# Mass graves: yet more lies (ho hum) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 22, 2004, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321 "2004-07-22T10:35:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/81 "2004-07-23T02:25:22Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Don’t forget Saddam’s industrial-sized plastic shredders. That one still gets a lot of play among the righty-tighties, even though nobody’s actually _found_ one of those things, much less a real witness. Even the articles that doubt the existence of such shredders acknowledge that there’s been at least [one reported witness](http://www.antiwar.com/spectator/spec36.html) and rumors of others. So I guess your statement that “nobody’s actually found . . . a real witness” is a lie, right? Moreover, the claims of a “human shredder” didn’t come from Bush or Blair, but were first publicized by Ann Clywd (a Labour MP) and James Mahon (head of Indict, an organization in favor of trying the Baathists for war crimes). But, hey, maybe you’re right. Maybe Bush and Blair got to them and convinced them to make up those stories. Which I guess means that proponents of the war are stuck arguing that Saddam was a bad guy based solely on the thousands of people he killed and tortured. I guess we’re stuck with opposing him for his stuff like [this](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101689,00.html) and [this](http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/16/1052885378988.html?oneclick=true) and [this](http://www.hrw.org/photos/2003/iraq/index.htm) and [this](http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iraq&document_limit=200,20) and [this](http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030630-113739-5041r.htm). If the number of people in mass graves was inflated, those numbers appear to have been the result of mistakes (or lies?) by human rights organizations and news outlets. For example, this article refers to 2 mass graves containing “at least 4,000 bodies and perhaps as many as 15,000.” Those numbers are not attributed to Bush or Blair’s government, but to “human rights groups and a British news report.” I’m sure we all agree that Hussein is a bad guy, but it kind of looks like some folks are nitpicking. > [@rjung](#): > > Just say whatever you want to justify your position, then brand anyone who disagrees with you as “unAmerican” – that’s the Republican way. I didn’t realize [you are a Republican](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4676737&postcount=3). > [@rjung (in another thread)](#): > > It shouldn’t matter what side of the political aisle you sit on, folks getting punished for expressing their views is un-American any way you slice it. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/82 "2004-07-23T02:28:38Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Bush words might sound like “hammers” to you, because you are determined to find nothing but bad intentions in all of them. Thus, when Bush proposes to do something good, like taking out Saddam, it gives you a mental torment, probably comparable to loud din of “hammers” inside your head or somesuch. Me? I just say, “Finish Saddam? Good idea!”. You must have been a HUGE Clinton supporter if you adhere to the “well, he lied to the world, but he had a good reason!” philosophy. Sorry, I don’t like my president lying to me. I didn’t like it when Clinton did it, and I sure don’t like it when Bush does it, when the stakes are so much higher. I don’t know what my reaction would have been had he come out and said “Look, the man is a real big bastard dickhead, he tried to kill my daddy, and I hate his guts. I’m gonna go in there and wipe that smirk off his face.” I still wouldn’t have been for the war, but at least it would have been refreshingly honest. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/83 "2004-07-23T02:40:29Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > Ah but it is. Just read the news about the collateral damage from coalition attacks on population centers. > > If you say the attacks are worthwhile…the you are saying deaths of children are worthwhile. I knew this would arise and I intended to speak to it but hit submit before it reoccurred to me. Yes, undoubtedly there are some innocent civilians being killed as a result of the war. However, the U.S. has been taking pains unprecedented in the annals of war to avoid doing so the whatever degree is humanly possible. And of those who have been killed, I would imagine most have died as a result of their having been pushed to the forefront by cowardly Iraqi militia and insurgents who were hiding behind them or intentionally living in their midst for shelter. I would remind you that conservative estimates of Iraqi officials themselves are that over a million Iraqi citizens – men, women and children – were murdered during Hussein’s reign, and often for no more than political expediency or purposes of intimidation. I would wager that for every innocent Iraqi inadvertantly killed now, hundreds if not thousands more will live in the future as a result of having been freed from that regime. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/84 "2004-07-23T02:48:57Z")
So you are saying it’s ok to kill children now so others might live…right? Do you have children? If so…would you, as a parent, accept that? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/85 "2004-07-23T03:09:00Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > So you are saying it’s ok to kill children now so others might live…right? You’re an idiot. Do you realize that Saddam’s refusal to comply with UN Resolutions was killing [4,000 to 5,000 Iraqi children _every month_](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/183499.stm)? And yet you think the UN should have left him in power? Why do you hate babies so much, **Reeder**? [Please note that this post was merely a parody to show how idiotic **Reeder** ’s drivel is.] ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/86 "2004-07-23T03:27:18Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > You’re an idiot. > > Do you realize that Saddam’s refusal to comply with UN Resolutions was killing [4,000 to 5,000 Iraqi children _every month_](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/183499.stm)? And yet you think the UN should have left him in power? > > Why do you hate babies so much, **Reeder**? > > [Please note that this post was merely a parody to show how idiotic **Reeder** ’s drivel is.] Why is it drivel? So you believe the end justifies the means. Kill children now so others may live. You are a baby killer. I don’t believe and never will, that killing children now will save any child. I think you just have dead children. But you don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/87 "2004-07-23T03:41:55Z")
Couldn’t do better myself. If I were to find an **AQA** trail through the Forest of Duh, and dig a pit trap, cover it leaves and wait for him to fall in… You got any idea how those kids died as a result of the sanctions? One word: _chlorine_. Without chlorine Iraq’s (rather antiquated) systems of providing drinking water could not be maintained. Intestinal diseases, the many and varied forms of diarrhea, result, to which children are particularly vulnerable. [http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html](http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html) > [@](#): > > Over the last two years, I’ve discovered documents of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country’s water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway. > > The primary document, “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,” is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens. > > …Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease." The grim irony? Chlorine was sanctioned because of its potential use as a poisonous gas, a WMD. It is commonly known that chlorine is pretty damned useless as a weapons gas. The effect of these sanctions were knowable and known even before they were applied. The article cited has a pretty fair surmise of the cognizant points, if the political stance of the source puts you off (Progressive = liberal = commie = freedom haters) you can Google “Iraq chlorine sanctions” and find plenty of instructive reading. Those children were sacrificed, if murder is too strong a word for you. Perhaps an Iraqi watching his child shit himself to death places all of the blame on Saddam, and regards us as helpless pawns, trapped by his cruel cunning. You think? ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/88 "2004-07-23T03:46:38Z")
So our policy is not based on the slogan “Saddam must go,” but rather is based on the slogan “But think of the children.” Our national policy has never been based on the principal of “think of the children.” Our policy is based on protecting and advancing the vital interests of the United States. If the welfare of Kurdish children was a vital national interest we would have slapped sanctions on Turkey long ago. If the welfare of Kurdish children was a vital national interest of the United States then George H. W. Bush would not have sat on his hands and done just about nothing while all this bad stuff was going on. The problem now is figuring how the invasion and occupation of Iraq advanced or protected some vital national interest of the United States. Initially, in the hysteria (and I use that word advisedly) following 9/11 we were told that Iraq posed a threat to the interests of the United States because Iraq had unconventional weapons which were capable of inflicting mass casualties and Iraq was almost ready to use them against the United States or deliver them to AlQaida which would most certainly use them against the United States. The were sceptics but that was the story and our government was sticking to it, complete with photos of mobile laboratories parked in the dessert and ready to go. As things turned out Iraq did not have unconventional weapons, the mobile labs and Dr Rice’s mushroom shaped clouds notwithstanding. Even less was Saddam in bed with AlQaida. With that our President has now fallen back on the dual mantra of Saddam was America’s “sworn enemy” and had the _capability_ of acquiring or developing unconventional weapons and the appeal for vengeance for dead babies. As a theoretical matter, my poor old grey haired mother has the _capability_ of producing unconventional weapons (unless she can cut down R & D time by simply buying her nuks from Pakistan). That is a pretty feeble argument for an immediate invasion. That leaves us with the “think of the children” approach. One can’t help but wonder why it was if the humanitarian justification and imperative for the invasion was all that