NationStates Jolt Archive

Kurds killed by Saddam, 1987-1988: 50,000 to 100,000

Muslims Killed in Iraq/Iran War: One million
-Iranians Killed by Iraqi Chemical Weapons (1983-1988): 5,000

Kuwaitis Killed in 1990 Invasion: 1,000

Iraqi Civilians Killed by Saddam’s Forces in 1991 Uprising: 30,000-60,000

Totals: 1,081,000 to 1,161,000

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/18/us.iraq.tensions/

How many have been killed since march 2003?

According to Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm) at least 8,865 and at most 10,715. I believe this includes iraqis killed by americans and fellow iraqis.

Even though I regret civilians have to die, civilians are not shot intentionally by the coalition. Besides, our tactics are also designed to minimize loss of life, even military. Out of Hussein's regular military force of 400,000, only about 20,000 died. Normally, in an invasion like that, the opposing army would be completely obliterated. They weren't. The coalition did everything in its power to give them a chance to surrrender first.

According to Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm) at least 8,865 and at most 10,715. I believe this includes iraqis killed by americans and fellow iraqis.
And I believe they are regarded as having the highest count of anyone.

What is with that word being thrown around today?

"gen·o·cide n.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."


Which of those do you qualify as "Genocide"?


The war with Iran? That was territorial - not ethnic.

The invasion of Kuwait? That was financial?

Putting down the uprisings? EVERY government will do that if needed.

And lets not forget, Saddam didn;t just wake up on morning and say "Hey! Lets go kill some Kurds!" That also was inresponse to an uprising.

HE put it down hard. HE used some nasty weapons. But the Turks put down their Kurdish uprising harshly as well - and yet they are our allies.

He was a nasty prick of a dictator. But he never, ever attempted to wipe out a people as the term genocide implies.




-Z-

Lets call it murder then.

Lets not. Except for those killed domestically for political reaons besides putting down uprisings.

Or do you accuse the US / UK of murder of those civilians killed in their invasion?

-Z-

Lets call it murder then.

If you categorise all those casualties listed in the 2000 report as murder, then surely any head of state is guilty of murder if even a single soldier of their armed forces dies during wartime, no?

What is with that word being thrown around today?

"gen·o·cide n.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."


Which of those do you qualify as "Genocide"?


The war with Iraq? That was territorial - not ethnic.

The invasion of Kuwait? That was financial?

Putting down the uprisings? EVERY government will do that if needed.

And lets not forget, Saddam didn;t just wake up on morning and say "Hey! Lets go kill some Kurds!" That also was inresponse to an uprising.

HE put it down hard. HE used some nasty weapons. But the Turks put down their Kurdish uprising harshly as well - and yet they are our allies.

He was a nasty prick of a dictator. But he never, ever attempted to wipe out a people as the term genocide implies.




-Z-
Actually, he did want to pursue genocide with the Kurds even further. He just wanted to wait until he was stronger, to avoid reprisals.
And I just wanna say that Kuwait was based on a financial pretext. However, he was really planning on building a new Abbasid Empire, starting with a rich, weak neighbor, Kuwait. That's why he attacked Saudi Arabia. And Sudan did offer to station Iraqi troops there to attack Egypt and the Middle East from the Red Sea. They are even thought to still have some leftover scud missles.

Except for those killed domestically for political reaons besides putting down uprisings.

Presumably if those killings were carried out as business as usual by the state, then they are not murder - no more so than those that face the death penalty in the USA or elsewhere. The killings may be immoral and definitetly objectionable, but if they were carried out in accordance with the laws* of Iraq which was recognised by other nations at that time as a sovereign state, then they are not murder.


*They may well not have been.

I don't think it matters what you label it really. It's unacceptable, plain and simple.

I don't think it matters what you label it really. It's unacceptable, plain and simple.

Definitely: but if there are plans to bring Saddam Hussain to trial, then it becomes important. (We will gloss over the fact that he can claim immunity from prosecution as a head of state for the moment.)

Except for those killed domestically for political reaons besides putting down uprisings.

Presumably if those killings were carried out as business as usual by the state, then they are not murder - no more so than those that face the death penalty in the USA or elsewhere. The killings may be immoral and definitetly objectionable, but if they were carried out in accordance with the laws* of Iraq which was recognised by other nations at that time as a sovereign state, then they are not murder.


*They may well not have been.

The Nazi's had laws against the jews, the holocast wasn't murder?

Except for those killed domestically for political reaons besides putting down uprisings.

Presumably if those killings were carried out as business as usual by the state, then they are not murder - no more so than those that face the death penalty in the USA or elsewhere. The killings may be immoral and definitetly objectionable, but if they were carried out in accordance with the laws* of Iraq which was recognised by other nations at that time as a sovereign state, then they are not murder.


*They may well not have been.
I think we should just used killed. As has been stated, genocide makes it sound like a large group of people being killed, and murder makes it sound intentional, which I can assure you it's not. So I think killing is best. It's better than the two extremes: either "collateral damage" from the far right, or "murder" from the far left.

Yes, let's quibble over semantics.

Imagine this: Everyone you have every met, everyone you have ever known, is killed. By the orders of a few men. Now, imagine that all of those deaths - acid baths, buried alive in mass graves, shot, what have you - are a drop in the bucket of people killed by the orders of a single family.

Doesn't seem so important what you call it, does it?

I don't think it matters what you label it really. It's unacceptable, plain and simple.

Definitely: but if there are plans to bring Saddam Hussain to trial, then it becomes important. (We will gloss over the fact that he can claim immunity from prosecution as a head of state for the moment.)

Can he claim immunity? On what grounds?

Also, I think you definitely can call Hussein's actions against the Kurds ethnic cleaning, which I believe is what he will be charged with. Targeted attacks, both military and enviromental (he apparently redirected rivers in order to 'drought out' the Kurdish minority) should be more that enough grounds for prosecution. Not that it matters, since he's not going to be tried internationally in all likelyhood. He'll be duly convicted and executed in Iraq, I would think, though it seems backwards to me. The US won't recognize the ICC though I'll wager, nor will they want the UN involved in any kind of prosecution.

Actually, he did want to pursue genocide with the Kurds even further. He just wanted to wait until he was stronger, to avoid reprisals.

On what do you base this theory? Th worst of the attacks on the Kurds occured in 88-9, before the gulf war when he could have exterminated them all without raising a sweat.


And I just wanna say that Kuwait was based on a financial pretext. However, he was really planning on building a new Abbasid Empire, starting with a rich, weak neighbor, Kuwait. That's why he attacked Saudi Arabia. And Sudan did offer to station Iraqi troops there to attack Egypt and the Middle East from the Red Sea. They are even thought to still have some leftover scud missles.

The rich, weak neighbour that bought up his debt and the flooded the oild market to depress prices? Tactics that he asked OPEC repeatedly to put a stop to - but they refused?

After just getting out of the war with Iran - you think he was going to take on Kuwait, Egypt AND Saudia Arabia - two of which are huge US allies?

No way. Hell, he asked permission from the American before going into Kuwait becuase he knew enough not to piss them off.

-Z-

The Nazi's had laws against the jews, the holocast wasn't murder?

I don't know if it was technically: certainly it was abhorrent and unethical, that I am not trying to dispute. Did the killings break the laws of the German State?

