[roger_ramjet]

link

I'm sure we can expect another war crimes indictment handed down by some Belgium court but I won't be holding my breath waiting for it.

[voodoo]

... so?

[thunderous_funker]

So children slaughtered in 1991 have what to do with what?

Are you blasted Bush the Elder for allowing it to happen?

Praising Bush the Elder for the no-fly zones that but Saddam's army back in it's box and led to the most freedom Kurds have enjoyed in generations?

Suggesting that 12 year old war crimes are the reason we decided to adopt-a-nation?

Just taking a stab at the Belgians for the hellofit?

[voodoo]

your pm box is full rog.

(I hereby humbly withdraw from this discussion due to brainpower )

PS. Saddam is/was a nasty nasty man and the US did humanity a great favor ridding us of him. OK Rog?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So children slaughtered in 1991 have what to do with what?

You're quite right. Nothing here for you to trouble yourself over.

[macvillage.net]

I'd like to place a bet that it was the Frensh who killed the Kurdish kids.

[moki]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So children slaughtered in 1991 have what to do with what?

Perhaps he is noting that the people with "humanitarian" concerns regarding the war in Iraq, who have been so quick to point out any civilian casualties are quizzically silent regarding the atrocities that have been uncovered.

Where is the outrage and concern for human life? Is their opinion so partisan that anything that could defame Mr. Hussein or be pointed out as a good thing that came from this war isn't worthy of mention?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by moki:
Perhaps he is noting that the people with "humanitarian" concerns regarding the war in Iraq, who have been so quick to point out any civilian casualties are quizzically silent regarding the atrocities that have been uncovered.

Where is the outrage and concern for human life? Is their opinion so partisan that anything that could defame Mr. Hussein or be pointed out as a good thing that came from this war isn't worthy of mention?

Do you even care? Did the abuse of human lives end with Saddam's regime? Where is your outrage now?

Indeed, whom do you want to attack next?

[moki]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Indeed, whom do you want to attack next?

Iceland. We want your geothermic energy & whale meat reserves.

[moki]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Do you even care? Did the abuse of human lives end with Saddam's regime? Where is your outrage now?

Yes, I think it is safe to say that the kind of mass-oppression and disregard for human rights that took place under Saddam's regime are a thing of the past.

People have protested the US's pressence in Iraq (though that seems to have died down of late), something they would not have dared to do with Saddam in power. And for good reason.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by moki:
Yes, I think it is safe to say that the kind of mass-oppression and disregard for human rights that took place under Saddam's regime are a thing of the past.

Yes. In Iraq. I was talking about the world in general.

[bracken]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I'd like to place a bet that it was the Frensh who killed the Kurdish kids.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by moki:
Iceland. We want your geothermic energy & whale meat reserves.

I could always use the extra ice.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by moki:
<snip>

People have protested the US's pressence in Iraq (though that seems to have died down of late), something they would not have dared to do with Saddam in power. And for good reason.

I think it's the US soldiers who have died of late as a result.

it's almost every day that a soldier is being ambushed by one of thes guys.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by moki:
Iceland. We want your geothermic energy & whale meat reserves.

!

U can take our lives but you will never take our WHALE MEAT!!! Aaaaaaarrrrr /William Wallace

[undotwa]

Originally posted by voodoo:
!

U can take our lives but you will never take our WHALE MEAT!!! Aaaaaaarrrrr /William Wallace

lol

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
Perhaps he is noting that the people with "humanitarian" concerns regarding the war in Iraq, who have been so quick to point out any civilian casualties are quizzically silent regarding the atrocities that have been uncovered.

Where is the outrage and concern for human life? Is their opinion so partisan that anything that could defame Mr. Hussein or be pointed out as a good thing that came from this war isn't worthy of mention?

Horeseshyt.

Some of us have been protesting Saddam for decades. More importantly we were protesting the "heroes" in the white house who were guilty of complicity in Saddam's crimes for the last 30 years.

Bringing up Kurdish atrocities now is the worst kind of revisionist history imaginable.

[Lerkfish]

-

[Lerkfish]

-

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

Bringing up Kurdish atrocities now is the worst kind of revisionist history imaginable.

