "free". That choice was not given to them. Luckily the survivors showed us with their massive parades and welcoming cheers that they indeed wanted the USA and their coalition to come and liberate them. From all over Iraq we could see the tv-images which were so much alike those of the liberated nations in WWII, cheering people, handing out flowers to Americans driving by, NOT.

But I do think that I am getting where you come from, Chase. Why you have such a hard time to even consider the slightest mistake was made in regard to this war. You have friends and maybe even family fighting in Iraq, in danger of their life, maybe someone even already got injured or worse, I hope not, I do not wish harm to anyone overthere, soldier or citizen, but because of this it is just inimaginable for you, that they may be fighting, getting injured, being in constant danger, in fear of being killed for anything but a righteous reason. You dare not even imagine your chosen leader to put these guys in this kind of position without basing it on the highest moral standards and therefore you counterattack anyone, who even dares to suggest so.

I can understand that position, I even support the fact that a leader should be held to these standards, but whereas you dare not imagine that his reasoning isn't what is should be, I and others like me fear that his reasoning was shamefully dubious, at the very least and therefore we question him constanly upon them, just because we value the lifes of the soldiers (as well as the citizens), who have been placed in this awful situation we call war.

History has shown us that maybe as many soldiers/people died for the wrong as for the right reasons and therefore true patriotism should always question the reasons for putting a nation's people in harm's way.

[Ana4Stapp]

History has shown us that maybe as many soldiers/people died for the wrong as for the right reasons and therefore true patriotism should always question the reasons for putting a nation's people in harm's way.

Okay...okay...I wont say 'those' words Chase... :D

[uncertaindrumer]

I dont understand your point of view...why not discuss about war that by the way your powerful and best country started ( well..powerful I can agree...but the best?)


Yes, best. With all its inadequacies, the U.S. is still the country I would live in if I got to pick between any.

Anyway isnt it a real war?

Yes, but I think it has been beaten into the ground that it was a mistake. There are better ways to take out a tyrant. I still think Bush was just trying to create another front, one away from our home, but of course that is only speculation.

And if this is so repetative to you... you still have the possibility to avoid the thread...:rolleyes:

True. heh

[Ana4Stapp]

Yes, best. With all its inadequacies, the U.S. is still the country I would live in if I got to pick between any.

I think the same about my country...this is what I meant to say...


Yes, but I think it has been beaten into the ground that it was a mistake. There are better ways to take out a tyrant. I still think Bush was just trying to create another front, one away from our home, but of course that is only speculation.

Im almost saying that I love your words here...lol


True. heh

Anyway.. dont do it... you are so incommunicable...these days :(

[Chase]

This answer I find typically American. In the original sentence I mentioned over a thousand US soldiers AND tens of thousands of Iraqis. I also mentioned "for some" involuntary sacrifice, meaning the Iraqis, not the enlisted men, who are trained for combat and know the risks of their job.

So much do the poor oppressed people of Iraq mean to you, that if I mention the words 'involuntary sacrifice' you automatically assume I'm talking about the brave Americans?

These are the people, who were oppressed by Saddam, they should have a choice whether they choose to live under a dictator or die "free". That choice was not given to them. Luckily the survivors showed us with their massive parades and welcoming cheers that they indeed wanted the USA and their coalition to come and liberate them. From all over Iraq we could see the tv-images which were so much alike those of the liberated nations in WWII, cheering people, handing out flowers to Americans driving by, NOT.

But I do think that I am getting where you come from, Chase. Why you have such a hard time to even consider the slightest mistake was made in regard to this war. You have friends and maybe even family fighting in Iraq, in danger of their life, maybe someone even already got injured or worse, I hope not, I do not wish harm to anyone overthere, soldier or citizen, but because of this it is just inimaginable for you, that they may be fighting, getting injured, being in constant danger, in fear of being killed for anything but a righteous reason. You dare not even imagine your chosen leader to put these guys in this kind of position without basing it on the highest moral standards and therefore you counterattack anyone, who even dares to suggest so.

I can understand that position, I even support the fact that a leader should be held to these standards, but whereas you dare not imagine that his reasoning isn't what is should be, I and others like me fear that his reasoning was shamefully dubious, at the very least and therefore we question him constanly upon them, just because we value the lifes of the soldiers (as well as the citizens), who have been placed in this awful situation we call war.

History has shown us that maybe as many soldiers/people died for the wrong as for the right reasons and therefore true patriotism should always question the reasons for putting a nation's people in harm's way.