What is with that word being thrown around today?

"gen·o·cide n.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."


Which of those do you qualify as "Genocide"?


The war with Iraq? That was territorial - not ethnic.

The invasion of Kuwait? That was financial?

Putting down the uprisings? EVERY government will do that if needed.

And lets not forget, Saddam didn;t just wake up on morning and say "Hey! Lets go kill some Kurds!" That also was inresponse to an uprising.

HE put it down hard. HE used some nasty weapons. But the Turks put down their Kurdish uprising harshly as well - and yet they are our allies.

He was a nasty prick of a dictator. But he never, ever attempted to wipe out a people as the term genocide implies.




-Z-
Actually, he did want to pursue genocide with the Kurds even further. He just wanted to wait until he was stronger, to avoid reprisals.
And I just wanna say that Kuwait was based on a financial pretext. However, he was really planning on building a new Abbasid Empire, starting with a rich, weak neighbor, Kuwait. That's why he attacked Saudi Arabia. And Sudan did offer to station Iraqi troops there to attack Egypt and the Middle East from the Red Sea. They are even thought to still have some leftover scud missles.

Now, that's just one of the most... idiotic things I have ever heard. :lol:

Let's see.

1. He didn't care if you were SUNNI, SHI'ITE, or KURD, or WHATEVER. As long as you didn't go against him, you were fine.

2. Indeed, the invasion of Kuwait was because Kuwait was pumping an extremely large amount of oil, depressing the oil value and therefore, causing Iraq being unable to get enough money to repay debts and rebuild.

3. He never planned to build an Abbassid Empire.

4. Saudi Arabia attacked first.

5. This whole Sudan thing never happened.

6. Let us not forget that Saddam asked the American ambassador about the American response to an invasion of Kuwait and she said it was okay and the US wouldn't do anything to him if he invaded.

HAHAHA Al Anbar, what about the Iraqi Olympic Atheletes, what did they do to him besides loose a game.

In case anyone's wondering, The annual Iraqi causualty rate under US control is 5% of the annual rate while saddam was in power.

Yes, let's quibble over semantics.

Yes, let's seeing as how that is how the fate of Saddam Hussain is probably going to be decided - arguing over semantics in a courtroom. I want to see justice done, and in order for justice to be done, now that the solution applied to the Ceausescus or to Mussolini is no longer an option, it is neccessary that charges are presented in such a way that no hair-splitting or equivocation can result in a mistrial or a chance for a guilty man to escape.

Yes, let's quibble over semantics.

Yes, let's seeing as how that is how the fate of Saddam Hussain is probably going to be decided - arguing over semantics in a courtroom. I want to see justice done, and in order for justice to be done, now that the solution applied to the Ceausescus or to Mussolini is no longer an option, it is neccessary that charges are presented in such a way that no hair-splitting or equivocation can result in a mistrial or a chance for a guilty man to escape.

Well, I wouldn't count on a fair trail Bodies. No matter what happens, Saddam will be duly convicted and executed. Though to be honest, quibbling over semantics really doesn't seem very important. Whether he's executed for a mass genocide instead of a few dozen murders doesn't make him any deader. Lets not kid ourselves, the fate of Hussein is already decided.

If he does get away the Hague's reputation in the Eyes of Americans will be ruined.

What is with that word being thrown around today?

"gen·o·cide n.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."


Which of those do you qualify as "Genocide"?


The war with Iraq? That was territorial - not ethnic.

The invasion of Kuwait? That was financial?

Putting down the uprisings? EVERY government will do that if needed.

And lets not forget, Saddam didn;t just wake up on morning and say "Hey! Lets go kill some Kurds!" That also was inresponse to an uprising.

HE put it down hard. HE used some nasty weapons. But the Turks put down their Kurdish uprising harshly as well - and yet they are our allies.

He was a nasty prick of a dictator. But he never, ever attempted to wipe out a people as the term genocide implies.




-Z-
Actually, he did want to pursue genocide with the Kurds even further. He just wanted to wait until he was stronger, to avoid reprisals.
And I just wanna say that Kuwait was based on a financial pretext. However, he was really planning on building a new Abbasid Empire, starting with a rich, weak neighbor, Kuwait. That's why he attacked Saudi Arabia. And Sudan did offer to station Iraqi troops there to attack Egypt and the Middle East from the Red Sea. They are even thought to still have some leftover scud missles.

Now, that's just one of the most... idiotic things I have ever heard. :lol:

Let's see.

1. He didn't care if you were SUNNI, SHI'ITE, or KURD, or WHATEVER. As long as you didn't go against him, you were fine.

2. Indeed, the invasion of Kuwait was because Kuwait was pumping an extremely large amount of oil, depressing the oil value and therefore, causing Iraq being unable to get enough money to repay debts and rebuild.

3. He never planned to build an Abbassid Empire.

4. Saudi Arabia attacked first.

5. This whole Sudan thing never happened.

6. Let us not forget that Saddam asked the American ambassador about the American response to an invasion of Kuwait and she said it was okay and the US wouldn't do anything to him if he invaded.
Saudi Arabia didn't attack first. You keep trying to make Hussein sound like the innocent victim here. Anyhow, here's the Sudan thing.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/sudan/missile.htm

Kurds killed by Saddam, 1987-1988: 50,000 to 100,000

Muslims Killed in Iraq/Iran War: One million
-Iranians Killed by Iraqi Chemical Weapons (1983-1988): 5,000

Kuwaitis Killed in 1990 Invasion: 1,000

Iraqi Civilians Killed by Saddam’s Forces in 1991 Uprising: 30,000-60,000

Totals: 1,081,000 to 1,161,000

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/18/us.iraq.tensions/

I have a problem with your numbers, they seem too low. I have heard over 2 million in the Iran Iraq war. the numbers for the uprising should be higher to, but still a good post

If he does get away the Hague's reputation in the Eyes of Americans will be ruined.

He won't go to the Hague, I'm about 90% certain. The Hague is... I don't know, it's a good idea I guess but it's strange that convicted criminals of war often have a better standard of living inside these prisons than their people do. Sucks to be the Iraqi that knows Saddam's cell is as big as his entire house... :?

Can he claim immunity? On what grounds?


On the same grounds as those that allowed Noriega, Pinochet, Milutinovic. Taylor and others have claimed it - historically a head of state is immune from prosecution in a foreign court. I believe that any UN tribunal (if it tries Hussain) will have to consult the UN Security Council on whether such a claim is justified or not, but I am not certain of the details.

Can he claim immunity? On what grounds?


On the same grounds as those that allowed Noriega, Pinochet, Milutinovic. Taylor and others have claimed it. I believe that any UN tribunal (if it tries Hussain) will have to consult the UN Security Counsel on whether such a claim is justified or not.

Right, but immunity only applies to current leaders. Hence Pinochet's capture by the English (or was it the frecnh? Spanish?). As soon as you're no longer a national leader, you're no longer immune. THere is now considerable precidence for this in terms of both Pinochet and Milosevic. Though you're right in that it was a very gray area until a few years ago.

In case anyone's wondering, The annual Iraqi causualty rate under US control is 5% of the annual rate while saddam was in power.

The anual rate of what when he was in power?

Or are you trying to compare direct collateral damage to the overall death rate - in which case this is apples to oranges.

