Saddam's genocide: Another myth bites the dust?

[XyZspineZyX]

A War Crime or an Act of War?

By Stephen C. Pelletiere The New York Times, Jan. 31, 2003

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.


In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades - not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition - thanks to United Nations sanctions - Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

* * * * *

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

[XyZspineZyX]

A War Crime or an Act of War?

By Stephen C. Pelletiere The New York Times, Jan. 31, 2003

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.


In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades - not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition - thanks to United Nations sanctions - Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

* * * * *

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

[XyZspineZyX]

I take it as this is another "ooppps the holocaust didn't happen"

well regardless the US is going to look after it's intrest. As well as every other country in this world.

[XyZspineZyX]

Pretty typical MNG article. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Of course someone can post another article that would say the exact opposite, neither can just be accepted as fact, but we all give the benefit of the doubt to the ones that would support our own argument, nothing wrong with that, MNG is doing a good job maintaining his opinion, unlike the democrat critics who change their opinion as often as I change my socks. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

An interesting articlefrom a well-known author. Surprisingly it only addresses one specific incident (albeit one that is often cited) and not other incidents afterwards. Other incidents occurred after the Iran-Iraq war when chemical weapons were used in a fashion indicating the possession of several chemical agents.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

Do you really blame him Geist? If he wants to portray a message, might as well pick an occassion that supports his message right? Would be kind of dumb to actually provide information that contradicts what you're trying to prove eh? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

ah MNG and the New York Times always looking for "fair and balanced news" or wait that was Fox News motto.
MNG and The New York Times motto is "We give you the news if it serves our purpose"

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

Now that I think about it, I'm not surprised since it was only a short piece. And for what it's worth, it's a well done article. But again, it only deal with one specific incident and in a rather limited fashion. It also fails to take into accounts statements made by Iraqi military officials speaking quite freely about it. Of course, given those particular individuals, any statement they made is highly questionable.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

Geist,

Are you saying the Iraqi military officials (hand picked by Saddam) are not to be trusted?
They should know better then anyone right? why would they lie? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

shows you how desperate for negative News MNG is.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

Message Edited on 10/01/0312:11AM by Hornet57

[XyZspineZyX]

The only person's I see coming across as desperate here is the dynamic duo. Hornet & Demon, that would be you. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
This is an interesting article written by a former CIA official in a position of unique knowledge sharing what he feels to be pertinent information about a relevant topic. And I agree with Geist that while focusing his comments to a single incident isn't in and of itself particularly compelling, neither does it undermine his purpose in writing the piece, and may help shed some light on the situation. After all, if it was indeed the Iraquis who (as I have been led to believe myself) gassed the kurds then fine, at least we have examined the issue to a verifiable conclusion and happily, supports the case made for the 'preemptive war', BUT if it turns out that the kurds died by iranian chemical weapons then we are being spoonfed a 'little white lie' for propaganda's sake to muster support for the previously mentioned war. Goebbels would be so proud.
For my part, I support the war on terror, I just hope that that is indeed what we are doing.

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

[XyZspineZyX]

Gandalf_is_dead wrote:
- The only person's I see coming across as desperate
- here is the dynamic duo. Hornet & Demon

No my fine friend we are not desperate, it is the Liberals that are desperate for any news that would be tilting the scale to their benefit. That is why MNG posted this, (pointing one way) article. I have nothing to be desperate about. I am confident (like I am with everything in my life) that George Bush will be re-elected and the whole Iraq/Saddam insane picture will be completely clear, which it will prove that it was you that have been spoon fed Liberal Bull droppings all this time.
Bon a petite.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

Message Edited on 10/01/0302:27PM by Hornet57

[XyZspineZyX]

Oh yes Gandalf, as usual, the world appreciates your expert opinion. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

No Gandalf is not an expert he is a "specialist" specializing on his side of the issue.



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

And boys and girls, if you think you can tell me what my side of the issue is, you'll get a big gold star!

and again, H, u wanna be a smart guy you might wanna know that 'appetit' is not two words. You actually said something like, 'good have/to little', which makes no sense. Shocker there eh?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

[XyZspineZyX]

Demon_Mustang wrote:
- Of course someone can post
- another article that would say the exact opposite,
- neither can just be accepted as fact, but we all
- give the benefit of the doubt to the ones that would
- support our own argument.

Really? Perhaps you would be so kind as to prove your point. Why don't you post a counter-post and rather than (and this includes you Hornet) merely than criticize the source, actually detail for us exactly which facts are incorrect.

