[moki]

Clearly, this is horrific... but it also strikes me as odd that they are going around Iraq with clipboards taking surveys while the country is in turmoil.

from: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E1702,00.html

.....

61,000 Baghdad residents 'executed'
From correspondents in Baghdad
December 09, 2003

SADDAM Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained today by The Associated Press.

The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq's Kurdish north and Shi'ite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality extended strongly into the capital as well.

The survey, which the polling firm planned to release tomorrow, asked 1178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 per cent said yes.

The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad's population - 6.39 million - and average household size - 6.9 people - to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam's rule. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves.

The US-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.


Without exhumations of those graves, it is impossible to confirm a figure. Scientists said during a recent investigation that they have confirmed 41 mass graves on a list of suspected sites that currently includes 270 locations.

Forensic teams will begin to exhume four of those graves next month in search of evidence for a new tribunal, expected to be established this week, that will try members of the former regime for crimes against humanity and genocide. More graves will later be added to the list.

But nobody expects all the mass graves to be exhumed, and nobody expects to ever know the full number of Iraqis executed by their government.

Richard Burkholder, who headed Gallup's Baghdad team, said the numbers in Baghdad could be high for two reasons: People may have understood "household" to be broader than just the people living at their address; and some families may have moved to the capital from other areas since the executions occurred.

"Anecdotal accounts start to support it, but they don't get you to 60,000," he said in a telephone interview from Princeton, New Jersey.

Even reducing the numbers slightly because of those possibilities, however, Burkholder said the number of executions the data suggest is higher than previously estimated, in the low tens of thousands.

The deadliest atrocity associated with Saddam's government was the scorched-earth campaign known as the "Anfal", in which the government killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds in Iraq's far north. Many were buried in mass graves far from home in the southern desert.

Another 60,000 people are believed to have been killed when Saddam violently suppressed rebellions by Shi'ite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north at the close of the 1991 Gulf War.

Sandra Hodgkinson, director of the US-led occupation authority's human rights office, estimated that some 50,000 others were executed during Saddam's reign, including Kurds killed in chemical attacks and political prisoners sent to execution.

That 50,000 figure also would include prisoners killed in Baghdad.

The survey, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, was conducted in face-to-face interviews in Baghdad residents' homes from August 28 and September 4.

The people were selected at random from all geographic sectors of the Baghdad metropolitan area, and more than nine in 10 agreed to participate. That's at least double the response rate for many US telephone polls.

[eklipse]

Too bad these kind of statistics weren't being touted back in February.......then the Bush administration wouldn't have had to resort to the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' BS to justify their war......not that it would have been any better cover for their true motivations anyway.....

[lil'babykitten]

History repeating itself?

[ebuddy]

Eklipse,

What is the true US motivation in Iraq?

If you listened to any of our President's speeches to the Country you'd know this had just as much to do with "changing the face of the Middle East" as it did WMD. I've also warned others not to put all their eggs in the WMD basket when criticizing Bush. They may magically appear just months before next year's election and you will have expended a great deal of energy looking foolish.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Eklipse,

What is the true US motivation in Iraq?

If you listened to any of our President's speeches to the Country you'd know this had just as much to do with "changing the face of the Middle East" as it did WMD. I've also warned others not to put all their eggs in the WMD basket when criticizing Bush. They may magically appear just months before next year's election and you will have expended a great deal of energy looking foolish.

As it is, the Bush administration put all its argumentative eggs in the WMD basket when promoting their killing spree, and unless they magically appear just months before next year's election, they - and you - will have expended a great deal of energy looking foolish and DANGEROUS.

"Changing the face of the Middle East" is an agenda not rightfully in anybody's hands except Middle-Easterners.

The fact that America has been presumptuous enough to posit this as justification in the wake of an embarrassing lack of WMD is profoundly disturbing, and will no doubt continue cause much grief both to countries targeted as a result of this doctrine, and to Americans.

And likely most of the rest of the civilized world, as well.

-s*

[eklipse]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
What is the true US motivation in Iraq?

Money.