-Z-

Actually, he did want to pursue genocide with the Kurds even further. He just wanted to wait until he was stronger, to avoid reprisals.

On what do you base this theory? Th worst of the attacks on the Kurds occured in 88-9, before the gulf war when he could have exterminated them all without raising a sweat.


And I just wanna say that Kuwait was based on a financial pretext. However, he was really planning on building a new Abbasid Empire, starting with a rich, weak neighbor, Kuwait. That's why he attacked Saudi Arabia. And Sudan did offer to station Iraqi troops there to attack Egypt and the Middle East from the Red Sea. They are even thought to still have some leftover scud missles.

The rich, weak neighbour that bought up his debt and the flooded the oild market to depress prices? Tactics that he asked OPEC repeatedly to put a stop to - but they refused?

After just getting out of the war with Iran - you think he was going to take on Kuwait, Egypt AND Saudia Arabia - two of which are huge US allies?

No way. Hell, he asked permission from the American before going into Kuwait becuase he knew enough not to piss them off.

-Z-
Okay, the part about the Kurds I just sorta implied, but we all know he never liked them much. As for your second point, would he take on all of those countries? Yes, and it's because he held the trump card: attacking Israel. He launched scuds during the first Gulf War, as you know. While it didn't work (and only because of heavy US pressure), he planned on Israel to retaliate. This would cause the other Arab countries to attack Israel, and tie down the US in that conflict. Hussein could've done whatever the hell he pleased.
And please, he didn't ask for US permission. What happened was that Washington said it didn't care about minor border disputes in that region. Few thought it meant invading other countries.

In case anyone's wondering, The annual Iraqi causualty rate under US control is 5% of the annual rate while saddam was in power.

The anual rate of what when he was in power?

Or are you trying to compare direct collateral damage to the overall death rate - in which case this is apples to oranges.

-Z-[/quote]

Not EXACTLY apples to oranges, when you consider how much suffering Saddam could have prevented. For example, he allowed thousands to die by illictly purchasing weapons instead of food through Oil for Food programs. I think when we clearly see a direct connection, it's legitimate to lay these deaths at his feet.

Well, I wouldn't count on a fair trail Bodies. No matter what happens, Saddam will be duly convicted and executed. Though to be honest, quibbling over semantics really doesn't seem very important. Whether he's executed for a mass genocide instead of a few dozen murders doesn't make him any deader. Lets not kid ourselves, the fate of Hussein is already decided.

So, in order to show the superiority of the western traditions of fair trial and reasoned jurisprudence that operate in our democratic states, as opposed to those in Iraq under Saddam Hussain, we are prepared to ride rough-shod over those very traditions?

Saudi Arabia didn't attack first. You keep trying to make Hussein sound like the innocent victim here. Anyhow, here's the Sudan thing.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/sudan/missile.htm

Now, he didn't attack first, Saudi Arabia did.

Condensed version of what happened:

1. Iraq gets OK to invade Kuwait from US. Invades Kuwait.
2. Saudi Arabia panics and calls for US troops. US troops comes.
3. US demands Iraq withdraw from Kuwait.
4. US begins bombing Iraq on January 16, 1991 including from Saudi bases.
5. Iraq attacked the small Saudi city of al-Khafji on Kuwaiti border.
6. Iraq forced to withdraw from city.
7. US invades Kuwait and takes it over including from bases in Saudi Arabia.
8. Iraq signs ceasefire.

As you can see, Saudi Arabia declared war first by allowing forces to base in their territory and to use their territory to attack Iraq.

Can he claim immunity? On what grounds?


On the same grounds as those that allowed Noriega, Pinochet, Milutinovic. Taylor and others have claimed it. I believe that any UN tribunal (if it tries Hussain) will have to consult the UN Security Counsel on whether such a claim is justified or not.

Right, but immunity only applies to current leaders. Hence Pinochet's capture by the English (or was it the frecnh? Spanish?). As soon as you're no longer a national leader, you're no longer immune. THere is now considerable precidence for this in terms of both Pinochet and Milosevic. Though you're right in that it was a very gray area until a few years ago.

Note that I used the word 'claim' rather than 'receive'.

Well, I wouldn't count on a fair trail Bodies. No matter what happens, Saddam will be duly convicted and executed. Though to be honest, quibbling over semantics really doesn't seem very important. Whether he's executed for a mass genocide instead of a few dozen murders doesn't make him any deader. Lets not kid ourselves, the fate of Hussein is already decided.

So, in order to show the superiority of the western traditions of fair trial and reasoned jurisprudence that operate in our democratic states, as opposed to those in Iraq under Saddam Hussain, we are prepared to ride rough-shod over those very traditions?

No, you misunderstand. I'm not justify those actions, I disagree with the US in this course of action, I'm just saying what I think will happen. I don't think the US will give up Saddam to the international community, but I don't agree with their policy in this area (mostly).

In case anyone's wondering, The annual Iraqi causualty rate under US control is 5% of the annual rate while saddam was in power.

The anual rate of what when he was in power?

Or are you trying to compare direct collateral damage to the overall death rate - in which case this is apples to oranges.

-Z-

Not EXACTLY apples to oranges, when you consider how much suffering Saddam could have prevented. For example, he allowed thousands to die by illictly purchasing weapons instead of food through Oil for Food programs. I think when we clearly see a direct connection, it's legitimate to lay these deaths at his feet.

True, however given the generally accepted figure for colateral damage of IRaqi civilians over the past year is around 10,000, at a 5% rate that implies that Saddam was averaging 200,000 per year directly attributable to him through the 90s.

I think that's a bit high for an apples-to-apples comparison

True, however given the generally accepted figure for colateral damage of IRaqi civilians over the past year is around 10,000, at a 5% rate that implies that Saddam was averaging 200,000 per year directly attributable to him through the 90s.

I think that's a bit high for an apples-to-apples comparison

Ok. Though incidentally, while trying to repeal UN economic sanctions, Hussein was claiming the deaths of four hundred thousand Iraqi children in the span of a few years. While personally I doubt the truth of that claim, if it IS true, and if it's also true that he was using oil for food money to rearm and build elaborate projects, the death toll he's responisble for gets even higher....

Saudi Arabia didn't attack first. You keep trying to make Hussein sound like the innocent victim here. Anyhow, here's the Sudan thing.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/sudan/missile.htm

Saddam is the victim here. He didn't attack the US. The US attacked him. The US told him it's okay to invade Kuwait but then when he did, they decided to attack him. The US gave him WMDs and didn't have any problem with them when they were used against Iran and Kurds in the 1980's.

Now, secondly, he didn't attack first, Saudi Arabia did.

Condensed version of what happened:

1. Iraq gets OK to invade Kuwait from US. Invades Kuwait.
2. Saudi Arabia panics and calls for US troops. US troops comes.
3. US demands Iraq withdraw from Kuwait.
4. US begins bombing Iraq on January 16, 1991 including from Saudi bases.
5. Iraq attacked the small Saudi city of al-Khafji on Kuwaiti border.
6. Iraq forced to withdraw from city.
7. US invades Kuwait and takes it over including from bases in Saudi Arabia.
8. Iraq signs ceasefire.

As you can see, Saudi Arabia declared war first by allowing forces to base in their territory and to use their territory to attack Iraq.
And how the heck is that a declaration of war? Saudi Arabia was frightened of its own security. There was a reason Hussein attacked Saudi Arabia: he carried hope that attacking Israel would work to his political advantage.

