Coming soon to Iraq....Death Squads and Massive Cover Ups

[Sinister Rouge]

Lookie here who Bush nominated to be the ambassador to Iraq.....a war criminal who covered up deaths of thousands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte

God Bless Amerika and its continuing fight for "freedom "democracy" and "human rights" :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire

[yeat182]

here we go again...

[Sinister Rouge]

Bush appoints someone who helped terrorism and brutality...little hypocritical don't you think?

His record in Honduras was sickening...I do not want to imagine what he would do in Iraq. Negroponte should be in prison.

[open mind]

the guys got an at the least spotted record on human rights, so i don't think he should be the one appointed, but this doesn't suprise me.

[Safetyin#]

the guys got an at the least spotted record on human rights, so i don't think he should be the one appointed, but this doesn't suprise me.

If he shouldn't be appointed because of his "spotty" "human rights" record.... shouldn’t the UN also be barred from Iraq because of its "spotty" record on "Human Rights" and the "spotty" record(s) of those country that are menders of the HR Commettee?

[cal1082]

Lookie here who Bush nominated to be the ambassador to Iraq.....a war criminal who covered up deaths of thousands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte

God Bless Amerika and its continuing fight for "freedom "democracy" and "human rights" :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire

You should learn something about the Sandinistas and history before you call him war criminal. The Sandinsistas did not take power with a democratic election. This post pisses me off :angryfire

[cal1082]

The Somoza dynasty was in control of most of Nicaragua. US supported Somoza for the most part during the Cold War. There was then a huge earthquake in Nicaragua in like the early 70's, and it was in one of the largest cities there. A lot of money floods in from around the world for aid, but goes into the pockets of the Somoza's rather than to rebuild the city. By this time there was a revolution group called the Sandinistas. After a newspaper publisher was killed by the Somoza's for writing some incriminating stuff on them there was a lot of protests. Somoza than runs a military crack down in response to the protests. More people join the Sandinistas as a response to this. Aid was cut to Somoza by the US and Somoza went into exile. Carter didnt want the Sandinistas to fall into support by the USSR like Castro did so he aided the Sandinistas, used a carot instead of a stick. Argentina starts supporting the contras because they felt this US policy did not combat communism. Ronald Reagan comes in and uses the stick in Nicaragua and supports the contras.

*main point Sandinistas were communist, and did not win an actually democratic election to take power. They forced the current President at the time out and he was later killed.*

[Sinister Rouge]

This doesn't make it right to support another group that uses murder....and the contras were far worse than the sardinistas. The dictator in Honduras was brutal too.

We did help overthrow a democratic government in Chile...Pinochet replaced that government.

[Sinister Rouge]

You should learn something about the Sandinistas and history before you call him war criminal. The Sandinsistas did not take power with a democratic election. This post pisses me off :angryfire

It doesn't matter what the sardinistas did, it is what Negroponte did. Negoponte illegally supported a terrorist group that murdered innocent people including Americans.

[cal1082]

This doesn't make it right to support another group that uses murder....and the contras were far worse than the sardinistas. The dictator in Honduras was brutal too.

We did help overthrow a democratic government in Chile...Pinochet replaced that government.

You can think the contras were far worse than the Sardinistas but you present no evidence to support why they were worst.

You have to remember the Chile incidents also happened during the Cold War and foreign policy was completely diffrent because of this for the world in general. A democratically elected Communist was overthrown (he got like 30% of the votes to take Presidency). The US did support the opposition to Allende who was the communist President with dollars. Allende runs Chile's economy into the ground then Sept. 11th occured for them. There is no answer yet whether the US had direct support for what happened that day. Also the US supported Pinochet for 3 years until all the human rights issues came to head.

[cal1082]

It doesn't matter what the sardinistas did, it is what Negroponte did. Negoponte illegally supported a terrorist group that murdered innocent people including Americans.

You could also make the argument that he supported overthrowing a group that murdered innocent people. Find me one revolution that didnt?

[Sinister Rouge]

You could also make the argument that he supported overthrowing a group that murdered innocent people. Find me one revolution that didnt?

That argument fails when the group Negroponte supported routinly murder civilians in two countries, including the torture of nuns who were then thrown out of a helicopter to their deaths.

Your saying, its OK to support a group that murders innocent people when the enemy does the same thing.

[cal1082]

That argument fails when the group Negroponte supported routinly murder civilians in two countries, including the torture of nuns who were then thrown out of a helicopter to their deaths.

Your saying, its OK to support a group that murders innocent people when the enemy does the same thing.

No, did I say that? I simply said when a revolution occurs you're going to have that from your fighters because most are not trained in combat. Show me one revolution that doesnt?

Put it this way you can support a good cause and not support things going on during the cause. Can you show me any evidence that Negroponte supported the human rights violations that occured?

[Sinister Rouge]

No, did I say that? I simply said when a revolution occurs you're going to have that from your fighters because most are not trained in combat. Show me one revolution that doesnt?

Put it this way you can support a good cause and not support things going on during the cause. Can you show me any evidence that Negroponte supported the human rights violations that occured?

Clear as dailylight, they excavated his base and found 185 corpses....Read the article in my first post.

This wasn't a good cause, and it was illegal.