Or you could just give us your usual non-conclusive, meaningless ha ha, /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif response.

Sometimes the truth is murkier than what Bush would have you believe...

Better yet, here is a report by the Dept. of the Navy, Marine Corp from December 1990:
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/

See Appendix B, .pdf page #2 for conclusions on Halabja.

Next, I want you to explain how the Dept. of the Navy is wrong.


Good luck! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>


Message Edited on 10/02/0310:54AM by MisterNiceGuy

[XyZspineZyX]

This is by Dr Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Cambridge University.
The website it was posted on is CASI campaign against sanctions in Iraq and so it can hardly be claimed as being biased in favour of the USA

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00034.html

X Fire

http://uk.xfire.users.btopenworld.com/uj.jpg

[XyZspineZyX]

Gandalf_is_dead wrote:
- And boys and girls, if you think you can tell me
- what my side of the issue is, you'll get a big gold
- star!
-
- and again, H, u wanna be a smart guy you might wanna
- know that 'appetit' is not two words. You actually
- said something like, 'good have/to little', which
- makes no sense. Shocker there eh?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


All I neede to get my point accross and since you got it my goal was met.

Gandalf, if I wanted to learn grammar I would have pay attention while I was in school....but I paid more attention on the Automotive field.

and it turned out pretty good for me.
why dont you take your grammar out of your smart *** and see what else you could do with it besides correct people's grammar on a gaming forum.

Just don't become a teacher we have enough Liberal morons that think they have a grasp on reality.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

UK_X_Fire wrote:
- This is by Dr Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics
- at Cambridge University.
- The website it was posted on is CASI campaign
- against sanctions in Iraq and so it can hardly be
- claimed as being biased in favour of the USA

Funny you should post that because I was just about to post the same article from:

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/halabja.html

Glen Rangwala btw is the author of the report that British Intelligence plagiarized for the "dodgy dossier" that Colin Powell later used in his speech at the UN.

UK X Fire we are doing Demon's own research for him.

Anyway, judging by the evidence presented suggests that since the Iranians held the town, it was an attack by Iraq on the Iranians and their supporters. Whether you call it a direct war crime or "collateral damage" depends on your perspective. But to call this a war crime means that in order to be consistent, you would have to claim that Britain and America are war criminals a hundred times over since they have essentially done exactly the same thing in Iraq.

Further based on this event it is not correct to accuse Saddam Hussein of genocide since this suggests an objective to wipe out an entire ethic group, which is not what happened here. Mass murderer might be more appropriate but then again, people who live in glass houses...


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>


Message Edited on 10/02/0312:19PM by MisterNiceGuy

[XyZspineZyX]

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
--
- Really? Perhaps you would be so kind as to prove
- your point. Why don't you post a counter-post
- and rather than (and this includes you
- Hornet) merely than criticize the source, actually
- detail for us exactly which facts are incorrect.
-
- It is useless to put out a counter-post to argue your article MNG, but It seems kind of odd that this article that
would have given Bush a very hard argument against the notion that Saddam has any chemicals or that he was the one that gassed the kurds or the Iranians. But very conviniently comes out now.


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

Hornet57 wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
---
-- Really? Perhaps you would be so kind as to prove
-- your point. Why don't you post a counter-post
-- and rather than (and this includes you
-- Hornet) merely than criticize the source, actually
-- detail for us exactly which facts are incorrect.
--
-- It is useless to put out a counter-post to argue your article MNG, but It seems kind of odd that this article that
- would have given Bush a very hard argument against
- the notion that Saddam has any chemicals or that he
- was the one that gassed the kurds or the Iranians.
- But very conviniently comes out now.

Its not my article Hornet it's Pelletiere's. Further, if your objective is to cut through the web of propaganda and get to the truth then it is extremely useful to post opposing points of view. Indeed it is interesting that first you criticize me for posting a one-sided arguments (as if there is any other kind) and then when I post the opposing view you criticize me for that too.

Second it is not odd at all that this article comes out now nor is it convenient. Articles critical of the war were censored either by the media or by the authors themselves. Now that it is clear the war was a monumental blunder it is now fashionable to criticize it. Secondly, it would have been far more convenient if the facts given in this article had been entered into the debate (although it would not have prevented the war).