Answer my question, how would YOU get Saddam Hussein to stop his tyrannical reign. I gave you proof that diplomacy didn't work and that he violated human rights throughout his years as president. I've said that there was flawed intelligence. So what? Does the fact that Hussein didn't leave stockpiles of weapongs everywhere make him a good person? Does that magically wipe the blood off of his his hands and bring back thousands upon thousands of dead Iraqis? I'm ashamed. So, like I told Ana... if you're going to call my country "dubious" then start calling every other country who thought that Saddam Hussein was a threat a "liar" as well.

And like I said before, if you had your way... Saddam Hussein would still be in a power and he would still be raping over the people of Iraq. The U.S. (and that includes the most prominent Republicans and Democrats) all thought that Hussein not only was a threat, but also an evil dictator that was not fit to run a country because of usurpation of human rights. I advise you to read over Saddam Hussein's offenses... and you derive a better way to get him out of power. I'm not denying that mistakes weren't made by the coalition... but regions aren't fixed over night. It took Europe a while to recover after World War II... I don't see why Iraq is any different.

Yet, anyway... I still find it sad that a nation who legalizes drugs like marijuana and is a cesspool of promiscuous sex with prostitutes won't allow gays the right to asylum. I don't understand that logic.

[RalphyS]

Answer my question, how would YOU get Saddam Hussein to stop his tyrannical reign. I gave you proof that diplomacy didn't work and that he violated human rights throughout his years as president. I've said that there was flawed intelligence. So what? Does the fact that Hussein didn't leave stockpiles of weapongs everywhere make him a good person? Does that magically wipe the blood off of his his hands and bring back thousands upon thousands of dead Iraqis? I'm ashamed. So, like I told Ana... if you're going to call my country "dubious" then start calling every other country who thought that Saddam Hussein was a threat a "liar" as well.

And like I said before, if you had your way... Saddam Hussein would still be in a power and he would still be raping over the people of Iraq. The U.S. (and that includes the most prominent Republicans and Democrats) all thought that Hussein not only was a threat, but also an evil dictator that was not fit to run a country because of usurpation of human rights. I advise you to read over Saddam Hussein's offenses... and you derive a better way to get him out of power. I'm not denying that mistakes weren't made by the coalition... but regions aren't fixed over night. It took Europe a while to recover after World War II... I don't see why Iraq is any different.

Yet, anyway... I still find it sad that a nation who legalizes drugs like marijuana and is a cesspool of promiscuous sex with prostitutes won't allow gays the right to asylum. I don't understand that logic.

OK, even though beforehand regime-change was not mentioned as a reason for this war AND it was not the reason that other nations joined the coalition, I, opposed to you, will directly answer your question.

But first I also like to mention, that although you claimed that all the restrictions and UN-mandates and weapon inspections 'didn't work', it is now obvious that they did work in keeping Saddam from building WMD's, so they were in fact keeping the threat in check, at least for other countries.

Besides this it was totally unnecessary for you to provide me proof of Saddam's tyrannical reign and total lack of disrespect for human rights, I as well as Ana already admitted over and over again that this man was a totally despicable dictator and deserved to be dethroned and worse.

But this is what I always wondered about, maybe if seen to many spy movies or read to many novels about covert operations, was there no other way to remove this man from his reign? Although I'm always for giving anyone a fair trial, in this case, to prevent a war, that would and has killed tens of thousands I would have preferred some covert operation to take out Saddam, either dead or alive.

Another option would have been to back up any resistance to Saddam, financially and armswise. I think it is best that, if possible, that oppressed people remove their own dictator. If outside forces do it, as is proven once again, it feels to the people if they change from one oppressor to another, even it the new one is far and far better than the old one.

But the problem of the USA is indeed 'flawed intelligence' and not only in advance to this war, but to the entire region of the middle east for more than 30 (if not more) years. Backing up the Taliban-leaders and Osama to remove the Russians from Afghanistan, and thereby creating in the long run a much bigger thread. Backing up Saddam in his war against Iran's ayatollah's, result a dangerous dictator. Over and over vetoing any resolution in the UN that condemns Israels treatment of the Palestines and therewith creating or at least enforcing very anti-US sentiments in the region. Supporting totalitarian, anti-democratic regimes in the area. Not having any idea how to deal with the aftermath of the Iraqi war or even any idea of how to remove themselves from the area. Expecting to be received like liberators, while seen as invaders. Yes, indeed you could speak of 'flawed intelligence' in regard to the USA's handling of the middle east over the last 30 years, but apparently that gives me, or anyone for that matter, no right to be critical of the way this all powerfull and all wise nation deals with the situation. How dare I call anything 'dubious' about the USA?

