Perhaps it is Now Time to Leave Iraq

[Paleoconservatarian]

Ah, I didn't realize Americans lined-up and executed 300,000 men, women and children simply because they didn't subscribe to our political leadership.

You didn't answer the question.

My point was....
ONE boy (accidentally injured by us) paraded in front of us, compared with scores dead, raped, and parentless (done intentionally by SH) hardly heard of. Seem a bit lopsided?

Only if we're trying to be "fair." I view human lives as more than numeric values. And I never denied Hussein's crimes. But we can hardly ignore or excuse the crimes we do commit. My point is that war should remain only a poignant last option, when there is no other choice.

If just 1% of the children affected by SH got the attention Ali did, the news might be a bit more balanced.

How much attention did the American media pay Ali Abbas? Not much. I'd say most folks here haven't heard of him. Of course, it's the duty of the media to be "balanced" instead of "objective," right? Granted, I believe the media to be neither, but we do have a right to know.

"Not hear of American crimes?" A few yahoos took sick pictures of prisoners a year or so ago. Wer'e still hearing about that.

And when we hear about that, how many other crimes slip beneath our radar?

This was blasted around the world for weeks. Yet our soldiers are mutilated, beheaded, and burned, and it's front page for a day or two.
Spotting a trend?

Yes, but have you thought much about why that is? Pretty much everybody believes Saddam Hussein and the terrorist perpetrators of those crimes to be evil. America, however, is supposed to be "the good guys." When these atrocities fetch our attention, it hurts our pure image of ourselves.

 

[Anarchon]

-How nice, a quote from the Progressive. Trust THEM to report objectively.
Anarchon, I don't go to Carolyn Parrish for an assesment of my President, don't go to the Progressive for anything resembling news.

Well, if you'd like to address the claims rather than their source, I'd be able to respond to this.

When they ask Noam Chomsky for his professional opinion-that would be a good indicator right there.

Again, if you address claims rather than names, I'll have something to respond to. If you're just going to say, "I don't like him/her/it," there's not much discussion it invites beyond, "Well, I do." Cite a source that contradicts these claims.

-"border dispute"? We sent 500k troops to Kuwait & pushed SH back into Iraq. Would this be enough to discredit Ms. Glaspie's statement?

Yes, it rather would. Sending some mixed signals to poor Saddam, weren't you. Tell a guy you don't care then declare war on him for his actions.

-Speaking of discredited and objectivity, I see you have a link to Michael Moore's website. And, much like Mr. Moore himself,...it doesn't work.

Ah, sorry about that. Here's the corrected URL - http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/bowlingforcolumbine/library/wonderful/iraq2.php

I hope your mentions of discrediting and objectivity aren't suggesting that you think a claim is false by sole virtue of its presence on Michael Moore's website. Cos that would be just plain silly.

-OK, I clicked on your fifth link, and the only thing it says is Saddam gassed the Kurds in 87-88. Yeah...we knew that.

Yeah, I suppose we did. Please provide your evidence for your claim that the US withdrew its support for Iraq after it first became aware of Iraq's use of WMD against Iranians and/or Kurds.

 

[k]

The US probably will not leave Iraq until it is militarily forced out. We should have never went there in the numbers we did. The average Iraqi is much more informed than the average American about US support of Saddam, which is why so many are so not supporting our presence there. The US has ousted many other dictators without occupying the whole country. Why couldn't it have been done this time? The number of troops sent to oust Saddam is an overkill, kind of like using the Pacific Ocean to extinguish a match.

Here's a bold claim: as long as there are US troops in Iraq it will never see democracy. Heck, even the US isn't a democracy, how can we force something onto a country we do not possess?

 

[Scribbler]

Only if we're trying to be "fair." I view human lives as more than numeric values. And I never denied Hussein's crimes. But we can hardly ignore or excuse the crimes we do commit. My point is that war should remain only a poignant last option, when there is no other choice.

.