If you listened to any of our President's speeches to the Country you'd know this had just as much to do with "changing the face of the Middle East" as it did WMD.

Firstly, if it was really about "changing the face of the Middle East", neither Bush nor any other non-middle-eastern leader has any business doing this. What gives America the right to meddling in other peoples' affairs? Secondly, supposing Bush did say it was all about some totally benevolent plan for a peaceful middle-east - Bush is first and foremost a politician, i.e. he has an overwhelming predisposition to do whatever it takes to get people onboard with his policies. Even the conservatives who frequent this forum have submitted in the past that Bush and his cabal singled out the angle most likely to play on public sympathies and get them to jump on the war-wagon. The angle didn't necessarily have to be entirely accurate or even related to the ultimate goal - the argument being that any positive side-effects of the ends somehow justify the means.

I've also warned others not to put all their eggs in the WMD basket when criticizing Bush. They may magically appear just months before next year's election and you will have expended a great deal of energy looking foolish.

The question is not really about whether Iraq possessed WMD or not - many nations have them (this is what is known as a 'known known') - the question is: 'Did they pose a threat?', specifically, to the people Bush, Blair (and the leaders of other such prominent nations as Micronesia, Pilau and the Marshall Islands) said they were. Seeing as though Iraq's entire military apparatus self-destructed or was otherwise decimated in a matter of weeks, I don't think they did. Even then, no one has yet suggested a valid motive for Iraq to launch or sponsor any sort of attack against an allied target - what would be the point?

If WMD 'magically appear just months before next year's election' - I don't think I will be the one looking foolish.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Eklipse,

What is the true US motivation in Iraq?

If you listened to any of our President's speeches to the Country you'd know this had just as much to do with "changing the face of the Middle East" as it did WMD. I've also warned others not to put all their eggs in the WMD basket when criticizing Bush. They may magically appear just months before next year's election and you will have expended a great deal of energy looking foolish.

Just want to point out that "changing the face of the Middle East" is exactlly what I keep telling you is the neocon agenda. You're supposed to be denying that one. Get with the prescheduled program, already in progress.

I also want to point out that , depending on what date you research, the justification for invading Iraq as explained in presidential speeches varies. Therefore jumping on someone who remembers justification #8, instead of the current incarnation is being a little judgemental.

It doesn't matter what the president says now, it will change later to suit his PR needs.

As far as WMDs appearing magically before the election....I think that goes against the whole "imminent threat" justification #1A, you know, the first one that appeared in bush's speeches?

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
"Changing the face of the Middle East" is an agenda not rightfully in anybody's hands except Middle-Easterners.

you're wrong. The United States has the right to shape that region to its own ends, either through peaceful diplomatic or violent diplomatic means. That region more than any other affects the security of American citizens and the citizens of Western Europe and the free world. Just as The Great Satan protected you from the horrors of Fascism and Communism, so now does it work to protect the Free World from terrorism and extremism.

the Middle East, its governments, and its people have proven themselves utterly incapable of dealing with their problems, their terrorist-producing machine, despotism, and tyranny. The evils and ills heaped upon the rest of the world because of that region's failures forfeit those nations' rights to sovereignty.

In short, if you're not going to sh*t, get off the pot. It's long overdue for someone to force change in the region.

[finboy]

Originally posted by moki:
it also strikes me as odd that they are going around Iraq with clipboards taking surveys while the country is in turmoil.

Maybe the country ISN'T really in as much "turmoil" as the press would lead us to believe.

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
History repeating itself?

No, dear kitten, we're stopping this from continuing. Since you feel the west is the source of everything bad in the world, I'm sure you would have rather that we not help your Muslim brothers in the balkans, and I'm sure you'd rather have left Saddam in power to kill his own people.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by finboy:
Maybe the country ISN'T really in as much "turmoil" as the press would lead us to believe.

That could be true.

After all, have you seen footage of all those dead soldiers returning from Iraq in bodybags/coffins?

Can't be happening if it's not on TV!

Funny how effectively that works both ways...