How the **** is it revisionist? It happened. You KNOW it happened.

And so what if you've been protesting Saddam for decades if NOW all you can do is stifle a yawn when someone brings it up?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
How the **** is it revisionist? It happened. You KNOW it happened.

And so what if you've been protesting Saddam for decades if NOW all you can do is stifle a yawn when someone brings it up?

It's revisionist to suddenly claim a humanitarian justification for the invasion after 30 years of complicity. Doubly so because it involves the same people in power.

The US didn't do nothing for 30 years of Saddam's horror, it was actively engaged (along with France, UK, Germany, Russia, etc) in facilitating it and in preventing punishment.

Remember when Reagan actually stopped the US Congress from taking action against Saddam in 1988?

Remember when Rumsfeld was in Bagdad the same week as the initial reports of chemical gas being used against Iran, but he still pressed forward with our historical renewal of diplomatic ties?

Cheney had no trouble taking Saddam's money while at Haliburton, but now he's the number one guilt-monger for how the corrupt UN Oil For Food program was the root of all evil.

Face it, the plight of Iraqis has never registered on the radar of US foreign policy (or UK, France, Russia, Germany and others who benefited from similar policies over the years). One thing and one thing only has driven every action in 30 years--Self Interest.

We ignored Saddam's atrocities when it suited us. We armed Saddam when it suited us. We bombed Iraqis when it suited us. We starved them when it suited us. We invaded when it suited us. Nothing has changed.

Dubya might have added humanitarian intervention to the rhetoric, but all the decisions being made are still the same old policy it's always been. If Iraqis find freedom and prosperity in the new era, it will still only be a side-effect to pursuing our self-interest.

As for children murdered 12 years ago, at least we can look back at Bush the Elder's policy of containment and the no-fly zones as perhaps the only time our action in Iraq was motivated by a desire to protect Iraqis. At least in Northern Iraq, we can hope to not find mass graves newer than 12 years old. Of course, to accept that idea, you'd have to ignore what happened in the South and the subsequent deaths of half a million children from the Sanctions.

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
It's revisionist to suddenly claim a humanitarian justification for the invasion after 30 years of complicity. Doubly so because it involves the same people in power.

<snip>

As for children murdered 12 years ago, at least we can look back at Bush the Elder's policy of containment and the no-fly zones as perhaps the only time our action in Iraq was motivated by a desire to protect Iraqis. At least in Northern Iraq, we can hope to not find mass graves newer than 12 years old. Of course, to accept that idea, you'd have to ignore what happened in the South and the subsequent deaths of half a million children from the Sanctions.

Or how about we ignore YOUR "solution" to Saddam's human rights abuses? Remember? YOU were championing containment - not functionally different to the policy fashioned by Bush I, Scrowcroft, et al. after Desert Storm. How you can bitch about others is beyond me.

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
It's revisionist to suddenly claim a humanitarian justification for the invasion after 30 years of complicity. Doubly so because it involves the same people in power.

The US didn't do nothing for 30 years of Saddam's horror, it was actively engaged (along with France, UK, Germany, Russia, etc) in facilitating it and in preventing punishment.

Remember when Reagan actually stopped the US Congress from taking action against Saddam in 1988?

Remember when Rumsfeld was in Bagdad the same week as the initial reports of chemical gas being used against Iran, but he still pressed forward with our historical renewal of diplomatic ties?

Just wanted to add this:

Presidential Statement - Chemical Weapons - Iran & Iraq

Statement, 21 March 1986

At the 2667th meeting, the President of the Council made the following statement:

On behalf of the members of the Security Council, I am authorized to make the following declaration:

'The members of the Security Council, seized with the continuing conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq, have considered the report of the mission of specialists dispatched by the Secretary-General to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between Iran and Iraq.

'Profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces, most recently in the course of the present Iranian offensive into Iraqi territory, the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons.

'They recall the statements by the President of the Council of 30 March 1984 and 25 April 1985, and demand again that the provisions of the Geneva Protocol be strictly observed. 'At the same time, the members of the Council condemn the prolongation of the conflict which continues to take a heavy toll of human lives and to cause considerable material damage, as well as to endanger peace and security in the region.