I view human lives as more than numeric values as well, PC. But we're talking about 2 different things. To parade a injured boy around as a victim of "US agression" is propaganda. If these same media truly care about children, where were the reports of SH's atrocities, for he was intentionally responsible for many more incidents far worse than Ali.
If your views on war affected by stories like Ali, why not do the same story of "little Hans, who lost his arms during the recent US air attack of Dachau". Would that cause you to condemn WW2? Using children like Ali is simply emotional appeal, nothing more.
As for ignoring our crimes, or our crimes slipping beneath the radar...They don't. We get ours broadcasted around the world, dissected, and repeated over and over. While SH's crimes are gov't sponsored, ours are the product of a few people at the lowest level of rank. There is no comparison between the 2.
On one thing we do agree, war should be a pognant last option. Amen to that.

 

[k]

Saudi Arabia has more human rights violations than Iraq. Why didn't the US invade Saudi first? Or, on the point about the media, why doesn't the media talk about S.A.?

 

[Scribbler]

Saudi Arabia has more human rights violations than Iraq. Why didn't the US invade Saudi first? Or, on the point about the media, why doesn't the media talk about S.A.?

1. SA does NOT have more human rights violations than Iraq. Period. There are no mass graves in SA, no Kurdish-style genocides, no death toll of 500k-2 million people. Nor do they pose a threat to world peace.
2. The media does talk of SA,- Not only of the human rights abuses, but the wholesale corruption of it's royal family. These abuses pale in comparison to nations like Iraq, S. Korea, and West Africa-as a result, they're relegated to runner-up in the human rights reporting...

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' until you can find a bigger stick"

 

[k]

1. SA does NOT have more human rights violations than Iraq. Period. There are no mass graves in SA, no Kurdish-style genocides, no death toll of 500k-2 million people. Nor do they pose a threat to world peace.
2. The media does talk of SA,- Not only of the human rights abuses, but the wholesale corruption of it's royal family. These abuses pale in comparison to nations like Iraq, S. Korea, and West Africa-as a result, they're relegated to runner-up in the human rights reporting...

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' until you can find a bigger stick"

For 2002, the international human rights watch group Freedom House ranked the top 10 worst countries in the world. 1. N. Korea 2. Saudi Arabia 3. Iraq

I didn't post something that I conjured in my mind. My mistake for not noting the source on the original post. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Scribbler]

For 2002, the international human rights watch group Freedom House ranked the top 10 worst countries in the world. 1. N. Korea 2. Saudi Arabia 3. Iraq

I didn't post something that I conjured in my mind. My mistake for not noting the source on the original post. Thanks for the heads up.

Who knows, they may be right. I don't know what they use to determine their "rankings", but Iraq (or Saddam, anyways) certainly tops SA when it comes to human rights. North Korea (or Bizarro World, as I refer to it), would certainly top the list. Current death toll is 3,000,000, I believe. From the the events of the past few days, I see they're looking to elevate international tensions.
Praying for peace...

 

[k]

There are no mass graves in SA,

Has anyone noted the length of time the bodies were in the mass graves? As disturbing as it is, the US is responsible for at least a few of the mass graves from 91.' I know because I was there to smell them.

Nor do they pose a threat to world peace.

Considering the amount of oil coming out of SA, I would posit they weigh heavily in the pendulum of world peace. They have paid bin Laden millions in "protection" money. The CIA states such.

N. Korea is possibly a sleeping giant and a country seriously underestimated. It is unbelievable how the world has sat on its hands while letting so many women, children, and men be slaughtered over the last 30 or so years.

Yes, you are absolutely right...pray for peace.

 

[Borealis]

The Achilles heel of our involvement in Iraq, is it's illegality.
Annan distinquished between the "rule of man" and the "rule of law".

Asking Kofi Annan to issue a ruling on international law is like asking the Hamburglar to keep watch over a McDonald's grill. If you trust him, you're a fool. The War in Iraq is not 'illegal' because Kofi Annan says it is.

There was a case for doing something about SH: but that something, and its doing had to be legal.
For it to be legal, we had to build the legal instruments and process.
Once forged, that instrument and process would have applied universally.
That was the rub.
That the means of pulling down SH, would then have applied to us.
We refused that door: and imagined we could make unilateral force come to the same end as might law.
Just not possible.
We still require to revert to law: and that will necessitate the trial of both GWB and Blair; and their supporting casts.
Are we ever going to get that.
The abandonment of law remains the most crucial factor in current global occurrence.

And so the 'rule of law' only applies to America and Britain, right? After all, murdering dictators and brutal thugs are exempt from such niceties as 'human rights' and such, aren't they?

