Human Rights in Iraq

Great Debates
1

Iraq’s human rights record under Saddam has been less than stellar. I don’t think I have to provide any cites to this specifically, you can Google it yourself to verify (A search for Iraq torture “human rights” returned 89,000 pages). Hell, it’s reported that they tortured their own Olympic athletes when they missed practices or didn’t perform up to par.

Now, I freely admit that I don’t believe these human rights atrocities are the reason we’re invading Iraq. But, when it all comes down to it, does that really matter? It seems to me that a lot of people who are currently in the “dove” category regarding the war are the same people who, in times of peace, were some of the most vocal about the issues and problems with Saddam’s leadership.

Forget disarmament, forget arguing about whether this invasion is justified based on Iraq’s adherence to resolution 1441. Instead, focus for a minute on the fact that, in Saddam’s reign, tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens (figures from this) have been tortured, murdered, or have just plain disappeared. Saddam has been in power for over 20 years and shows no signs of cleaning up his own act in this regard. Saddam’s sons are just as bad, so it seems that “waiting it out” isn’t an option either.

So, it’s my position that many of the Iraqi people have been at war (a war as one-sided as Saddam’s army’s war against the U.S. will likely be) with their leader for 20 years. Isn’t this then justification enough for the invasion? If your goal is real peace for Iraq, isn’t the forced removal of this regime really the only option in this regard? Why then are so many people who are supposedly for peace against this invasion? It seems a bit short-sighted to me.

2

I’m fascinated that this thread got zero replies in over a week. I wonder why.

3

I’m a liberal war hawk so I can’t speak for my placard waving, soft-centered pinko brethren on this question but I’d hazard they don’t see ‘pro-active’ war as legitimate in any circumstances, let alone when – in their view - not all the diplomatic avenues have been fully explored. Or when, on most interpretations, this ‘pro-active invasion’ is outside any recognisable international legal framework.

But there I go; playing *your game *of selecting a single aspect / issue and saying ‘deny the legitimacy of this’ – don’t work that way. Facts, perspectives, moral imperatives and much more is/are stacked on both sides and no single issue overrides all those others. One is, on this issue of Iraq, to face all manner of incredibly difficult questions. But that has been for decades, of course, at the heart of Saddam’s strategy; to divide UN / the International community opinion; divide (them) and continue to rule.

To be honest, the question you pose seems a little intellectually dishonest, in - given the quality of Saddam’s long-game strategy - a fairly naïve and transparent way.IMHO / YMMV

4

Certainly, regardless of where you sit… regardless of whether you live in the Arab World, or the sub-continent, or the Western World, or Africa, or the Far East… it’s agreed by everyone (I feel safe in saying) that the Iraqi people themselves deserve some sort of saviour - if only to redress the cynical manipulation of the last 12 years of sanctions which Saddam used to “amplify the perception of the underdog” both intra and externally of Iraq.

Sadly however, there’s a dreadful Catch-22 involved. The nature of Saddams regime is one which requires military occupation to force it’s extinction - and yet the very nature of military occupation is so abhorrent to the Iraqi people that they are prepared to fight for Saddam (like the Russian people did for Stalin in 1941). It’s weird, and it’s just plain sad.

There are some who argue that Saddam was at the end of his days regardless, and that there’s no way either of sons would have managed to continue the dynasty - unlike the much more canny al-Assids of Syria - but such pontification is conjecture based on “what if GWB hadn’t ever invaded” and as such, it’s a moot point.

Bottom line? President Bush has rolled the dice in a big way. The Coalition is in there now, and they have to somehow demonstrate, AFTER the regime falls, that they are not merely rapers and pillagers of the Iraqi economy, but rather, are true saviours and that further, (and most importantly) are prepared to trust prominent Arab administrators from neighbouring regions to allow Iraq to turn itself into a finer place.

Now, this last caveat is amazingly important. The Coalition, as soon as possible, has to pass the ball onto the neighbouring Arab states. If they don’t - they’ll forever be accused of being an Occupying Army - open to all sorts of Jihad reprisals. If they let the Arab region take care of Iraq, then, if Iraq fails, it will be much, MUCH harder for the Middle East to blame the Coalition. But if Iraq succeeds and goes from strength to strength, then the USA will redeem itself immeasurably.

Oh, and perhaps most importantly, the Coalition should make an effort to at least go 50/50 in terms of paying for the costs of rebuilding Iraq. The Arab World is seething at the moment that Iraq should have to pay 100% of the bill for the damage caused by the Coalition invasion. It matters not whether this is right or wrong - what counts is that such a gesture would be a magnanimous one which the Western World could afford, and it would earn immense kudos.

5

You know, it occurs to me that this OP has an implied assumption that whatever government results after Saddam’s regime is deposed will be significantly better than Saddam’s.

Now, that would seem to be a pretty safe assumption. But is it a given?

If the US remains in control for a year or two, I can comfortably predict that there will not be state sponsored repression of the populace. But will there be continuing terrorism against US troops, and escalating responses from the US (reference: the West Bank and Gaza).

If the US installs a democracy, isn’t it somewhat possible that Islamic fundamentalists will be able to build the largest coalition? Could a Taliban-like government become elected democratically?