True, however given the generally accepted figure for colateral damage of IRaqi civilians over the past year is around 10,000, at a 5% rate that implies that Saddam was averaging 200,000 per year directly attributable to him through the 90s.

I think that's a bit high for an apples-to-apples comparison

Ok. Though incidentally, while trying to repeal UN economic sanctions, Hussein was claiming the deaths of four hundred thousand Iraqi children in the span of a few years. While personally I doubt the truth of that claim, if it IS true, and if it's also true that he was using oil for food money to rearm and build elaborate projects, the death toll he's responisble for gets even higher....

It is not his fault that Iraqi children were dieing, but it is the fault of the Americans and everyone who wanted it to continue. Prior to the sanctions, Iraq had good health care, food, etc. Very very few people starved or died of diseases that could be treated.

The reason he had to try and get to weaponry, etc. is because of people like Dubya. He had to try and protect Iraq and he did what he had to do. If he did not, Iraq wouldn't have lasted after a week or so of combat when they invaded in March.

Actually, he did want to pursue genocide with the Kurds even further. He just wanted to wait until he was stronger, to avoid reprisals.

On what do you base this theory? Th worst of the attacks on the Kurds occured in 88-9, before the gulf war when he could have exterminated them all without raising a sweat.


And I just wanna say that Kuwait was based on a financial pretext. However, he was really planning on building a new Abbasid Empire, starting with a rich, weak neighbor, Kuwait. That's why he attacked Saudi Arabia. And Sudan did offer to station Iraqi troops there to attack Egypt and the Middle East from the Red Sea. They are even thought to still have some leftover scud missles.

The rich, weak neighbour that bought up his debt and the flooded the oild market to depress prices? Tactics that he asked OPEC repeatedly to put a stop to - but they refused?

After just getting out of the war with Iran - you think he was going to take on Kuwait, Egypt AND Saudia Arabia - two of which are huge US allies?

No way. Hell, he asked permission from the American before going into Kuwait becuase he knew enough not to piss them off.

-Z-
Okay, the part about the Kurds I just sorta implied, but we all know he never liked them much. As for your second point, would he take on all of those countries? Yes, and it's because he held the trump card: attacking Israel. He launched scuds during the first Gulf War, as you know. While it didn't work (and only because of heavy US pressure), he planned on Israel to retaliate. This would cause the other Arab countries to attack Israel, and tie down the US in that conflict. Hussein could've done whatever the hell he pleased.

The trump was attacking Israel?

How?

The scuds WERE an attempt to inflame the whol region, but to really attack Isreal he would have had to drive his tanks through a few countries to get there, all of which are US allies and all of which would have stopped him by involving the US.

He had no opportunity to attack Isreal directly with anything besides Scuds or his air force. And he knows damn well what the US would have done if he had made that his first order of business.

So first he still would have had to take out Egypt or Saudia Arabia. Again, countries that the US would have come to the aid of.

So I find this theory hard to believe.

-Z-

Saudi Arabia didn't attack first. You keep trying to make Hussein sound like the innocent victim here. Anyhow, here's the Sudan thing.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/sudan/missile.htm

Saddam is the victim here. He didn't attack the US. The US attacked him. The US told him it's okay to invade Kuwait but then when he did, they decided to attack him. The US gave him WMDs and didn't have any problem with them when they were used against Iran and Kurds in the 1980's.

Now, secondly, he didn't attack first, Saudi Arabia did.

Condensed version of what happened:

1. Iraq gets OK to invade Kuwait from US. Invades Kuwait.
2. Saudi Arabia panics and calls for US troops. US troops comes.
3. US demands Iraq withdraw from Kuwait.
4. US begins bombing Iraq on January 16, 1991 including from Saudi bases.
5. Iraq attacked the small Saudi city of al-Khafji on Kuwaiti border.
6. Iraq forced to withdraw from city.
7. US invades Kuwait and takes it over including from bases in Saudi Arabia.
8. Iraq signs ceasefire.

As you can see, Saudi Arabia declared war first by allowing forces to base in their territory and to use their territory to attack Iraq.
And how the heck is that a declaration of war? Saudi Arabia was frightened of its own security. There was a reason Hussein attacked Saudi Arabia: he carried hope that attacking Israel would work to his political advantage.

You let forces that are attacking another nation base from your territory, you have effectively declared war on that nation. Saudis helped the US attack Iraq. They allowed them to use their territory. It's a declaration of war. Simple.

Secondly, Saudi's declaration of war on Iraq had nothing to do with Israel. He wanted to try to get the Arabs to come to his side, which he did with the common people but not the governments.

It is not his fault that Iraqi children were dieing, but it is the fault of the Americans and everyone who wanted it to continue. Prior to the sanctions, Iraq had good health care, food, etc. Very very few people starved or died of diseases that could be treated.

The reason he had to try and get to weaponry, etc. is because of people like Dubya. He had to try and protect Iraq and he did what he had to do. If he did not, Iraq wouldn't have lasted after a week or so of combat when they invaded in March.

So it's not his fault that money which was supposed to go towards buying food and medecine was 'accidentally' spent on weapons and palaces? Give me a break here... Iraq had health care and food before the sanctions, which incidentally is also before the invasion of Kuwait. I don't think anyone is going to try and justify that action.

If Hussein had not spent money on weapons, everyone would have been better off, and I can't see how you'd think otherwise.

Even though I regret civilians have to die, civilians are not shot intentionally by the coalition. Besides, our tactics are also designed to minimize loss of life, even military. Out of Hussein's regular military force of 400,000, only about 20,000 died. Normally, in an invasion like that, the opposing army would be completely obliterated. They weren't. The coalition did everything in its power to give them a chance to surrrender first.

Oh, please.

How about the recent "accidental" shooting of an aid convoy to Fallujah?

Or the heavy bombing of a major population center with cluster bombs during the "shock and awe" campaign?

Shows the true humanitarian nature of the US government, doesn't it?

It is not his fault that Iraqi children were dieing, but it is the fault of the Americans and everyone who wanted it to continue. Prior to the sanctions, Iraq had good health care, food, etc. Very very few people starved or died of diseases that could be treated.

The reason he had to try and get to weaponry, etc. is because of people like Dubya. He had to try and protect Iraq and he did what he had to do. If he did not, Iraq wouldn't have lasted after a week or so of combat when they invaded in March.

So it's not his fault that money which was supposed to go towards buying food and medecine was 'accidentally' spent on weapons and palaces? Give me a break here... Iraq had health care and food before the sanctions, which incidentally is also before the invasion of Kuwait. I don't think anyone is going to try and justify that action.

If Hussein had not spent money on weapons, everyone would have been better off, and I can't see how you'd think otherwise.

There was nothing wrong with what he did. Did you know that the UN also said that he provided 85% of the needed monthly requirements to survive to his people for FREE?

Iraq had a better health care system prior to the UN sanctions than most Western nations. It was totally free for needed procedures.

Even though I regret civilians have to die, civilians are not shot intentionally by the coalition. Besides, our tactics are also designed to minimize loss of life, even military. Out of Hussein's regular military force of 400,000, only about 20,000 died. Normally, in an invasion like that, the opposing army would be completely obliterated. They weren't. The coalition did everything in its power to give them a chance to surrrender first.