Hussein was a rabid dog and needed to be put down. It has been done. Anyone who wants to quibble about 'illegal war' and other such moronic complaints as if the UN is the sole source of international wisdom really needs to get their head screwed on straight.

Not terrorism, not any "war on terror": but the effective abandonment of law.
The next test of law will occur after January 30th: if, as is highly likely, any elected government asks the coalition to leave; forces and bases off Iraqi soil.
Will we comply with such request, as we have indicated we would: or will we find some work-around; that sees us remaining, guns blazing.

Why would the elected government ask the coalition to leave, when there will still be a boatload of psychopaths trying to kill everyone that voted?

But then, as long as you subscribe to the Conspiracy Theory Hotline, I suppose nothing America does will ever satisfy you.

 

[Anarchon]

Asking Kofi Annan to issue a ruling on international law is like asking the Hamburglar to keep watch over a McDonald's grill. If you trust him, you're a fool. The War in Iraq is not 'illegal' because Kofi Annan says it is

No, it's illegal because it was not in response to a military attack and was not sanctioned by the international community in the form of a United Nations Security Council resolution. That the invasion was illegal is not in question.

And so the 'rule of law' only applies to America and Britain, right? After all, murdering dictators and brutal thugs are exempt from such niceties as 'human rights' and such, aren't they?

Occasionally, murdering dictators and brutal thugs have been exempt from such niceties under international law, primarily because the United States has exercised its power in the United Nations to protect them. But there are many murdering dictators and brutal thugs in the world. The US invaded Iraq to disarm them of weapons of mass destruction, not to take out a murderous dictator. Bush's demands were never "stop being a murderous dictator". They were "if you don't disarm, we're coming in."

Hussein was a rabid dog and needed to be put down. It has been done. Anyone who wants to quibble about 'illegal war' and other such moronic complaints as if the UN is the sole source of international wisdom really needs to get their head screwed on straight.

The United States signed up to the UN Charter. It's a treaty it agreed to. The countries in the UN are the source of international law, including the United States. It's not quibbling to suggest that countries refrain from attacking anyone they feel like attacking. It's also not quibbling to suggest that more than one or two countries in the world get to dictate who is a rabid dog and whether/how they are to be put down.

 

[k]

If Hussein was a rabid dog it's because US greed gave him rabies. This was done in the form of giving him millions and millions of dollars and all sorts of weapons for the exclusive purpose of the US gaining ground in middle eastern oil.

 

[Borealis]

No, it's illegal because it was not in response to a military attack and was not sanctioned by the international community in the form of a United Nations Security Council resolution. That the invasion was illegal is not in question.

Bovine fecal matter.

Read UN Resolution 1441. Want a refresher?

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

That is sanction of 'serious consequences.' If there is anyone alive who thought that meant anything other than military action, I can only feel sorry for them.

Occasionally, murdering dictators and brutal thugs have been exempt from such niceties under international law, primarily because the United States has exercised its power in the United Nations to protect them. But there are many murdering dictators and brutal thugs in the world. The US invaded Iraq to disarm them of weapons of mass destruction, not to take out a murderous dictator. Bush's demands were never "stop being a murderous dictator". They were "if you don't disarm, we're coming in."

It was both. Bush made it clear from the beginning that Iraq was going to be stopped for both its development of WMDs and its human rights violations.

The United States signed up to the UN Charter. It's a treaty it agreed to. The countries in the UN are the source of international law, including the United States. It's not quibbling to suggest that countries refrain from attacking anyone they feel like attacking. It's also not quibbling to suggest that more than one or two countries in the world get to dictate who is a rabid dog and whether/how they are to be put down.

If people want to let Libya, North Korea, the Sudan, Rwanda, Cuba, Colombia, and Iran decide what international law is, then you might as well start building the crematoriums, because you're asking for a painful end to civilization.

The United States signed up to the UN Charter. The UN has not lived up to the expectations of that Charter. How many chances do they get before you finally say, 'enough of this, we can't afford to give the UN any more opportunities to screw up?'

 

[Anarchon]

ovine fecal matter.

Read UN Resolution 1441. Want a refresher?

That is sanction of 'serious consequences.' If there is anyone alive who thought that meant anything other than military action, I can only feel sorry for them.