'They express concern over the risk of an extension of the conflict to other States in the region and call upon the two sides to respect the territorial integrity of all States, including those that are not parties to the hostilities.

'The members of the Council reaffirm resolution 582 (1986) of the Security Council and note that the Government of Iraq has expressed its willingness to heed the call for the immediate cessation of hostilities. They stress the urgent need for full compliance by both parties with this resolution, which would open the way for a prompt, comprehensive, just and honourable settlement of the conflict.

'The members of the Council note that both parties have declared themselves ready to cooperate with the Secretary-General in his ongoing efforts to restore. peace to the people of Iran and Iraq, and express their support for these effort.'

If I recall correctly the US was the only member of the UNSC that voted against this. So bringing up the humanitarian justification is indeed revisionist or just selective memory.

[daimoni]

.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by daimoni:

Sorry Dai, Nobody is talking about your position on this thing. Just your country's.

It's not like you (personally( had a say in whether the US invaded Iraq or not. Chill.

[daimoni]

.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Or how about we ignore YOUR "solution" to Saddam's human rights abuses? Remember? YOU were championing containment - not functionally different to the policy fashioned by Bush I, Scrowcroft, et al. after Desert Storm. How you can bitch about others is beyond me.

I championed containment??? News to me.

It worked for our selfish security interests, if that's what you mean. In fact, now we know it worked better than anyone cares to admit since Iraq had no working WMD or even battlefield munitions. That was the goal, after all.

I'm not even against regime change, but I was against a US/UK invasion and occupation without UN backing or NATO support.

For 30 years we worked tirelessly to support the Ba'ath regime. Now suddenly their human rights record is justification for even more atrocity visited upon the Iraqi people?

I'm glad Saddam is gone, but even that good end doesn't justify the means.

And I strongly resent the sanctimony of ****ing Rumsfeld and Cheney throwing Iraq's human rights record in my face when, as far as I'm concerned, they should be facing a trial of their own for their hand in it.

Americans are all a-flutter about their bold new moral crusaders who "finally did something" about Saddam. I'm just the voice of conscience reminding everyone that they've been "doing something" for 30 years, and it had nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi people. Sadly, the public's attention span is only about 30 minutes long or they'd remember the history that brought us to this sorry state of affairs and who's responsible for making this mess in the first place.

US "intervention" in Iraq didn't start with the War. We helped bury those children along with countless others over the years.

This isn't the "blame America first" rant. This is just the logical balance to the "America has done the most wonderful thing ever" rant that seems to be dribbling from the lips of those who can't seem to remember just who it was that stood by and watched those kids get buried in the first place. Not to mention those who had no qualms about doing business with the murderer all along. And you can add France, UK, Germany and Russia to that list as well.

We did what we wanted to do because it was in our interests. Nothing more. Hopefully this time the Iraqis might get some benefit from it. Hopefully.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I championed containment??? News to me.

Let's hear you bitch again about revisionism.

...For 30 years we worked tirelessly to support the Ba'ath regime...

No we didn't. Our policy vis a vis Iraq was different in '75 from our policy in '85 was different from our policy in '95. And during most of those 30 years Iraq consistently remained a Soviet client. You're just making sh!t up. Cut it out.

Now suddenly their human rights record is justification for even more atrocity visited upon the Iraqi people?

More atrocity. Riiiiight.

I'm glad Saddam is gone, but even that good end doesn't justify the means.

Yes it does.

Americans are all a-flutter about their bold new moral crusaders who "finally did something" about Saddam.

And if you had your way he would still be safely in power.

I'm just the voice of conscience...

No you're NOT.

We did what we wanted to do because it was in our interests...

Yes it was. So freaking what? So was defeating NAZI Germany, the Empire of Japan and winning the Cold War. Guess what? Others benefited from those victories too.

[thunderous_funker]

Me: I'm glad Saddam is gone, but even that good end doesn't justify the means.

You: Yes it does.

I guess that's the heart of it.

If the goal was regime change (for the sake of security, or human rights), I believe we could have accomplished that in the last 30 years without having to invade and occupy.