Finally, Hornet, the point of this thread was to demonstrate that the CW attack on Halabja was not an act of genocide. I think both of the articles posted make this clear.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

[XyZspineZyX]

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-
--
- Finally, Hornet, the point of this thread was to
- demonstrate that the CW attack on Halabja was not an
- act of genocide. I think both of the articles
- posted make this clear.
-
Wether the town was occupied by Iranian troops or their Kurdish allies, the use of chemical weapons on an area he knew still contained civillians is an act of genocide.
The civillian casualties caused by the allies IMO were accidental and can't even begin to be comparable

X Fire

http://uk.xfire.users.btopenworld.com/uj.jpg

[XyZspineZyX]

MisterNiceGuy wrote:

Its not my article Hornet

-I know its not your article MNG

the authors name gave me a clue? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif BTW mr.Pelletiere sounds French, is he?

MNG a writer writes stories right? Well how do I or you know that these are facts? we don't, only the writer knows and we all heard of bias before.
You chosen to share an article (again) that really means nothing to me, because I know saddam is Evil and he had to go. The rest is just a bunch of BS that comes out to try and discredit the Bush Administration, hoping to derail his path to peace in the Middle East.
How come in all your search for the truth dont you come out with something positive about the new Iraq? and you beat on Fox news for its fare and balanced news. Because at least they show me both sides the good and the bad.
-
- Second it is not odd at all that this article comes
- out now nor is it convenient.

- Riiiiight,

- Finally, Hornet, the point of this thread was to
- demonstrate that the CW attack on Halabja was not an
- act of genocide.

it was simply murder?
-
-
-

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

UK_X_Fire wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
--
---
-- Finally, Hornet, the point of this thread was to
-- demonstrate that the CW attack on Halabja was not an
-- act of genocide. I think both of the articles
-- posted make this clear.
--
- Wether the town was occupied by Iranian troops or
- their Kurdish allies, the use of chemical weapons on
- an area he knew still contained civillians is an act
- of genocide.
- The civillian casualties caused by the allies IMO
- were accidental and can't even begin to be
- comparable

I cannot see how we can consider civilian casualties by allies accidental. There is no doubt that when you drop hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives on a populated area that you will kill innocent civilians. This is not "accidental" it is an "acceptable loss" or a "necessary sacrifice".

Further, the second decapitation attack on Saddam Hussein was targeted on a building that the allies knew contained innocent civilians.

In these two examples, Saddam reportedly killed 5000 people, we reportedly killed 10 000 and the number continues to rise. Lets not also forget that Saddam killed those people with our blessing.

In short, Saddam's target was the Iranian military and PUK, our target was the Iraqi military. We both killed civilians. Who has the moral high ground?

Lastly, genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group (www.m-w.com) (http://www.m-w.com)). Saddam wasn't trying to destroy the Kurds, he just didn't care.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"></center></marquee>



Message Edited on 10/02/0310:53PM by MisterNiceGuy

[XyZspineZyX]

Hornet57 wrote:
why dont you take your grammar out of your smart ***
- and see what else you could do with it besides
- correct people's grammar on a gaming forum.
- Just don't become a teacher we have enough Liberal
- morons that think they have a grasp on reality.

Well, Hornet, you certainly dont hesitate to let people know how you feel about liberals, so where do you get off telling me what to do when and where?
Its okay for you to get cute and insulting, but god forbid someone screw with you. Ive seen thicker skin on milk.
So now Im a liberal moron too, eh? Thanks very much! Coming from you that must surely be a compliment!

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

[XyZspineZyX]

Discussion broils down to personal attacks... Sounds like the Gray Davis campaign. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

Gandalf_is_dead wrote:
-
- Well, Hornet, you certainly dont hesitate to let
- people know how you feel about liberals, so where do
- you get off telling me what to do when and where?
- Its okay for you to get cute and insulting, but god
- forbid someone screw with you. Ive seen thicker skin
- on milk.
- So now Im a liberal moron too, eh? Thanks very much!
- Coming from you that must surely be a compliment!
-
- What does my grammar have to do with the thread that I was replying to, Gandalf? If this is English 101 I can understand but if you have a thought on what we are discussing you can put in your two cents.

And as for the thick skin comment I see it does work both ways /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

Hornet57 wrote:

- You chosen to share an article (again) that really
- means nothing to me, because I know saddam is Evil
- and he had to go.

How do you know Saddam is "Evil" (with a capital E, no less)? Because the tv told you.

Who controls what the tv tells you? You tell us you watch Fox News.

"Fox chairman Roger Ailes is a longtime Republican political operative with ties to the presidential administrations of Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush. While serving as head of Fox, Ailes also gave political advice to the George W. Bush administration." http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Fox_News

But Fox tells us they're fair and balanced. So they must be.

