Count me as against executing them after a military tribunal. That’s too close to exactly what I’m against. Far better than what many governments have as a judicial system, but inadequate for me. I’m not looking to set the bar as low as possible, judicially speaking. Some people hate the legal system in the United States. I am not one of them.
Keeping some of these terrorists for a long time without trial seems inevitible though. Fog of war.
You’re confused on this one Beagle. If you want to extract the nuance from US-Iraqi relations during the 1980s, you’re going to have to do more digging.
The Anfal Campaign against the Kurds began in 1987 and peaked in 1988. It destroyed several thousand villages and killed close to 100,000 Kurds. In May 1987 Hussein became the first leader in world history to use lethal chemical weapons against his own people. Oh, then there are the mass executions. To the extent that Hussein seeked to eradicate all rural Kurdish life (though not all Kurds) the act can be considered one of genocide.
Hussein figured he had carte blanche from the US. After all, they had not delivered sanctions for previous atrocities. Who remembers the Armenians - I mean the Kurds - after all?
What did the US do? Well, in September 1988 the Senate unanimously passed a sanctions bill, following some hard work conducted by Peter Galbraith, a staff member of Senator Pell’s.
The Reagan administration was alarmed. After all, they had a cold war to fight. Cables went out to Bagdhad, seeking to assure Hussein that the US understood that the Kurdish problem was, “an historical one”. As journalists pressed the Reagan administration for some public condemnation of the ongoing tragedy, a careful hypothetical was offered: “If they were true, of course, we would strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons, as we have in the past”.
Which offers a nice lesson in realpolitik: when confronted with a moral atrocity, take refuge in the absence of perfect information.
Anyway, the sanctions bill was successfully opposed. Instead the US urged the UN to send in a team of experts to investigate these allegations, in the full knowledge that similar UN investigations in 1986, 1987 and 1988 had concluded that Iraq had used chemical weapons against Iran and that such work had done nothing to stem their use.
Nuance: actually, I understand that relations between the US and Iraq did deteriorate somewhat in the period leading to Gulf War I. But I think it’s fair to say that the US’s anti-genocide policy during the 1980s was inert.
My sourcing is from A Problem from Hell by Samantha Powers (2002). The acerbic tone is my own.
Inevitable, as in a. A as in hole, possibly. But, it’s hard not to do some kind of balancing test between what al Qaeda does and what Saddam did and still does, to Cuba. In other words, some of these guys need to stay behind bars until the “war” is over. To them, that may mean blowing themselves up in a truck near a building filled with civilians. I don’t see letting them out to try to capture them all over again.
But, to be clear, executing the prisoners is wrong for a number of reasons. Some of them are arguably prisoners of war. Moreover, humane incarceration is more than sufficient.
The more I consider the death penalty the less I like it.
This is the best way to get the “whatevers” to acknowledge Saddam’s atrocities.
Just because the US doesn’t consistenly support human rights does not mean the US can never support human rights.
And from what i’ve read, before Jimmy Carter and vietnam human rights were not considered important in the US’s foreign policy. Virtually every name you’ve listed occured before Carter’s presidency. But there was support of tyrants after Carter too. Saddam, Suharto, The leaders of El Salvador, Somoza, etc. etc.
http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr990616.html
We also helped remove some dictators. Saddam, Milosevic, Somoza, Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini, Omar Mohammed, Charles Taylor, Pinochet (the US acted behind the scenes with the help of Elliott Abrams to have him hold the plebiscite), Noreiga, etc. We also were a powerhouse in the war against communism. Today there are only 5 (vietnam, Laos, N korea, China, Cuba) communist countries, and according to freedom house 3-4 of them are among the worst 7 countries on earth for political and civil rights.
You tell us. When are the trials going to be? What are the charges and the evidence? Are you planning to skip those technicalities in the name of gittin’ some o’ dem dam’ Ay-rabs, or what? After that, then you can talk about the execution chamber as one of the new facilities they’ll be much happier with.