-s*

[moki]

Originally posted by finboy:
Maybe the country ISN'T really in as much "turmoil" as the press would lead us to believe.

Well, our soldiers are being attacked on a regular basis, so I'd call it turmoil... however, I agree with your point. I think progress is being made in many areas as well.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Too bad these kind of statistics weren't being touted back in February.......then the Bush administration wouldn't have had to resort to the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' BS to justify their war......not that it would have been any better cover for their true motivations anyway.....

WMD BS? No one knew at the time if it was BS or not.

And just what is their true motivations eklipse?
[edit: read your answer, yeah money that was it!]

You guys crack me up. If it was just money, would could have taken over the place, the whole area if we wanted.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
you're wrong. The United States has the right to shape that region to its own ends, either through peaceful diplomatic or violent diplomatic means. That region more than any other affects the security of American citizens and the citizens of Western Europe and the free world. Just as The Great Satan protected you from the horrors of Fascism and Communism, so now does it work to protect the Free World from terrorism and extremism.

Ah yes, colonialism.

I remember the quote from the One True Lounge of old, Great and Undivided:

Posted by jcadam on 2/16/2002:
The Europeans had their time in the sun (1500s - 1900). It's our turn to run the show now, so just bend over and take it.

This guy works for the military and is currently stationed in Germany, IIRC.

Good luck with those terrorists, folks!

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
WMD BS? No one knew at the time if it was BS or not.

But an awful lot of people, including the UN weapons inspectors, were calling it BS at the time...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
But an awful lot of people, including the UN weapons inspectors, were calling it BS at the time...

No, no one knew what Iraq had or didn't have. For the most part, we still don't.

But don't let that stop you from making knee-jerk reactionary judgments.

I remeber when Bush was tying Saddam and Al Qaeda together. You all poo pood that and made fun of him.

But he was right. They did have ties.

Don't be too quick to judge.

We don't know yet. We probably WONT know ALL the detail for a few years yet.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
you're wrong. The United States has the right to shape that region to its own ends, either through peaceful diplomatic or violent diplomatic means. That region more than any other affects the security of American citizens and the citizens of Western Europe and the free world. Just as The Great Satan protected you from the horrors of Fascism and Communism, so now does it work to protect the Free World from terrorism and extremism.

the Middle East, its governments, and its people have proven themselves utterly incapable of dealing with their problems, their terrorist-producing machine, despotism, and tyranny. The evils and ills heaped upon the rest of the world because of that region's failures forfeit those nations' rights to sovereignty.

In short, if you're not going to sh*t, get off the pot. It's long overdue for someone to force change in the region.

yes. I agree this is what many bush supporters feel.
However, I disagree that they are correct in their assessment.
Part of the reason Saddam was attacked in Desert Storm was because he felt he had the right to invade Kuwait, to reshape it as he chose.
If you adopt the tactics of your enemy, you become your enemy.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
Maybe the country ISN'T really in as much "turmoil" as the press would lead us to believe.

yeah, that's all made up by the liberal press.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
No, dear kitten, we're stopping this from continuing. Since you feel the west is the source of everything bad in the world, I'm sure you would have rather that we not help your Muslim brothers in the balkans, and I'm sure you'd rather have left Saddam in power to kill his own people.

is this kind of post really necessary?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
WMD BS? No one knew at the time if it was BS or not.

actually, several people knew. They just chose to characterize it differently, and many people fell for it.

[christ]

If you don't 'know' something then you are supposed to grant reasonable doubt to the accused, not to the regime doing the accusing.

Invasion should only occur if you 'know' something.

It is insufficient to invade because you don't 'know', and then say 'in a few years we may, or may not, be proved right, therefore don't judge us yet'.

You invaded on a suspicion, which turned out to be largely (if not wholly) groundless. Why wait for history to judge this? As I pointed out in another thread, the only reason is because the winners write the history books. It is the fervent hope of all mokis that when the history comes to be written, Iraq will be paradise on earth, and it will all be because of the precipitate invasion by the US, so plaudits will be showered on all. OTOH, if it is hell on earth, that won't be the US's fault, because 'at least you tried'. It is called 'having your cake and eating it', at the expense of a few thousand foreigners that can't vote in US elections anyway.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But don't let that stop you from making knee-jerk reactionary judgments.