To put it another way, your mind is made up. You don't need to hear any other point of view, because you're going to stick with the accepted wisdom of the mainstream press, and you don't want your ideas challenged. And if somebody disagrees with you, you try to ridicule them ("bon a petite"!) How can you possibly make any informed decision on anything if you don't listen to both sides of an arguement?

Given a forum is "a situation or meeting in which people can talk about a problem or matter especially of public interest" why bother to read and post? You consider that you already know the truth, and you refuse to accept the possibility that alternative valid perspectives exist. If anybody contradicts your views, you harangue them with the worst insult you can muster; they're liberal. Here's what Roget's interactive thesaurus makes of liberals:

Entry: liberal
Function: adjective
Definition: progressive
Synonyms: advanced, avant-garde, big, broad, broad-minded, catholic, detached, disinterested, dispassionate, enlightened, flexible, free, general, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, impartial, indulgent, inexact, intelligent, interested, latitudinarian, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous, not close, not literal, not strict, permissive, pink, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced
Concept: freedom

Concept: freedom.

Just how is that an insult?

<center>
http://fauxnews.com/images/Header.jpg

Fair and Balanced Journalism
(when it's opposites day)

[XyZspineZyX]

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- I cannot see how we can consider civilian casualties
- by allies accidental. There is no doubt that when
- you drop hundreds of thousands of pounds of
- explosives on a populated area that you will kill
- innocent civilians. This is not "accidental" it is
- an "acceptable loss" or a "necessary sacrifice".

It's more like collateral damage, and those are accidental deaths. No, not accidental in the sense of "my brakes failed and I couldn't stop," but more along the lines of "oops I missed." The simple fact is that those civilians were not the targets - military and strategic installations were. The fact that some of those installations were in civilian areas is unfortunately an all too common tactic in that part of the world. Those dead civilians are dead because of the al-Husseini al-Tikriti regime.

- Further, the second decapitation attack on Saddam
- Hussein was targeted on a building that the allies
- knew contained innocent civilians.

It was presumed to have been cleared out for Hussein's usage. He was known to be somewhat obsessive about his own security.

- In these two examples, Saddam reportedly killed 5000
- people, we reportedly killed 10 000 and the number
- continues to rise. Lets not also forget that Saddam
- killed those people with our blessing.

That's a gross overstatement, to say nothing of a highly inaccurate one. The Kurds and Shi'a that he killed were not killed with "our blessing" by any stretch of the imagination.

- In short, Saddam's target was the Iranian military
- and PUK, our target was the Iraqi military. We both
- killed civilians. Who has the moral high ground?

We do. It's really rather simple, even when you try and reduce it so much. We did not use indiscriminate weapons, nor did we engage in mass area attacks.

- Lastly, genocide is the deliberate and systematic
- destruction of a racial, political, or cultural
- group (www.m-w.com) (http://www.m-w.com)). Saddam wasn't trying to
- destroy the Kurds, he just didn't care.

Possibly. However, his regime engaged in ethnic cleansing of the Kurds to restrict them to areas in the North of Iraq and removing them from other cities. He then attacked those areas in force when he was able to do so and might very well have committed genocide if he had not been prevented from doing so.

"The submergence of self in the pursuit of an ideal, the readiness to spend oneself without measure, prodigally, almost ecstatically, for something intuitively apprehended as great and noble, spend oneself, one knows not why, - some of us like to believe that this is what religion means. "

[XyZspineZyX]

- "The submergence of self in the pursuit of an ideal,
- the readiness to spend oneself without measure,
- prodigally, almost ecstatically, for something
- intuitively apprehended as great and noble, spend
- oneself, one knows not why, - some of us like to
- believe that this is what religion means. "

Indeed. Here's another quote by Benjamin Cardoza for you, Geist; "Justice is not to be taken by storm. She is to be wooed by slow advances".

- We did not use
- indiscriminate weapons, nor did we engage in mass
- area attacks.


Again you seem to be presenting opinion as fact. It's clear that US forces did use indiscriminate weapons (can you get much more indiscriminate that cluster bombs? Rhetorical question - please don't answer), and, furthermore, they were used in built up areas. Surely you remember the footage of the A10 straffing the buildings in Baghdad? I would say use of a gun that fires about 70 milk-bottle sized armour piercing uranium-depleted shells a second over a city is a mass area attack. If you don't believe me get yourself over to the Human Rights Watch website and read the evidence yourself. ( http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/04/iraqclusterbombs.htm "U.S. Use of Clusters in Baghdad Condemned")

To say that the civilians killed by American bombs is the responsibility of the Iraqis, because some military installations were located in populated areas, is ignorance. Military installations, such as the Pentagon, are located in American cities. Using your line of arguement, the 9-11 attacks could be justified because there were CIA offices in the WTC (which there were), and blame could be shifted onto the shoulders of the prez rather than on the hijackers.