What the hell are you trying to accomplish with this approach?
beagle, is it really unclear that the accusation you’re responding to is one of hypocrisy, not the use of warfare? The stated reasons are NOT the real ones, or people like you would be telling us about Burma and Sudan and Zimbabwe too. Well, why aren’t you? Is it because you’re having trouble facing certain truths about your own morality and gullibility, and would rather condemn those who can see a little more clearly as a defense mechanism?
Ok, now that I’ve addressed the factual record…
I do agree that the US’s past policy errors in no way justify turning a blind eye towards the tyrant de jour.
Elvis: Here’s the problem.
Hawk: “Look at the Iraqi prisons! My God, Hussein was a sicko! I’m sure glad we invaded!”
Peacenik: “Your team wasn’t so upset about Hussein in the 1980’s, pal.”
As I’ve framed the conversation, the Peacenik is basically making an ad hominem attack. Which is sort of off the point, right?
Now then:
Reflective Hawk: “Past policy errors do not justify future errors”.
Sophisticated Peace Advocate: “If you are truly advocating a plan to systematically intervene when gross human rights abuses occur, I would like to see some elaboration. Absent such a comprehensive (although presumably unofficial) framework, I am inclined to dismiss your protests as propaganda, old chap”.
Reflective Hawk: “Ok, but looking at the substance of the issue, surely it justifiable to point out the humanitarian benefits along with the security advantages associated with intervention.”
SPA: “Maybe, but that’s not the tune I was hearing earlier.”
RH: “Oh, that was my evil twin…”
Wow no Bushnicks mentioned “appeasment”… incredible… must be the summer time.
I prefer peace… but I go for Sun Tzu’s “prepare for war if you want peace.” So calling people who prefer peace as pacifists is a silly knee jerk reaction.
Now if Saddam was useful in the past and he became this “big” problem… why is the US turning a blind eye to Pakistan’s extremism and undemocratic government ? Why are they pretending that Checyna isn’t a major human rights problem ? That major military campaigns with clearly defined objetives leads to Vietnams.
So besides attacking one of the few secular governments in the Middle East why isn't the US refraining from commiting the same mistakes ?Oh shit, someone better tell Switzerland and Costa Rica fast. :eek:
UnuMondo
This whole being opposed to war=appeasing Saddam and opposing the war=not supporting the troops is utter horseshit and I am really disappointed that people on this board, of all places, would continue to attempt to advance this ignorant fallacy. But hey, that’s the right wing way. Demagogue on the rebarbitive hot buttons of the (majority in the US) dumbasses instead of offerring constructive ideas for improving our lot. All of us, that is.
Iran invaded sovereign US territory and held diplomats hostage for 444 days. In the West this is known as an “act of war.” In the end, the hostages got out. A peaceful solution “worked,” after the helicopter disaster in the desert.
The news coverage was bizarre. The media called the hostage takers “students” for some bizarre reason never clear to me. Even as a child I was pretty sure they weren’t getting much studying done. For many US citizens the Iranian hostage crisis was their first introdution to Islam, or even the word. For years, many people were not sure if “Ayatollah” was a name or a title – they just knew the “Khomeni” version attacked the United States every chance he got, and rubbed our faces in our “impotence” (restraint) for over a year.
Maybe the message was sent to Islamists (theocratic, dictatorial, expansionist) that the United States was weak and indecisive. US administrations used Saddam and Iraq to get at Iran and the Mullahs, instead of dealing with the Mullahs directly. Millions die in wars, and brutality reigns in both nations, but most not due to the US unless you are a wide-eyed true believer. By far, most of the arms were not from the US, for example. But, the US did ignore arms shipments that were made to both countries. In some cases the US did supply arms.
Reagan cuts and runs from Lebanon. Probably never should have gone. Bush I does liberate Kuwait for its royal family (beats Saddam in Kuwait), leave Saddam in power, and begin sanctions. That’s a pretty mixed bag, in hindsight not enough and too much, IMO. Clinton, Somalia, Cole, first WTC, etc. Bush does not react until 9/11.