[open mind]

If he shouldn't be appointed because of his "spotty" "human rights" record.... shouldn’t the UN also be barred from Iraq because of its "spotty" record on "Human Rights" and the "spotty" record(s) of those country that are menders of the HR Commettee?
when was the u.n. accused of war crimes?

[cal1082]

Clear as dailylight, they excavated his base and found 185 corpses....Read the article in my first post.

This wasn't a good cause, and it was illegal.

The article says he help supervise the creation. It didnt say he oversaw or supported anything that went on there.

[open mind]

according to him none of it ever happened.

[Safetyin#]

when was the u.n. accused of war crimes?

accused by who, some liberal slanted web site....Would you believe something as "fact" if i posted it from an obviously "right" slant site?


and for war crimes that happened as the UN sat and watched...there's Rwanda, Bosina, Kasmar, Sudan, Ethopia, Eritrea, Somolia, Liberia, Haiti, Israel, Palestian, Iraq, Georgia......and thier probably more but thats all i can think of now....

[Sinister Rouge]

according to him none of it ever happened.

exactly

[open mind]

accused by who, some liberal slanted web site....Would you believe something as "fact" if i posted it from an obviously "right" slant site?


and for war crimes that happened as the UN sat and watched...there's Rwanda, Bosina, Kasmar, Sudan, Ethopia, Eritrea, Somolia, Liberia, Haiti, Israel, Palestian, Iraq, Georgia......and thier probably more but thats all i can think of now....
the u.n. wasn't accused of facilitating and funding these events.

[Safetyin#]

the u.n. wasn't accused of facilitating and funding these events.


The UN is/was accused by many groups for allowing/fostering the murders/genocide to continue in Rwanda, Bosnia, Israel, Somalia, Iraq, and Sudan....so I’m not real sure where your coming from with that statement....

Just look at the definition of the word you used "facilitate": To make easy or easier, as defined by Webster....Just using your one word the UN is guilty in every country I listed because they made the actions, through their incompetence, easier to undertake….

[open mind]

facilitate was the wrong word, let's try this.
the u.n. hasn't been accused of funding and engineering these events.

[Safetyin#]

facilitate was the wrong word, let's try this.
the u.n. hasn't been accused of funding.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/oil_for_food_ripoff_040420-1.html

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2618260

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12822

[open mind]

not really funding or engineering war crimes, sure it's twisted but it's not the same thing.
go ahead and say you think it helped saddam, thereby in a roundabout way causing suffering, but it's not the same as funding and arming a rebel army that you know is commiting crimes against humanity.

[sweetsugar]

I dunno if it's just me, but it seems like Sinister_Rogue, Open Mind, and XnotedgeX always argue the wrong side. I think they come here just for the sake of argument, and if we took the other side, they would argue the side that we are currently arguing.

[open mind]

no, you always argue the wrong side, mr. i'm in the army so i know how the world works, so let's not show people half the things we do in war in iraq.
sorry to dissapoint you dumbshit, but i auctually believe what i say here.

[Sinister Rouge]

Any body who thinks appointing a racist judge and a war criminal ambassador is a good thing is on the wrong side and out of the loop.

[yeat182]

there are no right or wrong sides, just different points of view...people seem to forget that on these boards. i am probably guilty of that as well.

[open mind]

auctually there is a right side, some opinions are wrong, some are right.
the key is allowing people to have their own opinion whatever it is, no matter how backwards and retarded it is.

[yeat182]

auctually there is a right side, some opinions are wrong, some are right.
the key is allowing people to have their own opinion whatever it is, no matter how backwards and retarded it is.

on some issues, i agree, there is a right and a wrong, but most aren't that cut and dry. take the war for instance, some feel it is right, some feel it is wrong, but there is no definte answer, its a matter of opinion. but you are right, you need to allow different opinions.

[open mind]

history will determine which side is right, there is a right and wrong side to the war in iraq.

[yeat182]

history will determine which side is right, there is a right and wrong side to the war in iraq.

as with most things the truth lies somewhere in between, but you're right, time will tell.

[UndefinedBoy]

I dunno if it's just me, but it seems like Sinister_Rogue, Open Mind, and XnotedgeX always argue the wrong side. I think they come here just for the sake of argument, and if we took the other side, they would argue the side that we are currently arguing.

The point of this board is for debate. Everyone comes here and debates. You just seem to embody much of what they (and I) disagree with wholeheartedly. I'm afraid that we're not wrong, we only feel differently (much differently) than you do...on everything.

[Safetyin#]

, but it's not the same as funding and arming a rebel army that you know is commiting crimes against humanity.

actually its exactly the same....they funded Saddum, through their corruption, and he used the money to buy weapons to oppress his own people.....

The only difference is that "iraq" wasn't at war, but was doing this against their own citizens...

[open mind]

actually its exactly the same....they funded Saddum, through their corruption, and he used the money to buy weapons to oppress his own people.....

The only difference is that "iraq" wasn't at war, but was doing this against their own citizens...
no it's not the same as funding and setting up a system of brutality (as in putting the whole thing together)the u.n. may have been dealing with saddam yes (although it's still being investigated) but they did not go into iraq and create and engineer a program of brutality.