I have no idea what you mean by this, or how it relates to me.

Nor, I suspect, do you.

Keep thumbing randomly through your "Political Euphemisms" phrasebook, though - you may get one right occasionally.

-s*

[daimoni]

.

[Lerkfish]

we need to adjust that figure:

here's some more to the total

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by daimoni:


Totally out of line.

I have to admit, I didn't know what LBK's comment was referring to, nor why you thought it was out of line?

I'm being honest, I don't know. what is this about?

[christ]

Is there any qualitative difference between executing one person and executing 61,000? (or 61,000,000?)

I assume that the US right-wing supports execution as a means of punishment, but they seem to lose their nerve when it is applied by someone that they didn't elect, even if it is in a country which is not theirs, and over which they have no moral or legal lien.

Ah, but the reason is important, I hear them say. Why? The US executes people that infringe the rules, to some arbitrary degree. I would assume that SH did the same (the degree may have been different, and the arbitrariness a bit more extreme, but still).

While we have America's attention pointed at the (il)legality of executions performed by the regime, mayhap they can explain this apparent inconsistency.

[daimoni]

.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by daimoni:
According to the article, 61,000 Baghdad residents were 'executed'.

According to LBK, history is being repeated. By whom... Bush?

As much as I absolutely detest Bush and his greedy little goons (and that's me trying to be mild) I think that's going way too far.

really? well, yes, I don't think casaulties can be considered executions (even though I suggested an amendment to the number myself above, I was referring to civilian deaths)
But, going in back to these specific executions ... at least several thousand of the 61,000 executions came from citizen uprisings US-encouraged during Desert Storm ....but we abandoned them when they did, and Saddam chose to execute insurgents against his regime. So, do you lay that at SH's feet or US feet? Both had some amount of complicity in the circumstances that led to their execution.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
No, dear kitten, we're stopping this from continuing. Since you feel the west is the source of everything bad in the world, I'm sure you would have rather that we not help your Muslim brothers in the balkans, and I'm sure you'd rather have left Saddam in power to kill his own people.

Stopping this from happening? Well sorry but I don't see it that way. On the contrary, you aren't doing sh1t for anybody except yourselves. You never have, you aren't now and I doubt you ever will. (When I say you, I am referring to the US government) You have never ever become involved in international affairs unless it would benefit your own interests. That is one of the primary causes of conflict and part of why we are living in a period of severe unrest right now. You don't enjoy the support of any of the Middle Eastern countries you are wanting to 're-shape'-why? because they do not trust your intentions-and they have no reason to either. You bullshitted your way in to Iraq over false claims on WMD and tried to sweeten that with 'humanitarian concern for the Iraqi people'. If the architects were so concerned with the welfare of the Iraqi people then why in the bluest of blue hells was that argument not put forward as number one for a reason? Surely that was a more secure platform to stand on, may even had made the people of the Middle-East jump on board. There are plenty of claims you could have properly made about what was happening under Saddams regime. But once again, your argument was, they are a threat to our interests, therefore we must destroy.

Now the architects of the War (the neo-cons) themselves freely and ever so easily admit that democracy in Iraq will not work. So what the hell are they there for? It's so obvious! It's not about helping the Iraqis, it never was and I was never fooled by such a claim. Your actions now further show that my suspicions were correct. You're in there to protect you own economic interests and political hand over the rest of the Middle East.

It's sickening to see countries continue to take advantage of others purely for their own interests, it's sickening to even think, never mind witness, governments destroy the lives of other people in other countries purely for their own selfish interest. Figures estimate 7,000 civilians died in the war, I'm pretty sure the figure rises daily. How different is that 7,000 to the 61,000 that died under Saddam? Just because it is less that makes it alright? That is why I said what I said in my original post. It makes no difference to me, one life is too many. There was no reason for any of those people to die, they were innocent human beings, their lives taken away because of the selfishness of others. If it was under Saddam or US troops it makes no difference, their lives were taken for a worthless cause.

