Saddam's people shredder

James S

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 27, 2002
Messages
5,078
Location
on an island surrounded by reality
Saddam\'s people shredder

More information for folks that might not think that ousting Saddam is a good idea...

See men shredded, then say you don't back war By Ann Clwyd


I simply can't quote very much of it here. Even it's glossing over the details are too horrible to repeat. But here is some non-graphic text:

[ QUOTE ]

Many Iraqis wonder why the world applauded the military intervention that eventually rescued the Cambodians from Pol Pot and the Ugandans from Idi Amin when these took place without UN help. They ask why the world has ignored the crimes against them?

All these crimes have been recorded in detail by the UN, the US, Kuwaiti, British, Iranian and other Governments and groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Indict. Yet the Security Council has failed to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq because of opposition from France, China and Russia. As a result, no Iraqi official has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century.


[/ QUOTE ]
 

Lux Luthor

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 10, 2000
Messages
1,944
Location
Connecticut
Re: Saddam\'s people shredder

I heard on the radio earlier about the atrocities described in that article. They mentioned a group called "Indict Saddam" that researches the validity of these claims.

A Google search of this term brought up a number of groups devoted to this effort, so I'm not sure which one they meant.
 

Sigman

* The Arctic Moderator *
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
10,124
Location
"The 49th State"
Re: Saddam\'s people shredder

It's a sad sin against everything that these atrocities occur at all anywhere. They are indeed happening elsewhere in this world and it's another sad fact that it sometimes takes "something else" (oil perhaps) to make it "worthwhile" to go in and stop it! You can't count on the U.N. backing up anything...they just pass paper!

Thanks for that link James!
 

tkl

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
2,332
Location
Tx
Re: Saddam\'s people shredder

i can understand the hollywierd crowd and their thinly vieled attempt to bash bush by protesting the war, they're pampered idiots.

but what of the crowd here at cpf that seem intelligent, where is your anti war and bush rhetoric now? how can you dispute this?
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
Re: Saddam\'s people shredder

tkl... let's not get things riled up. It's not time for that now. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 

Brotherscrim

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
247
Location
USA
Re: Saddam\'s people shredder

[ QUOTE ]
Sigman said:
It's a sad sin against everything that these atrocities occur at all anywhere. They are indeed happening elsewhere in this world and it's another sad fact that it sometimes takes "something else" (oil perhaps) to make it "worthwhile" to go in and stop it!

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's the rub: most of the terrible things in this world can be remedied...if somebody thinks it's worthwhile.

On another site I frequent, we were discussing vegetarianism. During the discussion, someone said that it's a shame that we feed grain to livestock when that grain could feed the hungry quite easily. I responded by telling them that a grain shortage isn't why there are hungry people. In the U.S., we burn surplus grain quite often. The simple fact is that hungry people exist because there is no profit in feeding them.

It's the same with human rights violations and the like - we ("we" being other nations capable of helping) get involved when either doing something benefits us, or doing nothing begins to cause us problems. It is rare indeed when a western country gets involved on solely moral grounds.
 

pedalinbob

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 7, 2002
Messages
2,281
Location
Michigan
Re: Saddam\'s people shredder

there may be truth in your words.

however, i would like to point out that it is not our (US) government's job to feed poor countries.

if we want to feed the poor, we (the public) can contribute to a charity, start our own charity, go to the country and help out, etc.

people assume that because our government doesnt help another country, our government is automatically mean, selfish or stingy.

i refute this by stating that this is not the government's role.

Bob
 

Brotherscrim

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
247
Location
USA
Re: Saddam\'s people shredder

Actually, I agree with you that it isn't always a county's job to feed the hungry or undo every wrong in this world.

This, I believe, is where the UN's dissent comes in. The fact that Hussein's regime is an oppressive and cruel one has historically failed to stir the UN into action. Only when Kuwait (a small country that's a big oil producer and keeps it's nose clean as far as the West is concerned) was invaded did they do anything.