Oh, please.

How about the recent "accidental" shooting of an aid convoy to Fallujah?

Or the heavy bombing of a major population center with cluster bombs during the "shock and awe" campaign?

Shows the true humanitarian nature of the US government, doesn't it?

No - I WILL give it to the coalition that they used great restraint in tactics to minimize civilian deaths.

Some cluster bombs were used on the Baghdad area, but they could have hit Iraq one hell of a lot harder than they did.

Still not fussy on the rampant use of DU though....

-Z-

Even though I regret civilians have to die, civilians are not shot intentionally by the coalition. Besides, our tactics are also designed to minimize loss of life, even military. Out of Hussein's regular military force of 400,000, only about 20,000 died. Normally, in an invasion like that, the opposing army would be completely obliterated. They weren't. The coalition did everything in its power to give them a chance to surrrender first.

Oh, please.

How about the recent "accidental" shooting of an aid convoy to Fallujah?

Or the heavy bombing of a major population center with cluster bombs during the "shock and awe" campaign?

Shows the true humanitarian nature of the US government, doesn't it?

:roll: Even with the cluster bombings, this is still by far one of the 'cleanest' wars of the century, in terms of civilian to soldier ratios. I don't believe shock and awe included cluster bombings either, as I believe they were strictly 'called in' targeted attacks. Shcok and awe was largely cruise missle strikes on military and administrative targets.

A few comments:

Kurds killed by Saddam, 1987-1988: 50,000 to 100,000

With "our" support, of course, but that's never mentioned.

Also, note the date - some sixteen years ago. Such atrocities don't justify the crime against humanity that was and is the illegal war and occupation of Iraq.

Muslims Killed in Iraq/Iran War: One million
-Iranians Killed by Iraqi Chemical Weapons (1983-1988): 5,000

With "our" support and urging, as well.

Again, note the date.

Kuwaitis Killed in 1990 Invasion: 1,000

Iraqis killed in the murderous coalition bombing campaigns: quite a bit more than 1000.

Iraqi Civilians Killed by Saddam’s Forces in 1991 Uprising: 30,000-60,000

US Pres. George Bush ALLOWED them to do this. Why? Because a successful uprising would likely have meant a democratic Iraq, and not the colonial regime the US establishment wants.

There was nothing wrong with what he did.
:shock:

How can you even say that?

Did you know that the UN also said that he provided 85% of the needed monthly requirements to survive to his people for FREE?

Could you put that in context? i.e. time and situation. I can't comment until I know what you're talking about.

Iraq had a better health care system prior to the UN sanctions than most Western nations. It was totally free for needed procedures.
:roll: THat's a joke. Free does not mean good.

Even though I regret civilians have to die, civilians are not shot intentionally by the coalition. Besides, our tactics are also designed to minimize loss of life, even military. Out of Hussein's regular military force of 400,000, only about 20,000 died. Normally, in an invasion like that, the opposing army would be completely obliterated. They weren't. The coalition did everything in its power to give them a chance to surrrender first.

Oh, please.

How about the recent "accidental" shooting of an aid convoy to Fallujah?

Or the heavy bombing of a major population center with cluster bombs during the "shock and awe" campaign?

Shows the true humanitarian nature of the US government, doesn't it?

No - I WILL give it to the coalition that they used great restraint in tactics to minimize civilian deaths.

Some cluster bombs were used on the Baghdad area, but they could have hit Iraq one hell of a lot harder than they did.

Still not fussy on the rampant use of DU though....

-Z-

Perhaps so... they still ended up slaughtering quite some number of innocent Iraqi civilians, many unnecessarily.

Here is what New Genoa claimed was reported on the page he linked to:

Iraqi Civilians Killed by Saddam’s Forces in 1991 Uprising: 30,000-60,000


Here is what it actually says:

• Many civilians were among the 30,000 to 60,000 Iraqis killed by Iraqi forces while suppressing an uprising that began in the south of the country in 1991, after the end of the Persian Gulf War

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/18/us.iraq.tensions/

Intentional or accidental distortion?

A few comments:

Kurds killed by Saddam, 1987-1988: 50,000 to 100,000

With "our" support, of course, but that's never mentioned.

No, it's mentioned quite frequently, at least around here. However, I don't think the fact that the US supported the action somehow legitimizes it. THe US was wrong to look the other way.

Also, note the date - some sixteen years ago. Such atrocities don't justify the crime against humanity that was and is the illegal war and occupation of Iraq.

Yes, this war is a crime against humanity because... um... why? It's not like he was in any sense a legitimate leader. It's not like he was anything but a murderous despot. The war may have been a bad idea, but I don't see how you can possibly classify it as a crime against humanity while justify Husseins occupation of Iraq (which is basically what it was- a military police state not in any way representative or responsible to the people, without any broad base of support).


With "our" support and urging, as well.

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?

Again, note the date.

I don't see why this matters, but in the last decade Hussein has still commited many, many intolerable crimes.

Iraqis killed in the murderous coalition bombing campaigns: quite a bit more than 1000.

Because attacking soldiers equals murder?

US Pres. George Bush ALLOWED them to do this. Why? Because a successful uprising would likely have meant a democratic Iraq, and not the colonial regime the US establishment wants.

Even if true, it still doesn't legitimize husseins actions. The evils of the US do not somehow justify those worse evils of Hussein.

Iraq had a better health care system prior to the UN sanctions than most Western nations. It was totally free for needed procedures.
:roll: THat's a joke. Free does not mean good.

Actually no - the Iraqi medical system WAS considered very modern and well managed in it's heyday.

Before the embargo, most doctors had to go so far as to pass US or British exams to wualify (http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/irmedi.htm)

Did you know that the UN also said that he provided 85% of the needed monthly requirements to survive to his people for FREE?

Could you put that in context? i.e. time and situation. I can't comment until I know what you're talking about.

It was a while after the food-for-oil thing was put into place. It continued like this to mid-April 2003 when the US wrecked havoc on everything.

Iraq had a better health care system prior to the UN sanctions than most Western nations. It was totally free for needed procedures.
:roll: THat's a joke. Free does not mean good.

Uh, I wasn't referring to the fact that it was free that it was good. It was good because it was MODERN stocked with MODERN equipment, TRAINED staffs, and a lot of MEDICINE. That is what makes it good. Being free just adds to that.

Iraq had a better health care system prior to the UN sanctions than most Western nations. It was totally free for needed procedures.
:roll: THat's a joke. Free does not mean good.

Actually no - the Iraqi medical system WAS considered very modern and well managed in it's heyday.

Before the embargo, most doctors had to go so far as to pass US or British exams to wualify (http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/irmedi.htm)

I can believe it's a fairly good system, but better than most Western nations? I doubt it. Better than the US perhaps, but not better than MOST western nations. Also, I suspect that if you look at the major health care indices (infant mortality, average life span, doctor/patient ratios, a few others) Iraq would be quite low regardless due to poor access- you can have great hospitals but shitty healthcare if no one can get to them. I can imagine Iraq having a decent level of health care, but no where near the top ten (all occuptied by 'western' nations with the exception of Singapore, I believe).

It was a while after the food-for-oil thing was put into place. It continued like this to mid-April 2003 when the US wrecked havoc on everything.