strong in the winter of 2002 and the spring of 2003 that the humanitarian imperative did not take a more forward position when the Administration advanced the reasons it was necessary to invade Iraq without delay and without widespread international support. Surely the European allies would have been persuaded by an appeal to the protection of children. The probable truth is that the “Saddam as sworn enemy (Blair as blood brother?) with capability argument is a rationalization, an excuse to justify after the fact things that had different rationales before the fact. The probable truth is that the Administration’s newly magnified concern for innocents is likewise a rationalization necessitated by the fact that the reasons advanced as making the invasion critical to the nation’s security have come up empty. To go back to one of the subjects of this thread – there have been so many lies, misrepresentations, half-truths, non-lies, and placeable denials connected with the adventure in Iraq it is very difficult for very many rational, thoughtful and patriotic people to accept anything this Administration says or does at face value. Many see the Administration as having a policy of willful misrepresentation. It’s tough to accept this newly discovered passion for Iraqi children in the face of that. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/89 "2004-07-23T04:45:05Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Which I guess means that proponents of the war are stuck arguing that Saddam was a bad guy based solely on the thousands of people he killed and tortured. I guess we’re stuck with opposing him for his stuff like [this](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101689,00.html) That’s a Fox News link, and I wouldn’t believe them if they told me it was a bright sunny day outside. I’d have to assume that a monsoon is happening, at least until I confirmed it for myself. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > and [this](http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/16/1052885378988.html?oneclick=true) From that link: > [@](#): > > Baghdad: Film uncovered after the fall of Saddam Hussein showed what seem to be new evidence of brutality under his rule - three men being executed in gruesome fashion by being blown up with explosives packed around their bodies. > > **Convicted in 1985 of a bomb attack that killed children** in Baghdad, Saddam’s security police wired them up to explosives in the desert and simply blew them up, one by one - the whole proceedings captured on a film obtained by Reuters today. I’m glad to see that you’re so concerned about men who blew up children. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > [this](http://www.hrw.org/photos/2003/iraq/index.htm) Ah yes, photos related to this story: > [@](#): > > [Iraqis Break Silence About Secret Graves](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12102-2003May4) > … > At a sun-scorched plot near a mosque on the edge of this city, Mohammed Abed arrived with a shovel at midday to begin searching. He was looking for the remains of three brothers he had not seen since the town’s **large Shiite population rose up against Hussein after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The uprising was encouraged by the U.S. government, which promised support that never materialized.** Ooops, daddy fucked up. How noble of Shrub to care now. and this story: > [@](#): > > [U.S. Unresponsive on Mass Graves](http://hrw.org/press/2003/05/iraq051303.htm) > … > The U.S. government has known since May 3 about the existence of a mass grave in Hilla but **has not taken action to protect the site** , Human Rights Watch charged today. But not that much. and this story: > [@](#): > > [2 Mass Graves in Iraq May Hold 15,000 Bodies](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52432-2003May13?language=printer) > > After visiting places around Baghdad where former security archives were being reviewed for information about missing persons, he found a file confirming that all of the men had been **executed on June 28, 1983** , together with 12 other Feyli Kurds, and had been buried at Mohammad Sakran. Despite this knowledge, he was unable to locate a single one of the graves of his relatives. > > Riad Sakran Hussein, aged 30, came to the site looking for his father, Sakran Hussein al-Shummari, who was **arrested on September 3, 1980** , on accusation of being a member of the Iraqi Communist Party. Yeah, gotta make sure Saddam pays for all those killings he did in the 1980s, **prior to Gulf I**. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > and [this](http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iraq&document_limit=200,20) Wow, that site has a lot of different stories on it. Story 1: > [@](#): > > [Human Rights Watch Criticizes Iraq’s Execution of Four Jordanians](http://www.hrw.org/press97/dec/saddam1.htm) Since when do we fight Jordan’s fights? Story 2: > [@](#): > > [Iraq’s Brutal Decrees](http://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/IRAQ955.htm) > > Nizar Hamdoon, Iraq’s ambassador to the United Nations, told Human Rights Watch/Middle East that several hundred amputations and brandings had been carried out **as of November 1994** That’s not all that long after daddy’s fuckup, was it? Story 3: > [@](#): > > Iraq’s Crime Of Genocide: The Anfal Campaign against the Kurds > > Iraq’s **1988 Anfal campaign** of extermination against the Kurdish people living within its borders resulted in the death of at least 50,000 and as many as 100,000 people, many of them women and children. Pre-Gulf War. Story 4: > [@](#): > > Bureaucracy of Repression: The Iraqi Government in Its Own Words > > Anfal campaign by the government of Iraq against its population of rural Kurds in **1988** amounted to genocide. Pre-Gulf War Story 5: > [@](#): > > Background on Human Rights Conditions, 1984-1992 > > \*\*Endless Torment: The 1991 Uprising in Iraq and its Aftermath (1992). \*\* It examines some of the methods used by the regime’s security apparatus to maintain control of Baghdad and southern Iraq after the post-war March 1991 uprisings were crushed, and includes detailed testimonies about other human rights abuses. Daddy’s War. Story 6: > [@](#): > > Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds > > The campaigns of **1987-1989** were characterized by mass summary executions and the mass disappearance of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, including large numbers of women and children, and sometimes the entire population of villages; Pre-daddy. Story 7: > [@](#): > > Scientific First: Soil Samples Taken from Bomb Craters in Northern Iraq Reveal Nerve Gas - Even Four Years Later > > For the first time ever, scientists have been able to prove the use of chemical weapons through the analysis of environmental residues taken years after such an attack occurred. > > The samples were **collected on June 10, 1992** Are you sure you shouldn’t be blasting Sr.? Story 8: > [@](#): > > The Destruction of Koreme > > …case study of the disaster that befell a single Kurdish village, Koreme, and its population during the Anfal campaign. It aims to show, in the greatest detail, the nature of the **crimes committed in 1988 by the government of President Saddam Hussein** against one remote mountain village in northern Iraqi Kurdistan. Sigh. Story 9: > [@](#): > > Land Mines and Civilian Casualties In Iraqi Kurdistan > > The Iraqi army sowed millions of land mines in northern Iraqi (Iraqi Kurdistan) that were unrecorded and unmarked. These mines do not self-destruct. Because the Iraqis failed to clear them after the end of the \*\*Iranian war in 1988 \*\* (or, as to mines on the Turkish and Syrian borders in Dohuk governorate, **after the 1991 Gulf War** ), we find that the Iraqi land mine practice in northern Iraq was indiscriminate as a matter of customary international law. Sigh again. Did you think I wouldn’t actually look at any of these links? Story 10: > [@](#): > > ENDLESS TORMENT - The **1991 Uprising in Iraq** And Its Aftermath Daddy’s War. Story 11: > [@](#): > > Unquiet Graves - The Search for the Disappeared in Iraqi Kurdistan > > Across northern Iraq, Kurds, freed for now from President Saddam Hussein’s grip, have begun revealing the horrors of nearly a quarter of a century of repressive rule. In former Iraqi police stations and prisons, Kurdish officials have discovered torture chambers and execution sites where they say **thousands of political prisoners died under torture or were shot in the 1980s**. Meanwhile, municipal grave diggers and villagers, now free to tell their stories, have led Kurdish investigators to hundreds of unmarked, single and mass graves. Did **you** look at these links? Story 12: > [@](#): > > NEEDLESS DEATHS IN THE **GULF WAR** > > Civilian Casualties During the Air Campaign and Violations of the Laws of War That one’s an eye-opener. Boy we suck. Thank you for these links. Story 13: > [@](#): > > Whatever Happened To The Iraqi Kurds? [dated **March 11, 1991**] > > It has been **nearly three years since** the chemical bombardment of Halabja, a small town on Iraq’s northeastern border with Iran in which up to 5,000 civilians, mostly women and children, died a painful and well publicized death. Pre-Daddy. Story 14: > [@](#): > > POWs, Wounded And Killed Soldiers: [dated March 7, 1991] > > Middle East Watch is gratified that both sides in the Persian Gulf war have begun to release prisoners of war (POWs) in their custody, and that Allied countries have stated their intention not to repatriate any Iraqi POW who claims to fear persecution in Iraq. The 294 ex-POWS who reached Baghdad yesterday were repatriated according to procedures established by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which includes a private ICRC interview with each POW about his desire to return home. However, Middle East Watch remains concerned that **both Iraq and the Allied countries are disregarding certain of their obligations under the Geneva Conventions**. As a result, prisoners on both sides, as well as families of combatants, have been subjected to unnecessary suffering. Looks like we didn’t like the Geneva Convention back then either. Maybe this is one of the reasons why Osama and his buddies started to not like us. I wonder if the 9/11 Commission looked into this. Story 15: > [@](#): > > THE BOMBING OF IRAQI CITIES: MIDDLE EAST WATCH CONDEMNS BOMBING WITHOUT WARNING OF AIR RAID SHELTER IN BAGHDAD’S AL AMERIYYA DISTRICT ON FEBRUARY 13 [dated March 6, 1991] The title pretty much says it all. > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > and [this](http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030630-113739-5041r.htm). > [@](#): > > Video shows torture of