Now, finally, the United States is striking back. We’ve been living in a dream world where millions? of radicals foaming at the mouth about how they want to destroy the United States, et al is no threat. Should we bomb Karachi? No. But, to ignore the threat from the radicals that live there is sure not to work.
Give GWB credit for cleaning up one of the messes left over, Saddam, and credit for the new one.
So, part of the world that wants to destroy me, I’m putting you on notice: no more Mister Nice Guy. :rolleyes:
>> Now, finally, the United States is striking back
No. It is striking Irak with no justification other than it shares religion and culture with some bad guys. If you find that acceptable then you must find 9/11 acceptable. The innocent people who died on 9/11 deserved to die about as much as the innocent Iraqis who have been killed since the war and occupation began. Killing innocent people is not justifiable.
And I don’t still understand what the fuck the OP is about. What are “whatevers?” Which group of pacifists “always” uses the argument that we used to support Saddam? And furthermore, what’s the argument? No informed person disputes that fact–but it’s a fact, not an argument. Some people use it to bemoan what looks like hypocrisy, others probably use it to savor the irony, and I’m sure there are other points made. So what were you referring to?
And I don’t get the equation you’ve set up. Do you mean pacifists in world policy are equivalent to Saddam? Or that they lead to Saddams? What?
No, actually, I don’t have to find 9/11 acceptable.
I was referring to the extent that we were responsible for Saddam we are far more responsible for his, albeit temporary, demise. In the long run that will matter more than the presidential politics in all this. I don’t have to believe what you want me to believe to make your strawmen easier to erect.
Soldiers really are dying for a lack of support from people in government, some pig-headed Republicans. Iraq is suffering because some high-minded but low rent “allies” are more concerned with their oil contracts with Saddam than the fate of the Iraqi people.
Take it from an American, they won’t thank you.
Fortunately, the cut and run philosophy has not hit the soldiers or the majority of Americans yet.
And, once again, the scourge of Cognitive Dissonance has struck in our very midst! How many more, like poor young Beagle here, are to have thier wits torn from thier grasp by Cognitive Dissonance, the Number #1 threat to the Republic!
Remember, when your CD volunteer comes calling, give, and give generously…
Shit, luce, you’ve stumped me.
We are in shit up to our eyeballs and are fighting over a toothbrush, or something.
What happened to “now we’re in this thing through reconstruction”?
I will say this, and I’m sure you’ll agree, CD or not: the attack on Wolfowitz was pretty symbolic of the effort (post-statue) so far.
Is it “symbolic”? I haven’t a clue. What are the motivations of our attackers? Were they, in fact, primarily interested in snuffing Paul W? To what end? Arent they aware that without a silver bullet, that’s pretty much impossible?
For that matter, who are the attackers? Do we even know that?
Nothing has happened to my opinion as regards the reconstruction, yeppers, we’re stuck with it. I am very concerned that the people who made the decision which brought this unhappy set of circumstances into being don’t spend enough time with thier families. I should like to provide them with more opportunity for such robust and wholesome activity, far, far from the levers of power.
And then let’s all write this down, so we don’t forget it: Governance by ideologically addled chucklewits is a Bad Thing. After a sufficient time for penance and reflection, we might very well consider another Republican administration. 15, 20 years. Maybe. We’ll see.
Yes, it’s all about partisan politics.
Thank God. Now I’ll be able to sleep at night, knowing clearer heads than mine are in charge.
No, it’s not about poor downtrodden Iraqis, ground into submission under Saddam’s boot for decades – certainly helped by both parties on several occasions.
Huh? Who exactly are these “whatevers” who won’t acknowledge Saddam’s atrocities? Maybe I lead a sheltered life, but at least on this message board I haven’t seen anyone who lauds Saddam’s rule as merciful and enlightening. The only thing I’ve been able to draw from this thread, with apologies to friend elucidator, is a strange dissonance in statements such as this from the OP, bolding of course mine:
Honestly, I don’t see how you can make those statements back to back with a straight face.