So, I ask again, how safe is that implied assumption?

6

I believe that the perpetuators of human rights abuses are criminal, and should be treated as such. By that, I mean they should be legally and fairly tried in an International court.

If we were in this war to drag Saddam to court, I wouldn’t be so against it. But we are in this war to kill him and occupy this country. That goes far beyond preventing and punishing human rights abuses. At best, it’s vigilantism. At worst, it a big old fashioned power grab. I don’t think either way is moral or acceptable.

7

I’d just like to point out the fallacy of using Google hits to determine the extent of a problem.

American torture “human rights” returns 235,000 hits, but I don’t think the problem of torture in America is three times as bad as in Iraq.

8

On first reading I had a hard time figuring out what the point of the OP was until AZCowboy pointed out the assumptions. It doesn’t make much sense unless you basically already believe the war is good. Not only does it assume that whatever regime replaces Saddam Hussein’s will be better, but that it will be so much better that it will make the large-scale death and destruction of this war worthwhile. Yeah, Hallburton going to build a paradise on earth for the Iraqi people. :rolleyes: I suppose you actually believe the propaganda that says that Iraqi actually want their country to be bombed and invaded.

A search for “United States” torture “human rights” returned 207,000 pages. What’s your point?

9

I’m fascinated that this thread got zero replies in over a week. I wonder why. ~ Masonite

Why do people whistle past graveyards?
Why do New Yorkers walk past people being muged?

Besides loud chants cussing Bush drown out the unending screams that emanate from Iraqi torture cells.

10

This is the kind of jingoistic sensationalism that leads us to commit all sorts of foreign policy blunders.

11

Besides loud chants cussing Bush drown out the unending screams that emanate from Iraqi torture cells. ~ Milum

This is the kind of jingoistic sensationalism that leads us to commit all sorts of foreign policy blunders. * ~ Early Out*

“Jingoistic sensationalism” Early Out? Hardly. What I wrote is called “allegoric allusion for emphasis”.

Hey! Ever notice that apologists for Saddam Hussein never challenge the fact that mass murder and horrendous torture is the foundation of his regime, rather, they challenge with the indignation of the self-righteous, the way that you said it.

Strange. ______________** ? ** _______________

12

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/usvsiraq.htm

We got 'im beat on the deaths-caused front.

13

Nothing beats supplying a madman,directly, with the means in which to kill many, many people.

14
  • “We have heard that a half million children have died,”
    said “60 Minutes” reporter Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions
    against Iraq. “I mean, that’s more children than died in
    Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?”
    Her guest, in May 1996, U.N. Ambassador Madeleine
    Albright, responded: “I think this is a very hard choice, but
    the price – we think the price is worth it.”*

OK Verminous, so empty headed Lesley Stahl has, you know, heard.
And poor Madeleine Albright has the brains of a B.B.
So… what is your point?

15

Wow, Verminous, what a cite. A link to an AOL members page. He is a member of AOL so he must be unbiased right? Oh, take a look at the index page. Here is a quote from the top of the page:

Yup, this guy is a unbiased and reliable source :frowning:

Here is another quote:

Note, he claims that banned weapons have been found. He doesn’t claim Iraq is clean. Significant does not wqual ALL.

I somehow think that this is not a source I would rely upon.

Slee

16

lol

Pretty much, yeah.

I’ll dig up a more ‘reliable’ source to satisfy your needs.

17

This is about as ‘reliable’ as one can get, since the U.S. media wouldn’t want to report on it: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/25a/008.html

As for the U.S. companies supplying Iraq with dangerous weapons: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true

My whole point is that we’ve caused much more death in Iraq, directly or indirectly, than Saddam himself.

18

You’re missing the point. No one is apologizing for Saddam Hussein or his regime. I don’t think there are more than a handful of people, anywhere, who would deny that his regime has held power primarily by murdering, torturing, and otherwise oppressing its opponents.

That’s not, however, the same thing as saying that the U.S. has an absolute right or duty to bomb Iraq and send in the Marines unilaterally, to “right” the situation. If we accept the awfulness of the Baathist regime as a justification for starting a war, we’d better be prepared to fight several dozen wars simultaneously. Murdering and torturing one’s opponents is depressingly common in the world today. Reading Amnesty International reports is a real downer, guaranteed to make you despair at the capacity of humans to cause each other misery.

Awful governments can only be dealt with by the international community. The U.N. is certainly flawed, but for the moment, it’s all we’ve got. When the U.S. decides to go it alone, we set ourselves up as the sole judge of which governments are OK, and which deserve to be pulverized.

The current war against Hussein’s regime may produce positive results; it will almost certainly put an end to the current regime. The danger is that the Law of Unintended Consequences will kick in, and we may well end up with a situation that’s actually worse than what we started with - no stable government in Baghdad, increased recruiting for Al-Qaeda, fundamentalist forces destabilizing more moderate regimes in other nations (and even those moderate regimes have pretty dismal human rights records - imagine what their replacements could look like), anti-Americanism rising to fever pitch, and so on.

This is what I meant in my previous post: if we give in to the “my god, that government is brutal, so let’s crush it” logic, and launch military adventures without the support of at least a goodly chunk of the rest of the world, we’re setting ourselves up for worse trouble down the road.