On that topic, your tone also always implies that those who are critical of the USA's policies must hate the USA and therefore you feel the need to lash out at our nations. Always the black and white, the either you're for us or against us tone, never leaving room for the middleground. And old sports metaphore comes to mind, once a player was being asked by a reporter, if he wasn't fed up with the constant criticism of his coach. His reply: "No, it shows he cares about me and thinks I can do better. I see him with other players, who are at the top of their game, which isn't the level which I'm aiming for, but he mostly ignores them, because he knows there is no room for improvement in the way they play. Me, he gives a hard time, because he knows I can do better and I need to do better. If he stops criticizing me, than I have a serious problem". I care about Western values and the USA as a frontfighter for these values and I do believe the people of the USA want to make the world a better and safer place for everyone, but I criticize because I think there are better ways to go about it and while I do not claim to be a 'coach', I do think you could learn from listening to others, instead of dictating your way through world politics.

And if your comparing post-WWII Europe with an Iraq on the brink of civil war, I really think you should start listening to advice, maybe not mine, but certainly those of experts.

Oh, and I always love you little digs about Holland. But let's see, drugs like marihuana are legalized?. Well, in fact no, the sale of soft drugs is being tolerated and regulated in certain places, the growing of it, except for personal use, is still forbidden, which is 'dubious' at the very least imho.
I suppose in the USA nobody does drugs, the 'war on drugs' works so much better than our tolerance and regulate policy.
A cesspool of promiscuous sex with prostitutes? And that from someone out of a nation with an entire million-dollar-industry based on hardcore sex-movies, shows like Jerry Springer, which show the superior morality of the USA on a day to day basis. Our most famous prostitute, Xaviera Hollander, author of the book 'the happy hooker', worked for most of her life in the pristine USA, because that's were the big bugs are. Sure, we did legalize the profession of prostitute, which makes it easier to regulate it, but I'm sure there are relatively more hookers in the USA than here. Trying to forbid the oldest trade in the world, how naive can you get?
And to make it sound like we discriminate gays to not get asylum is low even for you, Chase. I thought we could debate at least on a basis of mutual respect, debating the issues without insinuating things. Any reply on the issues mentioned in the original article are so easily forgotten if it helps to get another dig in. If you call me names, I will call you names, what a childish attitude, instead of really dealing with the issues.
I hope we can rise above that level.

[Chase]

Your nation is discriminating against homosexuals who are trying to flee a country because of fear of death. There's nothing low about me bringing that up. It's true. One reason why prostitution is outlawed throughout most of the United States is because of the threat of STDs. How naive can you get if you don't recognize that there is a major downside to allowing people to pay for sex.

There is still no definitive proof that Hussein did not have any ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. Sure, stockpiles weren't found... but there is no proof that supports the idea that Saddam had no desire to obtain nuclear weapons. Also, that being said... the fact that no apparent WMDs were found doesn't make Saddam Hussein a pleasant man. There thousands of Iraq families that could give you reasons as to why Saddam Hussein should've been taken out of power. I posted Saddam Hussein's record of human rights violations because you constantly try to minimize his despicable behavior by saying that the coalition only based the war solely on WMDs. According to a study by Devon Largio, a recent graduate of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign... at least 21 reasons were presented to justify war with Saddam Hussein.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679

And the U.S. never funded the Taliban in a period that it was non existent... nor did they fund Osama bin Laden directly. I posted this in another thread because you guys apparently don't follow history.

In 1979 the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. However, it was not until 1984 that Osama bin Laden actually made an impact. He started Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) ("Office of Order" in English). It was not a militant group, but instead it funneled money to Afghan fighters. While some people accuse Pakistan and the United States... there hasn't been any substantial proof to put any truth to this claim. The U.S. only sent aid to Afghan fighters... not Osama bin Laden's financial network. If any money went to MAK it was more than likely through indirect means. Upon Soviet withdrawal bin Laden split from MAK and established the militant group Al Qaeda. Therefore, for you to say that the United States directly funded bin Laden is baseless. Besides, bin Laden had was born into an extremely wealthy Saudi family with immense connections... bin Laden could have very easily established a militant network without any American dollars... and he did so in the very last stages of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Bin Laden's status as a militant leader wasn't established until the war was about 95% finished. So... accusing the U.S. of funding a non-existent Arab terror network and a millionaire Saudi doesn't seem plausible.