I'm also saying it's not a matter of trying and failing. Quite the opposite, in fact. Saddam might have fallen without the US lifting a finger if we had only resisting lifting our fingers to help him time and time again.

You seem to think that doesn't matter. Well, if you're paying attention to what Iraqis are saying (not the carpet-bagging exiles), you'll hear quite a different story. There is a reason they don't trust us, even if Saddam is finally gone. That is why the means matter.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

... Saddam might have fallen without the US lifting a finger if we had only resisting lifting our fingers to help him time and time again.

Whatever help we gave him ended with Desert Storm. Instead we actively worked against him. Still, he didn't fall on his own. We don't have to wonder about what might have happened. Wishful thinking clearly wasn't an answer. He had to be pushed.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Whatever help we gave him ended with Desert Storm. Instead we actively worked against him. Still, he didn't fall on his own. We don't have to wonder about what might have happened. Wishful thinking clearly wasn't an answer. He had to be pushed.

You mean after stepping aside and letting him slaughter those who would overthrow him after the war.

You mean after starving the nation so there could be no future uprisings. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's all Saddam's fault that the people were hungry because he's a bad man. But if we knew it wasn't hurting Saddam and it was killing kids, why did we continue?

Of course, I'm used to people saying that a rejection of all out invasion/occupation as our only option in the last 30 years equates to "wishful thinking". Just demonstrates the dearth of original or creative thinking going in the national discourse on foreign policy.

It's all academic at this point. We'll never know if we could have avoided this because we were too busy charging towards it and marginalizing anyone who thought there might be a better way to accomplish our goals as a "wishful thinker".

I favor the kind of "wishful thinking" that was used to oust Milosevic.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You mean after stepping aside and letting him slaughter those who would overthrow him after the war...

So which is it? Now your complaint is that we didn't intervene (back then). You need to get your story straight.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
So which is it? Now your complaint is that we didn't intervene (back then). You need to get your story straight.

Again you seem to be stuck in some dichotomy that presents our options as:

1) invade/occupy in 2002
2) wishful thinking

How can I make it any clearer? I've been against the Ba'ath regime since I was old enough to read the news and know what they were about. I watched the democracies of the West aide and abet Saddam Hussein while he butchered millions.

I have forever been in favor of intervention on behalf of the Iraqi people. What you percieve as a history of "wishful thinking" or "doing nothing" has actually been a history of total intervention on behalf of the Ba'ath regime. Even after the Gulf War we consciously decided to allow him to remain in power because we didn't want Shias or Kurds calling the shots.

Get it? "humanitarian" does not describe any policy decision made by the West towards Iraq in the last 30 years. Including the current occupation. Our goal has never been humanitarian. It has been strictly and purely dominated by the Realpolitik of security and economics.

By letting all decisions in the last 30 years be dictated by our selfish interests, we are guilty of complicity in massive loss of life and suffering. Just because Saddam's role in that is ended, doesn't change the reality of the situation. Iraqis suffer while the world plays Risk in the middle east.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Again you seem to be stuck in some dichotomy that presents our options as:

1) invade/occupy in 2002
2) wishful thinking...

Please. There was no third way. By stepping aside you mean we withdrew from our temporary occupation of southern Iraq. That's what was required to safeguard the people from Saddam then and it's what was required this time. It would have been better if we pressed our military advantage back then. But we didn't and so Saddam survived. However, if you had polled every senior official in the Bush (41) administration, there's simply no way they would have expected Saddam to still be in power 10 years hence. They wouldn't have believed you. Moreover, they wouldn't have regarded that as a good thing.

And it doesn't matter how long you've been against the Ba'athist regime. When the bell finally rang and the end to Saddam's rule was in sight, you were steadfast in your opposition to the very action that broke his grip on power. That much is clear to me.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
And it doesn't matter how long you've been against the Ba'athist regime. When the bell finally rang and the end to Saddam's rule was in sight, you were steadfast in your opposition to the very action that broke his grip on power. That much is clear to me.

You still ignore me when I tell you I thought there were other means available to us for accomplishing this end. Why is this so hard to understand?