I'm thankful that Iraq was not a complete walkover for the US, it's put a major dent in the preposterous plans the neo-cons have for the Middle East. No country has ever accepted an occupation, Iraq is no different.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles!

[thunderous_funker]

Simple question:

Who was president when these massacres occured? What did that president do about it?

hints:

The infamous Anfal campaign against the Kurds happened in spring of 1988.

The shiite and Kurdish uprising, as noted in the article, happened in 1991.

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Simple question:

Who was president when these massacres occured? What did that president do about it?

hints:

The infamous Anfal campaign against the Kurds happened in spring of 1988.

The shiite and Kurdish uprising, as noted in the article, happened in 1991.

And to add to that question:

What country(countries) did not want(threatened to veto) a UNSC resolution condemning the massacres in the northern areas of Iraq around 1988?

What country gave the Iraqis intel on Iranian positions in the Iran-Iraq war fully knowing that the Iraqis would use and had used WMD's?

[Shaddim]

It's sickening to see countries continue to take advantage of others purely for their own interests, it's sickening to even think, never mind witness, governments destroy the lives of other people in other countries purely for their own selfish interest. Figures estimate 7,000 civilians died in the war, I'm pretty sure the figure rises daily. How different is that 7,000 to the 61,000 that died under Saddam? Just because it is less that makes it alright?

Yes, 7000 is better in comparison to 61000. Since Saddam was obviously just lining them up and blowing their brains out... that is, after he tortured them.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yes, 7000 is better in comparison to 61000. Since Saddam was obviously just lining them up and blowing their brains out... that is, after he tortured them.

but I think this reflects a very bad attitude: that just as long as the US is incrementally less bad than Saddam, its ok.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
but I think this reflects a very bad attitude: that just as long as the US is incrementally less bad than Saddam, its ok.

It's not "ok", but it is "better".

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It's not "ok", but it is "better".

Whilst I respect your viewpoint, I think it is a dangerous stance to take. IMHO, it gives governments the go ahead to embark on military missions in countries 'just as long as they don't kill as many people as the other guys did'.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It's not "ok", but it is "better".

from whose perspective?

If you have had one tyrant overthrown, but then the occupier starts surrounding your villages in razorwire and firing first, asking questions later, do you think "better" would be the assessment, or "crap, not again!".

[christ]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yes, 7000 is better in comparison to 61000.

Yes, but it is only 7,000 so far. The US are still in power. If you keep plugging away, you'll get there.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
[B]Simple question:

Who was president when these massacres occured? What did that president do about it?

This 'argument' makes no sense to me. On the one hand, you're suggesting the US president should have 'done something about it' after these massacres.

Yet on the other hand (as happens DIRECTLY after your post) the left's continued argument remains that when the US actually 'does something about' a scumbag like Saddam and *gasp* people actually get killed in the process *double gasp!* then the US is supposed to be held just as guilty as Saddam in the killing of people, despite the numbers, and despite the reasons.

In that light, what would you have had the US ‘do’ in 1988 or 1991? Heaven forbid, if a single drop of blood was shed in the course of that 'doing something' all we'd hear afterwards is that resulting casualties are somehow the moral equivalent to Saddam's own wanton butchery.

It's the classic 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario in PERFECT illustration here.

Let's face it- the will of the ENTIRE world was/is SOFT when it comes to opposing with force a dictator's slaughter of his own citizens, so long as it's done within his own borders, to what's considered 'his own people'. Virtually any slaughter, any genocide is routinely excused by all nations as: "Oh well, it's within their sovereign territory, therefore no one else’s business...."

That's one of the main arguments used against the Iraq war now, and it would have been used against any action in 1988, or 1991 as well.

There's no need to single out just the US, or the US president for this attitude. The attitude of: "Do whatever you want, whenever, just do it on the CORRECT side of an invisible line called a border" was granted to Saddam, and it still holds true for Kim il and the like.