Now, back to Saddam Hussein. Taking him out covertly doesn't prevent his successors, Uday and Qusay, from taking power. Nor does it prevent the Baath Party from maintaining a firm grip of power on Iraq. Saddam Hussein's sons were in charge of torturing unsuccessful Iraqi olympic athletes... what a nice, professional choice to inherit Saddam Hussein's position, eh? Ethnic tensions have been in Iraq for years prior to the war... and following the Iraq War, the Kurds overwhelmingly voted to support a motion towards creating their own, sovereign state. Following the first Gulf War, there were multiple uprisings against the Baath Party... but Saddam Hussein ruthlessly put an end to them and as a result, at least 30,000 innocent Iraqis were butchered (according to the BBC). He also portrayed himself as being a devout Muslim and went as far as establishing legislation that made homosexuality and prostitution punishable by death.

In comparing Iraq to post war Germany there's a very likely chance that Iraq, like Germany, will be split. Not because coalition countries want spheres of influences within specific regions... but because the Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis would prefer to be autonomous. Stop making it sound like this is a uniquely isolated event. You should know better, especially being a European and neighboring a country like Belgium... where there the Dutch speaking peoples and French speaking peoples have politically rivalries within the country. Europeans are known for their intense nationalism or ethnic movements like pan-Slavism. The Czechs and the Slovaks chose to be two separate nations... and you saw what happened within the former Yugoslavia. Sometimes it's better to have separate countries than have to deal with quarelling ethnic factions. I'm not advocating civil war in Iraq... but if they don't want to be united and never really wanted to (Saddam Hussein oppressed all non-Sunni peoples)... then they have every right to push for secession. I don't want to see them destroy each other. They were suppressed for years by Hussein and now the other ethnic factions are being able to voice their opinions and concerns.

Oh, and there are 16 million people in the Netherlands and an estimated 298,290,000 people in the United States. Common sense would probably say there are more hookers in America due to the sheer difference in population.

[RalphyS]

Oh, and there are 16 million people in the Netherlands and an estimated 298,290,000 people in the United States. Common sense would probably say there are more hookers in America due to the sheer difference in population.

I know the difference in population, that is why I put the word 'relatively' in there, so what I meant is more hookers per x-number of inhabitants, ofcourse it would be hard to really count them in the US, since they are all illegal (jobwise, not citizenwise, it seems to me like I have to explain this too now, before you jump on that).

One reason why prostitution is outlawed throughout most of the United States is because of the threat of STDs.How naive can you get if you don't recognize that there is a major downside to allowing people to pay for sex.

Well, sex causes STDs, so much is true, but whether you pay for it or not, has nothing to do with it. Besides by regulating prostitution it is much easier to make sure that the prostitutes and their 'clients' have at all time access to protection. Sure there is a downside to prostitution, but making it illegal hasn't solved the problems in the last 8,000 years (or longer if you're not a creationist), maybe it's time for a new approach. There are also major downsides to the use of alcohol and tobacco, but still we do not prohibit it. Well only the USA tried to prohibit alcohol for a while, how did that work out for you? Wasn't it the big crime time in the USA?

The newest thing on the turmoil about deporting gays and christians as a consequence of debate in our congress (a translation of a newsreport by myself):
Minister Verdonk stated that „it can be affirmed that gays as a consequence of their sexual preference are limited in building an existence in Iran and that it makes it impossible for them to function on a social and cultural level", and therefore homosexuals will not be deported.

In the same debate in the second chamber (like our senate/congress) Verdonk was also pressured into promising not to deport any Iranian Christians for the time being. De Chamber fears that these asylum seekers could be persecuted for their religion in the strict islamic nation.

So once more the soup wasn't eaten as hot as it was served. Our congress seems to have their checks and balances in order on this point.

but there is no proof that supports the idea that Saddam had no desire to obtain nuclear weapons.
How could you prove that you had no desire to do something? Is this the legal system you would desire, where one had to prove that one did not desire to do something wrong? Well as you like to point out time after time and I admit to time after time Saddam was no innocent bystander, but it still requires proof, not no proof for the contrary view (I will add once again here for clarity, on the subject of WMD's).

And do you want to know why you cannot compare Iraq at this time with post-WWII Europe? The lack of violence for one, while in Iraq people seem to die by the dozens every day at this time, this was in no way the case in Western Europe. The freed nations did welcome the Americans as liberators and even in occupied Germany, there were no massive uprisings.