Can you link it or something? I find it hard to reconcile a claim made by you or the UN that 85% of Iraqi's were cared for versus Hussein's own claims of hundreds of thousands dying. Someone's got their facts mixed up, but I'll be damned if I can tell who it is.

Uh, I wasn't referring to the fact that it was free that it was good. It was good because it was MODERN stocked with MODERN equipment, TRAINED staffs, and a lot of MEDICINE. That is what makes it good. Being free just adds to that.

see above.

Iraq had a better health care system prior to the UN sanctions than most Western nations. It was totally free for needed procedures.
:roll: THat's a joke. Free does not mean good.

Actually no - the Iraqi medical system WAS considered very modern and well managed in it's heyday.

Before the embargo, most doctors had to go so far as to pass US or British exams to wualify (http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/irmedi.htm)

I can believe it's a fairly good system, but better than most Western nations? I doubt it. Better than the US perhaps, but not better than MOST western nations. Also, I suspect that if you look at the major health care indices (infant mortality, average life span, doctor/patient ratios, a few others) Iraq would be quite low regardless due to poor access- you can have great hospitals but shitty healthcare if no one can get to them. I can imagine Iraq having a decent level of health care, but no where near the top ten (all occuptied by 'western' nations with the exception of Singapore, I believe).

From: "Out of the ashes" by Patrick and Andrew Cockburn:

Lavishly equipped hospitals gave the citizens medical care as good as could be found in Europe or the United States. Even the poor were used to eating chicken once a day.

This guy has been on CNN several times too, talking about Saddam. Everyone had access to the medical facilities.

you make it sound like iraq was some sort of fucking paradise

In fact, it's on the first page and can be viewed here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0060929839/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-1593839-1462238#reader-page

It's the second paragraph and is at the bottom.

A few comments:

Kurds killed by Saddam, 1987-1988: 50,000 to 100,000

With "our" support, of course, but that's never mentioned.

No, it's mentioned quite frequently, at least around here. However, I don't think the fact that the US supported the action somehow legitimizes it. THe US was wrong to look the other way.


It's not the "looking the other way" that bothers us. It was the sending of things like new helicopters to help him out - despite their being a weapons embargo on at the time.


Also, note the date - some sixteen years ago. Such atrocities don't justify the crime against humanity that was and is the illegal war and occupation of Iraq.

Yes, this war is a crime against humanity because... um... why? It's not like he was in any sense a legitimate leader. It's not like he was anything but a murderous despot. The war may have been a bad idea, but I don't see how you can possibly classify it as a crime against humanity while justify Husseins occupation of Iraq (which is basically what it was- a military police state not in any way representative or responsible to the people, without any broad base of support).

And yet our "trusted ally" in the war on terror is PAkistan. Run by a leader that also assumed command in a militry coup. A country that aided the Taliban. A country that was one of the biggest recruiting grounds for Al Qaeda. A country that passed out plans for nukes like concert leaflets....

Saddam was as legitimate as any other despot around the world. Like that other ally in Uzbekistan that boils political enemies to death.



With "our" support and urging, as well.

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?


Not they don't. So why is he "evil", but we just "made a boo-boo"?

Again, note the date.

I don't see why this matters, but in the last decade Hussein has still commited many, many intolerable crimes.

Such as?

Iraqis killed in the murderous coalition bombing campaigns: quite a bit more than 1000.

Because attacking soldiers equals murder?

US Pres. George Bush ALLOWED them to do this. Why? Because a successful uprising would likely have meant a democratic Iraq, and not the colonial regime the US establishment wants.

Even if true, it still doesn't legitimize husseins actions. The evils of the US do not somehow justify those worse evils of Hussein.


No. but the US points to the Evils of Saddam to justify it's own.

From: "Out of the ashes" by Patrick and Andrew Cockburn:

Lavishly equipped hospitals gave the citizens medical care as good as could be found in Europe or the United States. Even the poor were used to eating chicken once a day.

This guy has been on CNN several times too, talking about Saddam. Everyone had access to the medical facilities.

Doesn't mean much without context. Hospitals may have been great in Baghdad; by most accounts Saddam was pretty good to certain segments of the population. Moreover, Hussein had already bankrupted his country prior to the first Gulf War, so it's not like you can blame a lack of money on the US. So without some sense of where the Cockburns were, it's hard to say for certain; what we do know is that most Iraqis are glad Hussein is gone (no matter how much they may resent/hate the US) which should tell us at least something.

A few comments:

Kurds killed by Saddam, 1987-1988: 50,000 to 100,000

With "our" support, of course, but that's never mentioned.

No, it's mentioned quite frequently, at least around here. However, I don't think the fact that the US supported the action somehow legitimizes it. THe US was wrong to look the other way.

Also, note the date - some sixteen years ago. Such atrocities don't justify the crime against humanity that was and is the illegal war and occupation of Iraq.

Yes, this war is a crime against humanity because... um... why? It's not like he was in any sense a legitimate leader. It's not like he was anything but a murderous despot. The war may have been a bad idea, but I don't see how you can possibly classify it as a crime against humanity while justify Husseins occupation of Iraq (which is basically what it was- a military police state not in any way representative or responsible to the people, without any broad base of support).


With "our" support and urging, as well.

Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?

Again, note the date.

I don't see why this matters, but in the last decade Hussein has still commited many, many intolerable crimes.

Iraqis killed in the murderous coalition bombing campaigns: quite a bit more than 1000.

Because attacking soldiers equals murder?

US Pres. George Bush ALLOWED them to do this. Why? Because a successful uprising would likely have meant a democratic Iraq, and not the colonial regime the US establishment wants.

Even if true, it still doesn't legitimize husseins actions. The evils of the US do not somehow justify those worse evils of Hussein.

Hussein was a reprehensible dictator responsible for countless atrocities. There is really no question that this is true. What bothers me is the hypocritical tossing about of these atrocities by the US establishment in an attempt to justify the colonial invasion and occupation of Iraq.

A few points:

Firstly, more than one thousand Iraqi civilians were killed in the First Gulf War. I didn't make that clear, sorry.

Secondly, US support for Saddam's actions certainly do not legitimize them - but they make a mockery of the people in the Bush Administration, essentially a clone of the Reagan Administration which oversaw this, attacking Saddam for his hatred of freedom and democracy. In my comment about how "that's never mentioned", I was referring to the statements used to justify the war by the US establishment, not the debate on websites with the free exchange of ideas like this one.

Thirdly, this war was a crime against humanity because it involved the mass slaughter of innocent civilians for three totally illegitimate purposes:

1. The continued US dominance of the Middle East.

2. The establishment of a colonial regime in Iraq to secure the oil there for the purposes of the US.

3. The gathering of popular support for the Bush Administration by those who want to seem "patriotic" and stand with their "president" in his illegal crimes against humanity.

I agree with you that Hussein committed many crimes against humanity, but two wrongs don't make a right, and the cessation of Hussein's crimes would probably have occured independly of US action. The dictator ruled over Baghdad and little else, with two huge no-fly zones in the north and south and a blasted military incapable of standing up to anyone. An uprising, or simply the natural process of death, would eventually have made an end to his terrorist regime, without the need for mass slaughter.