prisoners overseen by Saddam’s half brother > > BAGHDAD — A graphic video to be broadcast today shows Saddam Hussein’s half brother, ousted Interior Minister Watban Ibrahim Hasan al-Tikriti, exhorting his police officers as they beat and torture prisoners. > “Go on, go on,” Hasan tells his khaki-clad ministry police as they repeatedly slash prisoners with sticks, electric cables and metal bars at a Baghdad detention center. The police kick the prisoners again and again. Well, there we go. No kids, but at least it’s within the last decade. We don’t know what these prisoners did (which, of course, wouldn’t justify torture in any case, wouldn’t you agree?). > [@Starving Artist](#): > > Yeah, and guess what? Many of them were somebody’s grandchildren! > > And guess what else? It’s not happening now! > > Again…grandchildren are not being burned, gassed, or shot because of the U.S. That is a good thing! Jr. was just finishing what Sr. started. I was actually for the Gulf War at the time, much to the horror of my husband and friends. I was obsessed with it. Now I feel somewhat ashamed, when I think of all the ways Sr. bungled the job. WE helped kill those children by not getting rid of Saddam then. WE helped kill those children by not giving the people protection. WE helped kill those children by our sanctions. War or not, we have a lot of blood on our hands. I don’t know what we could have done, but invasion was a really, really bad idea. If you’re so concerned about children dying, what do you think about invading Sudan? > [@Starving Artist](#): > > (I know, I know, financing Israeli sucide bombers doesn’t really count as terrorist support to those such as you, but it does to me and it convinces me even more that Hussein would aid al-Qaeda if given the chance) What the flying fuck is that supposed to mean?? Are you implying that I support terrorist suicide bombers? Fuck you again (and this is the Pit, I can say it as much as I want). Did Bush lead us into war by telling us that we need to protect Israel? I missed that. If he said we needed to get rid of Saddam to cut off funding for Israeli suicide bombers, I’d like to see a cite. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > convinces me even more that Hussein would aid al-Qaeda if given the chance) Who knows? If funding al-Qaeda is a concern of yours, we’d best bomb Saudi Arabia posthaste, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/90 "2004-07-23T04:45:07Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You got any idea how those kids died as a result of the sanctions? One word: _chlorine_. You won’t find me defending the UN sanctions. I was opposed to the UN sanctions against Iraq – as I’m opposed to almost all sanctions – because the brunt of sanctions is hardly even felt by the ruling elite. Do you think the quality of Hussein’s water suffered at all? Of course not. The water quality suffered for the poor and downtrodden under Hussein’s thumb. And they died for it. But to say that the Hussein was merely a helpless pawn in all of this is lunacy. He knew what his pursuit of WMD was doing to his people. He knew that the international community would not lift the sanctions as long as he defied UN resolutions. And yet he kept doing it. Moreover, despite your link’s premise, the sanctions were the result of deliberation, debate, and “democracy” on the floor of the esteemed UN. The US wasn’t solely responsible for those sanctions. The blame for those sanctions spreads like oil across the deck of a [French tanker](http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm). > [@](#): > > After the fall of Baghdad last spring, France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That’s because France and Russia profited from it: The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003. In fact, [98% of Iraq’s 4.2 million children under the age of 5](http://www.unicef.org/media/media_7302.html) have received vaccinations from deadly diseases after the fall of Hussein’s regime. The Iraqi Ministry of Health’s budget for 2002 was $16 million (less than 75 cents per person). For 2004, it’s [$950 million ($40 per person)](http://electroniciraq.net/news/1503.shtml). Water treatment is lagging at 65% of pre-war loads (which appears to be the result of both bombs and a lack of maintenance during Hussein’s rule). But Unicef says its programmes have improved water quality for 1.6 million people, and reduced sewage pollution for about 9 million people. USAid is distributing 1.4 million litres each day to people in cities such as Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul. USAid is renovating eight sewage plants, including three in Baghdad, and five water treatment plants. And emergency repairs to systems in many parts of the country have been carried out, including the mending of hundreds of broken pipes across the country. ([Cite](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3605783.stm)) Yes, children are dying from bombs and guns right now, and that’s a tragedy. But it’s not a zero sum game. Guns and bombs aren’t the only reason that Iraqi children die. Thousands more children alive right now will live to see adulthood because Hussein has been deposed. Their lives have been saved by the current military action. > [@elucidator](#): > > The article cited has a pretty fair surmise of the cognizant points, if the political stance of the source