Once again I will restate, your one and only arguement, the terrible dictatorship of Saddam, under which the Iraqi people suffered immense horrors, but I do not think they are that much better off nowadays with a nation split by a civil war (or on the brink thereoff) were people can in no way feel safe. A civil war that was predicted I might add, but maybe you prefer them fighting among themselves?

And if the US thinks that splitting Iraq might be the better option, it may be in the long run, I'm not sure, why are they not pursuing that avenue?

[Chase]

Look, I have never disputed that the coalition mismanaged post war Iraq... but it's still getting on its feet faster than post war German and post war Japan. In Iraq, it took something like 14 months after the war began for formal elections to take place. In Germay, it took 3 years to write a constitution and 4 years to hold election... in Japan it took 15 for them to adopt a new constitution. There was a Nazi insurgency in Germany, however, It wasn't quite as big as the one we are seeing in Iraq, but nevertheless... there were people still attacking allied troops. But if you're going to analyze the insurgency you have to look at the entire picture. A significant number of the insurgents are foreign and much of the aid is coming from non-Iraqi terrorist organizations. The only large Iraqi militant group I can think of off the top of my head is the radical cleric Al Sadr's Shia group (his father was actually murdered by Saddam Hussein is happy that he's gone... but he's just unhappy that it was the United States and Britain that ousted him).

But I'll reiterate my point. If the Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis don't want to live united in Iraq... then in the long run it'll probably be more beneficial for them to be split into 3 independently functioning nations. Like I have previously stated, it worked out with the Czechs and the Slovaks... and a lot of other Europeans ethnicities.

[Ana4Stapp]

Well...Im back guys! But Im still tired (and happy of course:the show was awesome btw ) from the trip I made to Sao Paulo: just two days offline and I get a considerable numbers of (big)posts ...so I dont know if Ill have enough strenght to read and comment all of them with some sense...lol :D


Anyway, Ill try...

I posted Saddam Hussein's record of human rights violations because you constantly try to minimize his despicable behavior by saying that the coalition only based the war solely on WMDs. According to a study by Devon Largio, a recent graduate of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign... at least 21 reasons were presented to justify war with Saddam Hussein. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679

And the U.S. never funded the Taliban in a period that it was non existent... nor did they fund Osama bin Laden directly.

Maybe you are the one who didnt follow the history here...because it was definitely the formal reason that US and the allies used to sart this war...:rolleyes:


Sometimes it's better to have separate countries than have to deal with quarelling ethnic factions. I'm not advocating civil war in Iraq... but if they don't want to be united and never really wanted to (Saddam Hussein oppressed all non-Sunni peoples)... then they have every right to push for secession. I don't want to see them destroy each other. They were suppressed for years by Hussein and now the other ethnic factions are being able to voice their opinions and concerns.


So you are disagreeing about US foreing policy strategy in try to forcing them to keep together...:rolleyes:amazing...

[Chase]

Well...Im back guys! But Im still tired (and happy of course:the show was awesome btw ) from the trip I made to Sao Paulo: just two days offline and I get a considerable numbers of (big)posts ...so I dont know if Ill have enough strenght to read and comment all of them with some sense...lol :D


Anyway, Ill try...



Maybe you are the one who didnt follow the history here...because it was definitely the formal reason that US and the allies used to sart this war...:rolleyes:





So you are disagreeing about US foreing policy strategy in try to forcing them to keep together...:rolleyes:amazing...

First of all, who are you to say what's formal and what's not. They pushed all of these issues... I'm sorry the Brazilian media only covered one of them. You can't force them together if they don't want to be together. And the U.S. isn't "forcing" them to stay together. My government recognizes that they may want to split up... and if that's the case, then they have every right to do so.

[Ana4Stapp]

:rolleyes: First of all, who are you to say what's formal and what's not. They pushed all of these issues... I'm sorry the Brazilian media only covered one of them. You can't force them together if they don't want to be together. And the U.S. isn't "forcing" them to stay together. My government recognizes that they may want to split up... and if that's the case, then they have every right to do so.


Like you wisely know but maybe your arrogance didnt let you to remember :english is not my first language and 'maybe' I choosed the wrong word -- -so sorry , my friend...

...Me and YOU know that US and the allies said that Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons...and following this idea he consequently broke the UN resolutions ... so they had their official reason to invade the country and start the war...
And Im sorry that American media only covered one of the sides...and made you to believe in this...:rolleyes: