Saddam Hussein

[Stumpy Tim]

I actually believe the war is justified. The full story isn't out yet, but for the majority of Iraqi's their life is already better than it was - it's places like Basra & Baghdad where it's not as secure, but other things are much better.

Unfortunately the news tells the horror stories not the beneficial stuff.

It's a shame GG is the only proponent of the war, as it appears he couldn't win an argument against a mute

 

[chemical brother]

Ok Tim, make a case for the war being justified. I admit I don't think the war was justified but I am open to discussion, I may be ill-informed and I'm interested to hear why it may have been.

xx

 

[Lord Cornwallis]

If found guilty by his own people, it's death by flip flop surely?
Gareth, sorry mate, but this capture of SH justifies f*** all.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

I wouldn't even attempt to justify the war in terms of WMD. For me that was never the issue, just a convenient way to try & convince the public. Personally I am glad we did what we did on human rights grounds. Saddam killed & tortured millions of people. It is estimated that he killed at least 10 times more people than died in the horrenduous Rhwanda conflict. For me, getting rid of such a leader is justification enough.

I understand why people don't agree with the war, because the reasons given were wrong. Whatever reason Bush wanted to go to war (be it oil, to finish his Dad's job etc) I don't care. I'm glad that we got rid of such a

For those who say, why don't we get rid of other tyrants I just say getting rid of one is better than getting rid of none. And attacking other Extremist regimes like Saudi would cause far more problems globally. Saddam was an evil dictator & removing him wouldn't cause significant global ripples. Attacking the Saudi's would be an absolute nightmare, and could cause WW3.

As I say, to come out with the arrogant crap GG did (I'm right you're wrong) is stupid. I can see the arguments for both, but my personal opinion is that the world & the Iraq is a better place without Saddam & his cronies

 

[chemical brother]

Without a doubt, Iraq is a better place without Hussein's regime. The western world is arguably less safe or no better off.

Doesn't it bother you though, Tim, that there are other regimes as bad in the world that the US will do nothing about because it is not as profitable to them (in other words, 'we' would not have launched such attacks were it not for oil, contracts etc?)

Or that the world provided Saddam with the weapons with which he gassed the kurds, committed atrocities against his own people and killed soldiers fighting in this war?

That Bush and Blair have also committed war crimes and human rights atrocities themselves both in attacking Iraq and in various ohter activities they have embarked upon since they came to power?

I really, really want to carry on with this but my desire to carry on getting hammered is too great. Sorry.

xx

 

[Stumpy Tim]

Without a doubt, Iraq is a better place without Hussein's regime. The western world is arguably less safe or no better off.

Doesn't it bother you though, Tim, that there are other regimes as bad in the world that the US will do nothing about because it is not as profitable to them (in other words, 'we' would not have launched such attacks were it not for oil, contracts etc?)

Or that the world provided Saddam with the weapons with which he gassed the kurds, committed atrocities against his own people and killed soldiers fighting in this war?

That Bush and Blair have also committed war crimes and human rights atrocities themselves both in attacking Iraq and in various ohter activities they have embarked upon since they came to power?

I really, really want to carry on with this but my desire to carry on getting hammered is too great. Sorry.

xx

Yes - that all does bother me. Getting rid of Saddam is one issue, how we went about it is another issue IMHO

 

[NMH]

It can be argued that ANY overthrowing of ANY evil dictator is a good thing, and so this may be considered toward Saddam.

However, there are others, have been others (Pinochet for a quick example) who regard lives as dispensible. I have to wonder though, if the manoevering of foreign policies and politics that has been done by 'our side' is any better, when you look at all the Iraqi minnions who got splattered in the sand by hi-tech weapons (of mass destruction) in '91 ?

The Republicans made a HECK of a fuss when Democrat Clinton was sending troops into the humanitarian fray in Yugoslavia - but it's all justifiable to attack a supposed threat like Iraq and decide what is good for them and what isn't. The 'weapons of mass destruction', as are constantly being documented, have not been found by Kofi Annan or George W.
Now many sit and calmly justify the whole affair and squirm in not-a-little doubt, completely unable to come up with specific evidence to corroborate the concept that it was worthwhile sending so many innocent civilians and military kids to their deaths to take control over one small country.

Weigh these up;
Do loads of business with China/villify and embargo Cuba.
Sell Iraq weapons and ignore as Saddam (arms customer) kills Kurds/invade, kill resistance, and chastise Iraq for having weapons .
Invade Iraq/make nice with North Korea.
Focus on one well-known regime/ignore many others, as bad or worse.

Look people, there ARE people starving or maimed or bullied or homeless or threatened or unsafe all over the World. We are seeing our concerns forced and foisted, while so many others are ignored .

Here's a little gem for ya; The US tax department held money that was made by George Harrison and others from the Bangla Desh concert and albums, for several years. In that time, 11 million people died in Bangla Desh - many of whom could have been helped or saved. By the time it actually got dispensed, the value of the money had also dropped. Not to suggest that the charity didn't eventually do some good for those poor souls, but in a free democracy the beaurocracy should be accounted to have allowed the deaths of millions - and in the name of finance! Hitler would turn green in envy for fuxsake!! He would salute the IRS for their ability to lighten the world of living people!!

Let us not be astounded by the ability of beaurocracy, empires and imperial power to kill and influence foreign deaths, in the name of good and righteousness.

Yes Saddam was a pratt, yes it's good to see the back of him, but no it's not good to manipulate foreign regimes on a whim, and do arms deals with them as long as it fills our coffers.

 

[ripper]

That Bush and Blair have also committed war crimes and human rights atrocities themselves both in attacking Iraq and in various ohter activities they have embarked upon since they came to power?

You could argue that GWB has some dubious activities going on in Camp X-ray, but what are Blairs other human rights atrocities ?

Just curious.

 

[DTES]

what are Blairs other human rights atrocities ?

Just curious.

I'm not a great fan of Cherie Blair getting restraining orders on convicted paedophiles overturned, on the grounds that it "was against their human rights". But then, that's a completely seperate issue...

 

[Dandyman]

The trial should be interesting.

Q. So, Mr H what happened after you used chemical weapons on the Iranians ?

A. Well, that nice Donny Rumsfield came round for tea...

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Stumpy

Thanks for your kind words yet again.

Kind regards.

Gareth

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

What is your fecking problem ?. Shall we discuss it one day ?.

 

[attila]

We Finally Got Our Frankenstein... and He Was In a Spider Hole! -- by Michael Moore

Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get.

America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops.

But then he screwed up. He invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait and, in doing so, did the worst thing imaginable -- he threatened an even BETTER friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves. The Bushes and the Saudi royal family were and are close business partners, and Saddam, back in 1990, committed a royal blunder by getting a little too close to their wealthy holdings. Things went downhill for Saddam from there.

But it wasn't always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally. We supported his regime. It wasnt the first time we had helped a murderer. We liked playing Dr. Frankenstein. We created a lot of monsters -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile -- and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!

We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report):
* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

And here are some of the American corporations who helped to prop Saddam up by doing business with him: AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM (for a full list of companies and descriptions of how they helped Saddam, go here <http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/23/news-crogan.php> ).

We were so cozy with dear old Saddam that we decided to feed him satellite images so he could locate where the Iranian troops were. We pretty much knew how he would use the information, and sure enough, as soon as we sent him the spy photos, he gassed those troops. And we kept quiet. Because he was our friend, and the Iranians were the "enemy." A year after he first gassed the Iranians, we reestablished full diplomatic relations with him!

Later he gassed his own people, the Kurds. You would think that would force us to disassociate ourselves from him. Congress tried to impose economic sanctions on Saddam, but the Reagan White House quickly rejected that idea -- they wouldnt let anything derail their good buddy Saddam. We had a virtual love fest with this Frankenstein whom we (in part) created.

And, just like the mythical Frankenstein, Saddam eventually spun out of control. He would no longer do what he was told by his master. Saddam had to be caught. And now that he has been brought back from the wilderness, perhaps he will have something to say about his creators. Maybe we can learn something... interesting. Maybe Don Rumsfeld could smile and shake Saddam's hand again. Just like he did when he went to see him in 1983 (see the photo here <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/> ).

Maybe we never would have been in the situation we're in if Rumsfeld, Bush, Sr., and company hadn't been so excited back in the 80s about their friendly monster in the desert.

Meanwhile, anybody know where the guy is who killed 3,000 people on 9/11? Our other Frankenstein?? Maybe he's in a mouse hole.

So many of our little monsters, so little time before the next election.

Stay strong, Democratic candidates. Quit sounding like a bunch of wusses. These bastards sent us to war on a lie, the killing will not stop, the Arab world hates us with a passion, and we will pay for this out of our pockets for years to come. Nothing that happened today (or in the past 9 months) has made us ONE BIT safer in our post-9/11 world. Saddam was never a threat to our national security.

Only our desire to play Dr. Frankenstein dooms us all.