The date matters because these atrocities are used to justified the imperialist assault on Iraq in 2003, quite some time after they occurred. Notably, Saddam's worst atrocities all occurred while the US was still aiding him - when that stopped, he stopped, probably through lack of resources.

Iraq had a better health care system prior to the UN sanctions than most Western nations. It was totally free for needed procedures.
:roll: THat's a joke. Free does not mean good.

Actually no - the Iraqi medical system WAS considered very modern and well managed in it's heyday.

Before the embargo, most doctors had to go so far as to pass US or British exams to wualify (http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/irmedi.htm)

I can believe it's a fairly good system, but better than most Western nations? I doubt it. Better than the US perhaps, but not better than MOST western nations. Also, I suspect that if you look at the major health care indices (infant mortality, average life span, doctor/patient ratios, a few others) Iraq would be quite low regardless due to poor access- you can have great hospitals but shitty healthcare if no one can get to them. I can imagine Iraq having a decent level of health care, but no where near the top ten (all occuptied by 'western' nations with the exception of Singapore, I believe).

Hmm, well I'm not going to argue where exactly it fit into the world rankings. However by the eye roll and joke comment - I assumed that you figured it fit in with the rest of the Middle East's medical services, when in fact it ranked very highly in comparison.

It was a while after the food-for-oil thing was put into place. It continued like this to mid-April 2003 when the US wrecked havoc on everything.

Can you link it or something? I find it hard to reconcile a claim made by you or the UN that 85% of Iraqi's were cared for versus Hussein's own claims of hundreds of thousands dying. Someone's got their facts mixed up, but I'll be damned if I can tell who it is.


http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/fs_iraq_health.pdf

Infant mortality rate per 1000:
1980 60
1985 50
1990 40
1995 70
1998 100

Here is a chart of other nations for comparison:
http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm

So, during the 80s it seemed certainly comparable to other middle eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

OK... along the medical tangent, over the 80s Saddam had dropped the infant mortality rate from 82/1000 down to 25/1000. After a couple of years of sanctions that had balooned back up to 117/1000.

The World Health Organization (http://www.emro.who.int/MNH/whd/CountryProfile-IRQ.htm) comments that he had tried to focus on pre- and neo-natal care to deal with child mortality, and had spent a lot getting services out to the rural area. Indeed, on reading their evaluation it seems that theyspeak quite highly of the efforts he put into providing quality health care to his citizens.

World Class compared to some western countries - it wasn't there yet. But it might have got there without the sanctions. But he DID obviously care enough to put a lot of effort and cash into it.

-Z-

It's not the "looking the other way" that bothers us. It was the sending of things like new helicopters to help him out - despite their being a weapons embargo on at the time.

Sure, and I agree that was wrong. I don't believe in trading with despots, much less giving them weapons.

And yet our "trusted ally" in the war on terror is PAkistan. Run by a leader that also assumed command in a militry coup. A country that aided the Taliban. A country that was one of the biggest recruiting grounds for Al Qaeda. A country that passed out plans for nukes like concert leaflets....

I agree, Musharaf is not an appropriate associate, and I have brough this up in several other threads. Coutnries like Saudi and Pakistan should immediately be denounced as intolerable regimes, and diplomatic pressures of all kinds should be placed upon them. I don't try and justify everything the US does or has ever done. I don't even think this war was a very good idea. I do think that trying to paint it as immoral is inaccurate, and I do think that it's obscene how people try and apologize for Husseins actions. Regardless of American support, it is he who ultimately bears the responsibility for these actions. America may be an accessory, but it is he and his regime that are the murderers.

Saddam was as legitimate as any other despot around the world. Like that other ally in Uzbekistan that boils political enemies to death.

In as much as despot means a leader who rules with no sense of the common good, I agree. None of them are legitimate. They should not be associated with. They should be ejected from legitimate international structures. There is no good reason to tolerate their atrocities.

Not they don't. So why is he "evil", but we just "made a boo-boo"?

Well, for one the degree of wrong between our actions and his own is fairly large. And I never called him evil, I don' think that's a very useful term. He is intolerable because no moral system could ever support his actions as legitimate. the US may have commited some very immoral actions, but the degree and expansiveness of these actions are dwarfed by Husseins. More importantly, the US may have the power and will to rectify its past wrongs (not that I'm suggesting they are, but that they could) wheras the Ba'athists are not willing or able.


Such as?

The execution of hundreds of dissidents? Mass starvations (according to him, anyways)? Is that not enough? IF the US executed hundreds of dissidents without trial, we would rightly condemn them (note the outrage over Camp X-ray). Surely the opposite is true? Saddam is not the worst Despot, but he is certainly well outside what any reasonable body would call a tolerable leader.

No. but the US points to the Evils of Saddam to justify it's own.

In what sense? The invasion of Iraq is not in and of itself immoral. I don't consider the occupation to be a terrible injustice simply because it's an occupation. If indeed Iraq is stabilized and bettered, I think that would qualify as a good in anyone's book. What 'evil's are you specifically referring to?

It was a while after the food-for-oil thing was put into place. It continued like this to mid-April 2003 when the US wrecked havoc on everything.

Can you link it or something? I find it hard to reconcile a claim made by you or the UN that 85% of Iraqi's were cared for versus Hussein's own claims of hundreds of thousands dying. Someone's got their facts mixed up, but I'll be damned if I can tell who it is.


http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/fs_iraq_health.pdf

Infant mortality rate per 1000:
1980 60
1985 50
1990 40
1995 70
1998 100

Here is a chart of other nations for comparison:
http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm

So, during the 80s it seemed certainly comparable to other middle eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.

You should of course note than none of those rates are even comparable to western rates. I certainly could imagine Iraq to have better health care than most places in the middle east, as health care tends to be one of those things heiarchical regimes do quite well. I just object to comparing it to western levels, when it's not really even close. Though I suppose it could have been on it's way, it was still a long ways off.

No. but the US points to the Evils of Saddam to justify it's own.

In what sense? The invasion of Iraq is not in and of itself immoral. I don't consider the occupation to be a terrible injustice simply because it's an occupation. If indeed Iraq is stabilized and bettered, I think that would qualify as a good in anyone's book. What 'evil's are you specifically referring to?

My use of the term "Evil" is simply to mirror that idiotic term that GW keeps using. "Axis of Evil"... "he was an evil madman"... yadda yadda. It is the catchphrase of the year for Shrub 'n Co.

However, if Iraq is stabilized and bettered, given the invasion and some of the things that have been going on, you may just wind up with another Saudia Arabia. Ostensibly your friend while financing terrorists against you.

A free and prosperous Iraq that hates the west (for a variety of reasons depending on which group you talk to) might just wind up being a more dangerous adversary than what was there before.


-Z-

Actually, he did want to pursue genocide with the Kurds even further. He just wanted to wait until he was stronger, to avoid reprisals.

On what do you base this theory? Th worst of the attacks on the Kurds occured in 88-9, before the gulf war when he could have exterminated them all without raising a sweat.


And I just wanna say that Kuwait was based on a financial pretext. However, he was really planning on building a new Abbasid Empire, starting with a rich, weak neighbor, Kuwait. That's why he attacked Saudi Arabia. And Sudan did offer to station Iraqi troops there to attack Egypt and the Middle East from the Red Sea. They are even thought to still have some leftover scud missles.