puts you off (Progressive = liberal = commie = freedom haters) you can Google “Iraq chlorine sanctions” and find plenty of instructive reading. While I’m tempted to throw the “no partisan cites” stuff back at you, I’ll take your word for it. > [@elucidator](#): > > Those children were sacrificed, if murder is too strong a word for you. Perhaps an Iraqi watching his child shit himself to death places all of the blame on Saddam, and regards us as helpless pawns, trapped by his cruel cunning. And perhaps the Iraqi parents of the 4,000 to 5,000 children who shit themselves to death every month thought it was a good idea to “give the inspections more time to work.” Maybe they saw the wisdom of perpetuating the rule of a man who knew his actions were killing thousands of his own people, but cared not a whit. Maybe they thought it better to be the deliberate targets of Saddam’s henchmen than to be the accidental casualties of coalition soldiers. Maybe they revered UN Resolutions and building an international coalition more than they revered their lives. Maybe they were fine with the status quo. You think? ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/91 "2004-07-23T05:00:56Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Moreover, despite your link’s premise, the sanctions were the result of deliberation, debate, and “democracy” on the floor of the esteemed UN. The US wasn’t solely responsible for those sanctions. The blame for those sanctions spreads like oil across the deck of a [French tanker](http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm). Oh, that is a load of bullshit. First, your cite is from the Washington Times. They also believe that Rev Moon is the Messiah and has saved the souls of Hitler and Stalin. Second, the French and the Russians weren’t dragging out the Oil-for-Food program to make future profit (a forlorn hope if contracts are only going to US and CotW companies). They were trying to ensure that they got paid the many billions of dollars they were owed. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/92 "2004-07-23T05:10:06Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > Why is it drivel? So you believe the end justifies the means. Kill children now so others may live. > You are a baby killer. > > I don’t believe and never will, that killing children now will save any child. I think you just have dead children. It’s drivel because it’s simplistic and erroneous. It presumes the killing of children as a goal in the drive to win the war. This is plainly ridiculous. I doubt there have been any major wars in history in which children have not been killed. It is a sad and awful by-product of war, and unfortunately it is usually unavoidable. Another unfortunate thing is that sometimes wars _have_ to be fought. If a country was to never fight a war in order so that no children were ever killed, it would be necessary not to fight a war under _any_ circumstances. This would mean wholesale capitulation to any and every threat from any other country, and while I’m sure there are many on this board who believe peace at any cost would be the preferred way to exist, they would change their minds in short order if they were to truly be confronted with the consequences of such a policy. I don’t remember who said this originally, but it has been said that “people sleep warm and comfortable in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence in the behalf.” And this is true. Any country that would officially adopt a peace-at-any-cost philosophy and refuse to fight under any circumstances would eventually find itself being ruled by someone like Saddam Hussein, and they would find more of their people, children included, being killed by him than would have ever been killed fighting him. > [@Reeder](#): > > But you don’t care. Yes, I do…as I’ve just explained. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/93 "2004-07-23T05:32:27Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > Now I feel somewhat ashamed, when I think of all the ways Sr. bungled the job. > > WE helped kill those children by not getting rid of Saddam then. > WE helped kill those children by not giving the people protection. > WE helped kill those children by our sanctions. > > War or not, we have a lot of blood on our hands. _I absolutely could not agree with you more!_ I was furious then, and when I think about it I get furious now! In this regard you could not be more correct! > [@Equipoise](#): > > What the flying fuck is that supposed to mean?? It means that every time I say Iraq supported terrorism and that is one of the primary reasons I support our action in Iraq, I’m called an idiot and told there is no evidence that Iraq ever supported terrorism. Clearly they did support terrorism against Israel, and it is my belief that a government either supports the use of terrorism as a tactic to achieve a goal, or it doesn’t. The fact Iraq supported terrorism against Israel is all I need to believe it would be just as likely to support or assist terrorism against us. > [@Equipoise](#): > > Are you implying that I support terrorist suicide bombers? To quote the best president of at least this century, there you go again! I said that to people like you, Iraq’s support of Israeli terrorist attacks does not seem to cause you to accept and recognize Iraq as a supporter of terrorism. I said nothing about you supporting supporting terrorist suicide bombers. > [@Equipoise](#): > > Fuck you again (and this is the Pit, I can say it as much as I want). Well, okay…if you insist. But I have to tell ya, your pleasure is probably not going to be uppermost in my mind! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/94 "2004-07-23T05:45:29Z")