Yours,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com <http://www.michaelmoore.com/>

 

[US Seagull]

I don't think anybody can not be overjoyed at the removal of Saddam Hussein or doubt that it really is good news for the Iraqi people. The issue is whether the ends justifies the means.
The fact is that the stated reason for the war was that Saddam was an imminent threat to world security and had (and was developing) WMD. So far this appears to be completely false. It was also suggested that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11 and had links with Bin Laden. To date, no evidence for that has been unearthed. So it appears that the people of world were either lied to or the intellegence recieved by the Bush adminstration was woefully inadequate (who would have guessed that it would be Bush's intellegence that would get him into trouble!).
If the reason for the war had been to remove Saddam and bring democracy then that should have been stated at the start so that the world could judge whether the action was necessary.
There are many other dangeous and oppressive regimes in the world and in an ideal world we'd be able to go and kick all of their asses (of course, in an ideal world they wouldn't have existed in the first place). The problem with this kind of action is that it is meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations so we have to question what gives us the right to do this? We have assumed that the Iraqi people wanted this and that gave us the right, and it's probably a fair assumption, but where do we draw the line? If we look at all the other dangerous regimes around the world, who's going to decide which ones are bad enough that we should deal with them? Not the U.N. apparently! How do we decide what people who can't speak for themselves really want in their country?
In the run up to WWII Hitler used similar arguments about oppressed German speaking people to justify annexing Austria, demanding the ceding of part of Czechoslovakia (and eventually invading the rest) and invading Poland. I'm not trying to compare Bush to Hitler here, I'm just trying to illustrate that if we are allowed to invade any country under some dubious context of "Freeing the Oppressed" there is no telling where it will end.

 

[NMH]

It's also worth noting that not all Iraqis hated Saddam, and apparently loads like him still and are prepared to die for his regime. Does anyone think this 'crusade' was popular with all Iraq?

The fact that the allies are not despised universally in the Arab World, and Hussein wasn't defended vehemently is that he used to deal with the infidel and attacked his Arab neighbours. They must see this as a lesson for him and his and for dabbling too closely with the US in the past.

Strangely, Saudi is the snake in the grass that the US are prepared to kow-tow to endlessly. Most of the 9/11 hi-jackers were from there, Bin Laden is Saudi. We must 'need' to do business with them pretty badly.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

What is your fecking problem ?. Shall we discuss it one day ?.

what do you mean yet again? I haven't had an argument with you for over a year! I think you're looking for criticisms from me - even when I was laughing at your ineptidude at gambling tips you took it the wrong way.

I just think your arrogance with your responses in this thread does nothing for people who agree with you. Bit difficult to talk to you about it though for 3 reasons:

1. Time & Distance differences
2. I don't care
3. I would probably fall asleep

 

[Wozza]

> Later he gassed his own people, the Kurds.

Britain gassed Kurds too.

Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. “Iraq: From Sumer to Saddam”...

Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail “the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.”

Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): “I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.” Henry Wilson shared Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause “only discomfort or illness, but not death” to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and “kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.”

Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a “scientific expedient,” should not be prevented “by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly”. In the event, gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect” though gas shells were not dropped from aircraft because of practical difficulties [.....]

Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains commented, seventy years after the event: “They were bombing here in the Kaniya Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times a day.” Wing Commander Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often “one would get a signal that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed...”, the RAF pilots being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein, Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were doing something they ought not be doing then you shot them.”

Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: “If the Kurds hadn't learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns. “

Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that “The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.” It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up a list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and air-to-ground missiles:

Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock] man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were first used in Kurdistan.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Stumpy - I don't know exactly what I have done to piss you off so much especially after all the good work we did together with the REMF match but I am fecking pissed off with your attitude to just about every post I ever do.

I have disagreements with people on here but you are the only one who writes personal insults, I don't know what your problem is but when your back in the UK give us a call.

I do not come on NSC to be insulted as there enough aggro in life anyway.

 

[DTES]

The trial should be interesting.

Q. So, Mr H what happened after you used chemical weapons on the Iranians ?

A. Well, that nice Donny Rumsfield came round for tea...

Yes, that is why I must admit defeat on the trial in Iraq point. If he were tried in an international court he would give evidence against the US (and UK).

Which is crap, because finding a fair trial for him in Iraq could be difficult.

 

[NMH]

Who is going to try him anyway? The court would have to be made up of random Iraqis, not ones that the US pick !
A random group of Iraqis might be made up of several Saddam supporters - then the west would be crying "foul".

Allied troops also have to be out of that country before they make a democratic governing body - otherwise they can only be called an occupied country that is manipulated by the West, not good grounds for starting any new and free regime.