[lil'babykitten]

For the first time in many years, the inspections were working. Blix said it himself. But nooo, we still had to go to War. See, you can't secure oil contracts through diplomacy.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
.......

The usual false dichotomy between invasion and doing "nothing".

Since I know we probably won't agree on what we might have done in 1988, perhaps we can simply agree that Reagan torpedoing the Prevention of Genocide Act doesn't fall into the "something good" category. And least the Senate attempted to do "something".

And we probably won't agree on what should have been done in 1991, but perahps allowing Saddam's defeated army to cross US military lines in order to put down the Shia rebellion wasn't a good idea. In fact, we might be suffering some of the backlash for this right now.

To Bush I's credit, he did at least institute the no-fly zones which eventually led to substantial improvements for the norther Kurds. Of course, that happened after the massacre, but it was at least "something" rather than Reagan's nothing.

Of course, we can also talk about Clinton's nothing when Turkey massacred Kurds in 2000. In fact, they used weapons and equipment sold to them by the US.

So while we might disagree on what could have been, I would at least hope you'd condemn the horrible mistakes that were made by the previous 3 presidents. At least now you'll have the cover of 20/20 hindsight.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Well you've conveniently skirted the actual question thunderous.

What was the ACTUAL 'something' that (IYO) Bush should have done?

Why wouldn't that 'something' be met with the same 'moral equivalence' non-arguments that we see now?

I'd particularly be interested in your idea of what should have been done that would have resulted in no bloodshed.
.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If you adopt the tactics of your enemy, you become your enemy.

no, you don't. Just b/c the enemy uses tactics that you later adopt doesn't make you into the enemy. That's a fallacious argument.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Well you've conveniently skirted the actual question thunderous.

What was the ACTUAL 'something' that (IYO) Bush should have done?

Why wouldn't that 'something' be met with the same 'moral equivalence' non-arguments that we see now?

I'd particularly be interested in your idea of what should have been done that would have resulted in no bloodshed.
.

Well, first of all, the "no bloodshed" rule isn't mine.

Secondly, I didn't make any "moral equivalence" arguments. I think they're stupid. The status quo wasn't any more humanitarian than invading, but that doesn't make the invasion "humanitarian".

As for what should have happened? We've covered that ground a lot before. I wouldn't have sold them weapons and technology in the 80's. I wouldn't have taken them off the sponsors of terrorism list. I wouldn't have supported them in the Iran war. I wouldn't have allowed the 1991 uprisings to be crushed by Saddam's defeated army under the passive watch of the victorious coalition forces. I wouldn't have structured the Sanctions to strengthen Saddam's grip rather than weaken it.

Had all of those tremendously hideous things NOT been done, I don't think it is at all far-fetched to expect to have seen Saddam's regime go the way of most brutal regimes. We could have certainly strengthened opposition forces all along the way.

Hell, we might even have done something positively radical and suggested that in return for US military hardware and training, that Saddam refrain from genocide. Just as a teeny tiny favor to us. How's that for whacked-out Liberal Radicalism?

We've gone in circles on this before. You don't have to agree on what was possible, but I do find it intellectually dishonest to pretend nothing was possible. And I find it utterly ghastly that even with the benefit of 20 years of hindsight, people are still too dogmatic and partisan to finally admit that we were on the wrong side of way too many massacres in Iraq.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
no, you don't. Just b/c the enemy uses tactics that you later adopt doesn't make you into the enemy. That's a fallacious argument.

Well, it certainly doesn't make you any better than your enemy.

[thunderous_funker]

The US should invade Rwanda because of the 1994 we failed to stop.

At least that would be doing something.

Oh yeah, and East Timor. Kissinger and Suharto didn't kill them all in 1975 so we'd better be humanitarian and begin the Shock & Awe campaign. Would you want us to simply do nothing?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

whoops- double post.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

As for what should have happened? We've covered that ground a lot before. I wouldn't have sold them weapons and technology in the 80's. I wouldn't have taken them off the sponsors of terrorism list. I wouldn't have supported them in the Iran war. I wouldn't have allowed the 1991 uprisings to be crushed by Saddam's defeated army under the passive watch of the victorious coalition forces. I wouldn't have structured the Sanctions to strengthen Saddam's grip rather than weaken it.