And now, with Bush leading the charge to war with Iraq again, several UN nations look at the atrocities like those described in the above article with the same indifference they are almost always met with.

Long story short: Saddam isn't rocking the economic boat hard enough for many people to care. The novel part of the situation is America does appear to care, and plans on doing something about it. Now, exactly why America (or, if you will, the Bush Admin.) cares is open to interpretation.
 

pedalinbob

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 7, 2002
Messages
2,281
Location
Michigan
Re: Saddam\'s people shredder

VERY well stated!

are you peeking into my brain? lotta cobwebs in there...

i certainly agree that part of the reason for our interventions was due to the value of the region to us: oil. when the middle east sits on 60% of the world's oil supply, of course we are going to try to keep the place stable--through feeding people, war, whatever.

while i dont believe it is all about oil, it probably plays a part, overall. there are so many potential motives...and i dont think they are are always altruistic in nature...but i dont think the US is evil, either...

yeah...there are so many ways to interpret current events, my head starts spinning.

which can feel kinda good, in a dizzy and nauseating way...

take care,
Bob
 

Brotherscrim

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
247
Location
USA
Re: Saddam\'s people shredder

I think the problem many people have with this situation (me included) is that we aren't sure what the heck this is all about.

I don't think it's about oil. That's an easy thing for people to point the finger at, which is why it gets so much "airplay" these days.

I doubt it's about "freedom" either, as the US has always been complacent with (or right-out supported, Iraq included)tyrannies as long as they don't rock the boat.

Terrorism? I'm not so sure. What little the Bush Admin. has said about Iraq's support of or alegiance with Al Qaeda has been largely rhetoric. As for Hussein giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and the like - I don't see how that's relevant, as we're not Israel. Any other support Iraq gives terrorists, real or alleged, is nothing that many other countries don't do, and we haven't been making these kinds of moves on them.

Maybe it's because Iraq won't comply with UN resolutions? I think this is perhaps the most absurd. If we won't wait for the UN to agree to stop him, why would we use their system of statecraft as the impetous for war?

Honestly, though I think getting rid of Saddam is the right thing to do ultimately, I can't figure out what the administration's motives are for doing it.
 

agent8698

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
99
Location
Tacoma, WA
Re: Saddam\'s people shredder

Brotherscrim, here's how I see it: president Bush's most important job is to protect Americans from harm. September 11th was a wake-up call: the planes were used as WMDs, by terrorists who hate America. The wake-up was this: we can no longer afford to wait for the next September 11th-style attack, and then respond to it. Instead, we must pro-actively hunt down and defeat any entity or group that meets the following 3 criteria, even if that entity has not attacked America:
1. hates America,
2. supports terrorism, and
3. strives to develop WMDs.
Iraq's regime meets all three of those criteria. Maybe Saddam would never use WMDs against America, we don't know. Unfortunately for him, because of our new, stricter standard for national security, WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT HE MIGHT USE THEM AGAINST AMERICA, OR THAT HE MIGHT ASSIST OTHER TERRORISTS IN OBTAINING WMDs, TO BE USED AGAINST AMERICA. So that's what's new: no smoking gun is needed and we will not passively wait around for the next 'WMD attack' on America.

Max
 

Brotherscrim

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
247
Location
USA
Re: Saddam\'s people shredder

Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for an adequate excuse for going to war with Iraq. Keeping any middle-eastern nation from developing nuclear weapons (leading to a new cold war that the West might not actually win this time, IMHO) is reason enough.

What bugs me is that in an effort to gain the support of other nations, the Bush Administration has given so many different reasons for military action (both plausible and...um...otherwise) that I can't figure out which one(s) are the real thing.

I think the right way to go about this would have been to pick one of the myriad justifications given, and stick to it. Throwing out all these different reasons, several which don't pass the smell-test, just clouds the issue.

On the subject of your criteria, I honestly hope that doesn't become standard procedure for the US. A strategy like that is bound to create more enemies, not less.
 
Top