That's an awful lot of experts in international law. More or less all of them, in fact. Consider this statement: http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0212lawyers.pdf&e=7634

"Although the 'material breach' and 'serious consequences' language will be used by the United States to argue that the Security Council has implicitly authorized the use of force in response to any Iraqi non-compliance, that is not a legally correct interpretation of the Resolution."

That is also why Bush and Colin Powell tried to get a resolution that actually did authorize force. The wording of a resolution that authorized force would say something like "any means necessary".

It was both. Bush made it clear from the beginning that Iraq was going to be stopped for both its development of WMDs and its human rights violations.

Please cite references supporting this claim.

If people want to let Libya, North Korea, the Sudan, Rwanda, Cuba, Colombia, and Iran decide what international law is, then you might as well start building the crematoriums, because you're asking for a painful end to civilization.

They don't solely decide what international law is, but the countries you mentioned that are in the United Nations have a say, yes. The United Nations is a little bit democratic like that.

The United States signed up to the UN Charter. The UN has not lived up to the expectations of that Charter. How many chances do they get before you finally say, 'enough of this, we can't afford to give the UN any more opportunities to screw up?'

The US is part of the UN. Which expectations has the UN not lived up to? Why do you think that the United States should dictate to the world how things will be? Do they have some authority beyond their threat of force?

 

[Scribbler]

Has anyone noted the length of time the bodies were in the mass graves? As disturbing as it is, the US is responsible for at least a few of the mass graves from 91.' I know because I was there to smell them.

And did the bodies smell like they were killed by Americans? Where & when did this massacre take place?

Considering the amount of oil coming out of SA, I would posit they weigh heavily in the pendulum of world peace. They have paid bin Laden millions in "protection" money. The CIA states such.

No argument with the last two sentences, little confused on the first. We don't attack SA because they are not seeking to build an arsenal of WMD's nor threatening neighbors with such. Nor are there mass graves being dug up.

N. Korea is possibly a sleeping giant and a country seriously underestimated. It is unbelievable how the world has sat on its hands while letting so many women, children, and men be slaughtered over the last 30 or so years.

We tried actually, in 1950. Where was all our help? You would think after the Marshall Plan th-oh,never mind. Luckily, the UN's favorite ex-president, Jimmy Carter, went there in 1996 and HE said they promised HIM they would never develop nuclear weapons.
We could've fixed the problem, but hey,who wants to be accused of rushing into war these days, right? Best to let the UN deal with this situation.

After all, that's what they're there for.

 

[k]

And did the bodies smell like they were killed by Americans? Where & when did this massacre take place?

The first question is as useless as it is disrespectful. WE, the soldiers of the US killed them. I don't know what the exact reasoning was, but for some reason the US decided to use dozers to dig holes and literally scrape the bodies into those holes and cover them.

There is an amazing consistency in how disrespectful people are of combat vets on this forum. The pattern is those who are pro Iraq war are the ones who are also the most disrespectful to those of us who have actually freakin fought in Iraq. How sadly ironic. It only goes to prove too many people on CF are not here to learn from each other, but to simply say "I am right, so listen up!!"

 

[Scribbler]

There is an amazing consistency in how disrespectful people are of combat vets on this forum. The pattern is those who are pro Iraq war are the ones who are also the most disrespectful to those of us who have actually freakin fought in Iraq. How sadly ironic. It only goes to prove too many people on CF are not here to learn from each other, but to simply say "I am right, so listen up!!"

My homepage.

http://ericthibodeau.com/intro.htm
http://ericthibodeau.com/uss_missouri.htm

 

[k]

My homepage.

http://ericthibodeau.com/intro.htm
[url="http://ericthibodeau.com/uss_missouri.htm"]http://ericthibodeau.com/uss_missouri.htm[/url]

While I thank you for your service in the Navy two things must be pointed out. (1) it does not justify the aforementioned post, and I would think a fellow Vet would have more respect. (2) did you ever set foot in Iraq and have to actually fire a weapon at another human being? If the answer is no, then advice is offered to heed to the experiences of those who have.

 

[Scribbler]

That's funny-you accuse US soldiers of massacre, then accuse me of disrepecting them.

 

[k]

That's funny-you accuse US soldiers of massacre, then accuse me of disrepecting them.

I never even brought up massacre, the only thing I stated was mass graves. Please read the posts more carefully to avoid these misunderstandings.