We're in total agreement here- I wouldn't have done all those things either. But then, this was part of my point about not singling out the US and US President. The above can be said for virtually ALL nations. Most right up until the present year, not just 1988-1991.

Doesn't make it right for us- but doesn't grant anyone else any 'moral' high ground either.

Ultimately, Saddam was responsible for his actions however, not anyone else. Yeah, it sucks that coalition forces in ’91 has to stand down and watch what happens when you don’t take out a tyrant like Saddam when you have the chance. But let’s face it- talk about Monday morning quarterbacking. The will of the world, then as now, wasn’t for the removal of Saddam. It’s a classic example of the ‘inside your own borders’ rule I keep mentioning. He KNEW damned well he could get away with slaughter inside his own nation- and he did.

As I've said before, I'm at least glad, that though my nation too, was in bed with Saddam for a time along with everyone else, my nation is the one that got OUT of bed with him, and took his ass out FOR REAL. Even when it wasn't 'cool' with everyone else who were STILL enjoying cozy little slumber parties with him right up to the present year.

Had all of those tremendously hideous things NOT been done, I don't think it is at all far-fetched to expect to have seen Saddam's regime go the way of most brutal regimes. We could have certainly strengthened opposition forces all along the way.

Yet all those things were done, and Saddam's regime HAS gone the way of… (well I won’t say most brutal regimes, as most are actually excused as long as they play by the ‘inside the line’ rule, but at I’ll just leave it at: it’s gone.)

I remain less believing than you, that the way to do it was EVER going to be accomplished any other way than with force, and see no evidence that anyone else (especially those that not only looked blindly upon the status quo, but themselves helped FOSTER and CREATE the status quo) had any bright ideas that would have done anything towards removing Saddam and ending his regime.

Hell, we might even have done something positively radical and suggested that in return for US military hardware and training, that Saddam refrain from genocide. Just as a teeny tiny favor to us. How's that for whacked-out Liberal Radicalism?

We did enough shady dealing with Saddam. How's taking him out FOR REAL, rather than just speculate on all the ways it MIGHT have been done in 'let's pretend' fashion for whacked-out Rightwing Radicalism?

I doubt *very* seriously that any Western power dealing with Saddam- US, French, German, etc- ever directly said: "Here you are, now go ahead and use these weapons to kill your own people- just remember the 'keep it in your own backyard' rule!"

Saddam always put on a good show for the West about being a ‘good boy’ and playing nice, and everyone seems to have winked and nodded for him.

Under your above ‘liberal radical’ proposal, I firmly believe we’d have made YET ANOTHER bullcrap one-sided 'peace' with him, made him promise to be a 'good boy' and play nice…and he'd have continued to do whatever the hell he wanted, killed whomever, whenever, with whatever equipment available.

Most of the world (yes, including the US) would have looked the other way, so long as he played by the 'keep it inside the imaginary line' rule.

I happen to believe you don’t take out a Saddam or a Jeffrey Dahmer, or a Hitler, by making deals with them. I don’t believe you ‘contain’ the true nature of such people (whether they’re tremendously powerful ‘leaders’ that run entire nations, or just poor slobs that murder people along back roads) by cutting deals and naively making them promise to ‘play nice’.

And I find it utterly ghastly that even with the benefit of 20 years of hindsight, people are still too dogmatic and partisan to finally admit that we were on the wrong side of way too many massacres in Iraq.

Just as I ...find it utterly ghastly that even with the benefit of 20 years of hindsight, people are still too dogmatic and partisan to finally admit that THEY TOO were on the wrong side of way too many massacres in Iraq, and that through hopelessly naïve policies, they would have allowed Saddam the chance to commit even MORE.

[thunderous_funker]

No excuses for Franch, Germany or Russia. We agree on that.

However, even in 2002 our options were not limited to invasion/occupation or nothing. Not hardly.

Despite the fact that we have starved all of Saddam's natural domestic opposition to death with the sadistic sanctions, he was still functionally reduced to being the Mayor of Bagdad.

