Even the articles that doubt the existence of such shredders acknowledge that there’s been at least one reported witness 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 and this and this and this and this.
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.
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.
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.
Do you realize that Saddam’s refusal to comply with UN Resolutions was killing 4,000 to 5,000 Iraqi children every month? 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.]
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.
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.
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.
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.
From that link:
I’m glad to see that you’re so concerned about men who blew up children.
Ah yes, photos related to this story:
Ooops, daddy fucked up. How noble of Shrub to care now.
and this story:
But not that much.
and this story:
Yeah, gotta make sure Saddam pays for all those killings he did in the 1980s, prior to Gulf I.
Wow, that site has a lot of different stories on it.
Story 1:
Since when do we fight Jordan’s fights?
Story 2:
That’s not all that long after daddy’s fuckup, was it?
Story 3:
Pre-Gulf War.
Story 4:
Pre-Gulf War
Story 5:
Daddy’s War.
Story 6:
Pre-daddy.
Story 7:
Are you sure you shouldn’t be blasting Sr.?
Story 8:
Sigh.
Story 9:
Sigh again. Did you think I wouldn’t actually look at any of these links?
Story 10:
Daddy’s War.
Story 11:
Did you look at these links?
Story 12:
That one’s an eye-opener. Boy we suck. Thank you for these links.
Story 13:
Pre-Daddy.
Story 14:
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 title pretty much says it all.
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?).
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?
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.
Who knows? If funding al-Qaeda is a concern of yours, we’d best bomb Saudi Arabia posthaste, don’t you think?
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.
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)
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.
While I’m tempted to throw the “no partisan cites” stuff back at you, I’ll take your word for it.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Well, okay…if you insist. But I have to tell ya, your pleasure is probably not going to be uppermost in my mind!
But I see your point. There is no Oil for Food scandal. [url=]Got it.
But I’ll sleep better knowing that there was no Oil for Food scandal at the UN.
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.
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.”
The credentials of the Washington Times and those who control it have been discussed many times on these boards, but here’s a cite.
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?
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.
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.
You got an actual eyewitness somewhere? As opposed to a figment of Rev. Moon’s imagination?
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…
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.