> [@lambchops](#): > > Oh, that is a load of bullshit. First, your cite is from the Washington Times. They also believe that Rev Moon is the Messiah and has saved the souls of Hitler and Stalin. Cite? But I see your point. There is no Oil for Food scandal. [url=]Got it. > [@ABC News (emphasis added)](#): > > The inquiries into the United Nations Oil-for-Food program result from the release in January of a list of 270 individuals, companies and institutions that allegedly received lucrative oil contracts from Saddam Hussein’s former regime in return for political support. > > The list was published by an Iraqi independent newspaper which claimed the document was discovered in the files of the former Iraqi Oil Ministry in Baghdad. > > Oil vouchers were allegedly given either as gifts or as payment for goods imported into Iraq in violation of the U.N. sanctions. > > The following are the names of some of those listed as receiving Iraqi oil contracts (amounts are in millions of barrels of oil): > > **Russia** > **The Companies of the Russian Communist Party** : 137 million > **The Companies of the Liberal Democratic Party** : 79.8 million > **The Russian Committee for Solidarity with Iraq** : 6.5 million and 12.5 million (two separate contracts) > **Head of the Russian Presidential Cabinet** : 90 million > **The Russian Orthodox Church** : 5 million > > **France** > Charles Pasqua, **former minister of interior** : 12 million > Trafigura (Patrick Maugein), businessman: 25 million > **Ibex** : 47.2 million > Bernard Merimee, **former French ambassador to the United Nations** : 3 million > Michel Grimard, **founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club** : 17.1 million > . . . . > United States > Samir Vincent: 7 million > Shakir Alkhalaji: 10.5 million > > United Kingdom > **George Galloway, member of Parliament** : 19 million > Mujaheddin Khalq: 36.5 million > . . . . But I’ll sleep better knowing that there was no Oil for Food scandal at the UN. > [@lambchops](#): > > Second, the French and the Russians weren’t dragging out the Oil-for-Food program to make future profit (a forlorn hope if contracts are only going to US and CotW companies). They were trying to ensure that they got paid the many billions of dollars they were owed. Again, thanks for clearing that up. Do you mind telling me how the perpetuation of sanctions would ensure that they got paid billions of dollars? Because I would think that the perpetuation of sanctions would have hampered Iraq’s ability to earn money, thus hampering their ability to pay their debts. I mean, at best, Russia and France, et al., were more interested in putting billions of dollars in the pockets of large corporations than they were in the lives of the thousands of Iraqis that – as **elucidator** has pointed out – were dying because of the sanctions they put in place. But maybe I’m missing something. I’m sure you’ll explain it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/95 "2004-07-23T05:47:29Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > …Clearly they did support terrorism against Israel, and it is my belief that a government either supports the use of terrorism as a tactic to achieve a goal, or it doesn’t. The fact Iraq supported terrorism against Israel is all I need to believe it would be just as likely to support or assist terrorism against us… No matter how many times this is beaten to death, it rises from the grave and stalks the living. The either/or fallacy. “Terrorism” is an identifiable and definable thing, black/white, no shades. A country that offers even tacit support to terrorists is a terrorist regime. Being a well-informed person, I’m sure you are aware of the mass graves of indigenous Indians and peasants in South America, the nuns raped, the priests slaughtered, by Central American governments with the tacit acceptance of the US. Does this, then, make us as much a “terror regime” as Saddam’s? And if not, why not? Having such faith in your good sense, I am entirely certain you are not going to advance the perfectly ridiculous proposition that we invade and occupy every ME state that, by your definition, “supports terror” and are therefore “just as likely to support and assist terrorism against us.” ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/96 "2004-07-23T05:59:45Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Cite? > > But I see your point. There is no Oil for Food scandal. The credentials of the Washington Times and those who control it have been discussed many times on these boards, but here’s a [cite](http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1245929,00.html). > [@your cite from the Moonie Times](#): > > France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Do you mind telling me how the perpetuation of sanctions would ensure that they got paid billions of dollars? Because I would think that the perpetuation of sanctions would have hampered Iraq’s ability to earn money, thus hampering their ability to pay their debts. This is my point - the idea that France and Russia would perpetuate the sanctions is bullshit. There was no French and Russian conspiracy to do so, because, as you so astutely point out, doing so would mean that they were less likely to be paid. I never said that people weren’t skimming money off the Oil for Food program. Sure looks like they did. I said that there was no Franco-Russian plot to extend the sanctions (by preventing the US invasion or otherwise) and that such a notion was nonsensical. How do you explain Germany’s or China’s opposition to the war? Were they merely profiteering from the program too? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/97 "2004-07-23T06:17:52Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Having such faith in your good sense, I am entirely certain you are not going to advance the perfectly ridiculous proposition that we invade and occupy every ME state that, by your definition, “supports terror” and are therefore “just as likely to support and assist terrorism against us.” And your rebuttal has likewise been repeated over and over and beaten to death. There is a distinction, you see. Of all the countries of South America and in the Middle East, Iraq under Hussein had shown itself to be a singular threat by virtue of its animus toward the U.S. due to our having kicked its ass out of Kuwait and then prevented it from killing the Kurds within its own borders. And by virtue of the fact that it had obtained and used WMD in the past, against both Iran and his own people. We embarrassed Hussein through the use of no-fly zones and weapons inspections. We thwarted his attempts to gain nuclear weapons and other WMD, which he wanted in order to further his expansionist plans in the region. He hated the U.S., and given his ruthlessness and the fact that he undoubtedly still harbored expansionist plans in the area, he presented a unique, and in my opinion, virtually certain threat to the U.S. by potentially serving as a weapons supplier to al-Qaeda. You can disagree all you like, and I’m sure you will, but it changes nothing. In my opinion, Bush would have been derelict in his duty to allow Hussein to remain in power. So there, stick that in your smipe and poke it! ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/98 "2004-07-23T06:28:00Z")
**Starving** , Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, didn’t have the capability to make them (or no more capability than you or I do) and wouldn’t have had the capability to deliver them anyway. It didn’t have links to al Qaeda. As far as we know, it had no plans to attack the US or any of its allies. There would be no advantage to Saddam or the nation and a hell of a lot of risk if it did so. Which makes the idea that Iraq was plotting to attack the US by supplying weapons of mass destruction a complete and utter pile of bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/99 "2004-07-23T06:33:24Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > Even the articles that doubt the existence of such shredders acknowledge that there’s been at least [one reported witness](http://www.antiwar.com/spectator/spec36.html) and rumors of others. “One reported witness”? You mean the **fictional** Pastor Kenneth Joseph? From your own cite: > [@](#): > > When Carol Lipton, an American journalist, investigated his story in April for CounterPunch, she reported that **‘none of the human shield groups whom I contacted had ever heard of Joseph’.** She also noted that ‘incredibly, nowhere has a single photo or segment from [Joseph’s] 14 hours of interviews been published’. And from [here:](http://members.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/saddam.htm#Shredder%20Shocker) > [@](#): > > From: [ABSoro@aol.com](mailto:ABSoro@aol.com) > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:17:47 EST > Subject: Re: Can you confirm this story? > > Johnny: > > The only thing that I can confirm is that **Kenneth Joseph, IS NOT a pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East** nor has he been associated with the Assyrian Church in any shape or form. > > Bishop Soro > Secretary General of Interchurch Relations > Assyrian Church of the East > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > So I guess your statement that “nobody’s actually found . . . a real witness” is a lie, right? You got an actual eyewitness somewhere? As opposed to a figment of Rev. Moon’s imagination? > [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > I didn’t realize [you are a Republican](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4676737&postcount=3). You realize those quotes don’t contradict each other, don’t you? On the other hand, considering that you apparently believe fictional people count as “witnesses,” I shouldn’t make too many assumptions here about your reasoning abilities… ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2004, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321/100 "2004-07-23T06:34:36Z")
> [@lambchops](#): > > Which makes the idea that Iraq was plotting to attack the US by supplying weapons of mass destruction a complete and utter pile of bullshit. Correction: It makes the idea that Iraq was plotting to attack the US with weapons of mass destruction, either directly or by supplying them to terrorists, a complete and utter pile of bullshit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-graves-yet-more-lies-ho-hum/256321.md?page=6)