The Kurds finally had self-autonomy and were doing surprisingly well despite some ongoing tensions between the 2 Kurdish regions and the usual crap with Turkey and Iran.

The Shia were still doing poorly because it was still easy for Saddam to use the secret police and intelligence groups to sniff out "undesireables" even with the no-fly zones being enforced.

Iraq trembled on the verge of being a failed state. Its previous bluster and bravado almost all smothered by a new crippling inspection regime. Even the moments of Iraqi flair up over controversial missles, U2 flyover, palaces, etc were bowled over by the strength of the international solidarity of UNSC 1441 backed by the credible threat of force (which I wholeheartedly supported).

And yet we are still hearing this total BS about our "humanitarian" justification for war.

There were no genocides in 2002. There were no chemical weapons being used on Iraqis or Iranians in 2002. And I dare say the number of political prisoners and victims of torture in Iraq in 2002 probably compare favorably to conditions in Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Columbia, Chechnya, and of course, China.

Claiming humanitarian intervention in Iraq 2002 is akin to announcing our intentions of invading Rwanda now because of 1994 or East Timor 1975. Our chances to answer that call had passed us long long ago.

And I'm not the only one who realizes this. The smart people in the Bush administration certainly realized it. In fact, Wolfowitz was rather candid in his admissions that they felt a humanitarian intervention was the weakest possible argument. After all, if Americans hadn't cared enough to do something about it when it was actually happening, they probably won't back such an operation now.

They invaded because they felt it was in our interests. Period. That includes Energy security, supporting Israel, putting the fear of G-D into Syria, Egypt, Iran and Saudia Arabia, and our economic interests. After that, there is the Domino Theory, but that counts as more of a hopeful afterthought rather than a primary interest.

The "humanitarian" argument was only tacked on as a politically calculated move to entice those that would be naturally hesitant about all of the above. It would also serve as a nice club to beat Lefties with. I suspect Karl Rove came up with it. Its got his fingerprints all over it.

So again. Whether you believe it was necessary or not, it still wasn't "humanitarian". War never is. Necessity doesn't make it moral.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
They invaded because they felt it was in our interests. Period.

Well of course. Who doubts that?

Yet all this steadfastly denying by many that there were/are humanitarian consequences of the removal of Saddam, or the insistence that Bush never outlined such pre-war (just as Clinton and Congress did before him) is just plain goofy.

I have to ask, where does the idea that the goal of liberating Iraqi citizens from Saddam's tyranny originating in the GW Bush administration come from anyway?

The Liberation of Iraq is merely a continuation of stated US policy which (as has been pointed out before) began in earnest around 1998 when the US seems to have awoken from the fog, and officially cited the clear reasons for Saddam's removal. Bush has merely continued that policy, with considerably more teeth (such as full use of the US military) than popping off a few cruise missiles and wagging fingers did before.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

Claiming humanitarian intervention in Iraq 2002 is akin to announcing our intentions of invading Rwanda now because of 1994 or East Timor 1975. Our chances to answer that call had passed us long long ago.

So there's a statute of limitations of some kind on genocide? Wow, that's news. Meanwhile, some average schmuck can and will be hunted down to the very end of his life for murdering a single person. But as long as someone runs an entire nation and sticks to the 'keep it on the right side of a line' rule (and actually Saddam didn't even do that) one can OPENLY kill as many people AS THEY WISH, with no expectation of any kind of justice served EVER. Nice. VERY humanitarian indeed.

The Rwanda argument makes no sense, as no one has shown Rwanda to be in the same sort of violation of previous UN sanctions, that conflict wasn't any responcibility of the US, nor was Rwanda the same sort of terror-sponsoring threat as Iraq.

So again. Whether you believe it was necessary or not, it still wasn't "humanitarian". War never is. Necessity doesn't make it moral.

Neither is inaction and outright collaboration. Oh wait, excuse me, forgot to use the PC terms: Inaction disguised as 'diplomacy' and collaboration that's just brushed under the rug and/or outright denied.