The rich, weak neighbour that bought up his debt and the flooded the oild market to depress prices? Tactics that he asked OPEC repeatedly to put a stop to - but they refused?

After just getting out of the war with Iran - you think he was going to take on Kuwait, Egypt AND Saudia Arabia - two of which are huge US allies?

No way. Hell, he asked permission from the American before going into Kuwait becuase he knew enough not to piss them off.

-Z-
Okay, the part about the Kurds I just sorta implied, but we all know he never liked them much. As for your second point, would he take on all of those countries? Yes, and it's because he held the trump card: attacking Israel. He launched scuds during the first Gulf War, as you know. While it didn't work (and only because of heavy US pressure), he planned on Israel to retaliate. This would cause the other Arab countries to attack Israel, and tie down the US in that conflict. Hussein could've done whatever the hell he pleased.

The trump was attacking Israel?

How?

The scuds WERE an attempt to inflame the whol region, but to really attack Isreal he would have had to drive his tanks through a few countries to get there, all of which are US allies and all of which would have stopped him by involving the US.

He had no opportunity to attack Isreal directly with anything besides Scuds or his air force. And he knows damn well what the US would have done if he had made that his first order of business.

So first he still would have had to take out Egypt or Saudia Arabia. Again, countries that the US would have come to the aid of.

So I find this theory hard to believe.

-Z-
Well, how I define attack is any use of force, air or ground. Israel was very close to a reprisal. In fact, during this war, the Western bases were captured by commandoes within the first couple of days to prevent Israel from being attacked. Anyhow, if Israel did actually retaliate, then Arab governments would have no choice but to attack, as they're attacking a Muslim country through their own airspace. It'd divert resources, and leave the US in a very sticky situation. It'd have been possible that the US couldn't sustain an attack, anymore. Or the US may have had to help Israel militarily, as I don't think Israel can take on the full force of every Arab country at once. Therefore, with the attention off Hussein, he could do whatever he wanted. Even if his armies were attacked, any attacking force would be stretched thin because of dealing with Israel.
And btw, tanks can be parachuted into combat zones. I know the the US military has tried it. Hussein probably had the capabilities as well.

Saudi Arabia didn't attack first. You keep trying to make Hussein sound like the innocent victim here. Anyhow, here's the Sudan thing.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/sudan/missile.htm

Saddam is the victim here. He didn't attack the US. The US attacked him. The US told him it's okay to invade Kuwait but then when he did, they decided to attack him. The US gave him WMDs and didn't have any problem with them when they were used against Iran and Kurds in the 1980's.

Now, secondly, he didn't attack first, Saudi Arabia did.

Condensed version of what happened:

1. Iraq gets OK to invade Kuwait from US. Invades Kuwait.
2. Saudi Arabia panics and calls for US troops. US troops comes.
3. US demands Iraq withdraw from Kuwait.
4. US begins bombing Iraq on January 16, 1991 including from Saudi bases.
5. Iraq attacked the small Saudi city of al-Khafji on Kuwaiti border.
6. Iraq forced to withdraw from city.
7. US invades Kuwait and takes it over including from bases in Saudi Arabia.
8. Iraq signs ceasefire.

As you can see, Saudi Arabia declared war first by allowing forces to base in their territory and to use their territory to attack Iraq.
And how the heck is that a declaration of war? Saudi Arabia was frightened of its own security. There was a reason Hussein attacked Saudi Arabia: he carried hope that attacking Israel would work to his political advantage.

You let forces that are attacking another nation base from your territory, you have effectively declared war on that nation. Saudis helped the US attack Iraq. They allowed them to use their territory. It's a declaration of war. Simple.

Secondly, Saudi's declaration of war on Iraq had nothing to do with Israel. He wanted to try to get the Arabs to come to his side, which he did with the common people but not the governments.
Well I see why the Saudi's let us in--Hussein was massing troops all along the Iraqi and Kuwaiti border with Saudi Arabia. It was the same way the Kuwait invasion began. His rocket attack on Israel was to try and get them involved, forcing Arab countries to declare war (see my last post for my views on the issue). The only reason it didn't work is because Israel, under strong US pressure, didn't retaliate. Shows you how stupid of a guy he was, not taking that into consideration. Oh well. He just told the Iraqis that the Gulf War was a glorious victory for him.

My use of the term "Evil" is simply to mirror that idiotic term that GW keeps using. "Axis of Evil"... "he was an evil madman"... yadda yadda. It is the catchphrase of the year for Shrub 'n Co.

However, if Iraq is stabilized and bettered, given the invasion and some of the things that have been going on, you may just wind up with another Saudia Arabia. Ostensibly your friend while financing terrorists against you.

A free and prosperous Iraq that hates the west (for a variety of reasons depending on which group you talk to) might just wind up being a more dangerous adversary than what was there before.


-Z-

A free Iraq can hate the west all it wants, so long as it doesn't engage in hostile actions. The bottom line is that stable, well-ordered and responsible governments do not go to war with each other (at least not nearly to the same degree). Also, I don't think Saudi is a good example, as I think it's an intolerable regime that should be totally severed from the international community and ultimately replaced. The Saudi princes are as bad as Hussein, in many ways, and the people there are nearly as oppressed. It is not a government we should be legitimizing or dealing with in any way. I think it's an outrage that the international community, even the UN, recognizes regimes like Saudi Arabia as legitimate and cooperative allies.

My use of the term "Evil" is simply to mirror that idiotic term that GW keeps using. "Axis of Evil"... "he was an evil madman"... yadda yadda. It is the catchphrase of the year for Shrub 'n Co.

However, if Iraq is stabilized and bettered, given the invasion and some of the things that have been going on, you may just wind up with another Saudia Arabia. Ostensibly your friend while financing terrorists against you.

A free and prosperous Iraq that hates the west (for a variety of reasons depending on which group you talk to) might just wind up being a more dangerous adversary than what was there before.


-Z-

A free Iraq can hate the west all it wants, so long as it doesn't engage in hostile actions. The bottom line is that stable, well-ordered and responsible governments do not go to war with each other (at least not nearly to the same degree). Also, I don't think Saudi is a good example, as I think it's an intolerable regime that should be totally severed from the international community and ultimately replaced. The Saudi princes are as bad as Hussein, in many ways, and the people there are nearly as oppressed. It is not a government we should be legitimizing or dealing with in any way. I think it's an outrage that the international community, even the UN, recognizes regimes like Saudi Arabia as legitimate and cooperative allies.


And I think it's an outrage that GW stands there and praises those countries while condemming and occupying Iraq.

I agree that a free progresive Iraq would be a welcome thing. I just doubt that this will be the end result. And in the meantime Bush is providing military aid to other equally disgusting regimes as compensation for their support in this war.

If the end result is a better Iraq, but more dangerous Pakistan's, Uzbekistan's. etc - then what has this accomplished?

But I DO hope that it works out for Iraqis. They've had a rough ride.

-Z-

Here is what New Genoa claimed was reported on the page he linked to:

Iraqi Civilians Killed by Saddam’s Forces in 1991 Uprising: 30,000-60,000


Here is what it actually says:

• Many civilians were among the 30,000 to 60,000 Iraqis killed by Iraqi forces while suppressing an uprising that began in the south of the country in 1991, after the end of the Persian Gulf War

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/18/us.iraq.tensions/

Intentional or accidental distortion?

accidental