[XyZspineZyX]

Funny how he claims we get things from the "lying right-wing media" while he'll sit here and claim that all the crap and the quotes he's been spewing out he compiled himself. Hm, I wonder where HE gets his information from, haha. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

SimonMcM wrote:
- Indeed. Here's another quote by Benjamin Cardoza for
- you, Geist; "Justice is not to be taken by storm.
- She is to be wooed by slow advances".

He was quite an impressive man.

- Again you seem to be presenting opinion as fact.

No, but you seem intent on portraying it that way. Bear in mind that the use of technical terminology does not alway necessitate the use of quotation marks in a contextual discussion. My statement stands.

- It's clear that US forces did use indiscriminate
- weapons (can you get much more indiscriminate that
- cluster bombs? Rhetorical question - please don't
- answer), and, furthermore, they were used in built
- up areas. Surely you remember the footage of the A10
- straffing the buildings in Baghdad? I would say use
- of a gun that fires about 70 milk-bottle sized
- armour piercing uranium-depleted shells a second
- over a city is a mass area attack.

Actually, it's not a rhetorical question because it indicates ignorance of the types of clusters bombs that we use and the nature of indiscriminate weapons. There are far more indiscriminate weapons that our cluster munitions, particularly the self-forging ones which were primarily used. Furthermore, the Avenger cannon is not a mass attack. Each shell is a single unit and not a disperal weapon. It's nice that you wish to present your opinion of that weapon system, but that does not force reality to conform to that belief.

- To say that the civilians killed by American bombs
- is the responsibility of the Iraqis, because some
- military installations were located in populated
- areas, is ignorance. Military installations, such as
- the Pentagon, are located in American cities.

No, it is not ignorance. It is in fact considered a violation of the laws of war. The Pentagon is an excellent example. If you have been there, you would see that there is a clear area around for some distance. It is not placed in, on or near civilian housing in order to use them as a shield. Nor does the US place their military equipment such as a SAM or AAA site, much less an ammo dump on top, in or beneath a civilian housing complex.

- Using your line of arguement, the 9-11 attacks could be
- justified because there were CIA offices in the WTC
- (which there were), and blame could be shifted onto
- the shoulders of the prez rather than on the
- hijackers.

No, you're using your line of argument and attempting to project it onto me. The CIA is not a military agency, but a civilian one. I'm sure you're aware of the difference and would rather expect that you are also aware of the different conventions dealing with each one as it pertains to their acceptability as targets. Had we placed SAM sites on the roof, that would be an acceptable argument. Since that is in fact not the case, it fails.

"The submergence of self in the pursuit of an ideal, the readiness to spend oneself without measure, prodigally, almost ecstatically, for something intuitively apprehended as great and noble, spend oneself, one knows not why, - some of us like to believe that this is what religion means. "

[XyZspineZyX]

MDS_Geist wrote:
- It's more like collateral damage, and those are
- accidental deaths. No, not accidental in the sense
- of "my brakes failed and I couldn't stop," but more
- along the lines of "oops I missed." The simple fact
- is that those civilians were not the targets -
- military and strategic installations were. The fact
- that some of those installations were in civilian
- areas is unfortunately an all too common tactic in
- that part of the world. Those dead civilians are
- dead because of the al-Husseini al-Tikriti regime.

This is mere semantics. Saddam did not have the convenience of pin-point accuracy in his weapons. Further, it has not been proved that Saddam was targeting civilians and it certainly was not genocide. You can justify it any way you want but if you use bombs to attack one man you know there will be civilian casualties. That is murder.
-
-- In these two examples, Saddam reportedly killed 5000
-- people, we reportedly killed 10 000 and the number
-- continues to rise. Lets not also forget that Saddam
-- killed those people with our blessing.
-
- That's a gross overstatement, to say nothing of a
- highly inaccurate one. The Kurds and Shi'a that he
- killed were not killed with "our blessing" by any
- stretch of the imagination.

I disagree. He used the weapons we supplied him with. Rumsfeld winked at him for it.. Plus, we knew he was a snake when we picked him up.
-
-- In short, Saddam's target was the Iranian military
-- and PUK, our target was the Iraqi military. We both
-- killed civilians. Who has the moral high ground?
-
- We do. It's really rather simple, even when you try
- and reduce it so much. We did not use
- indiscriminate weapons, nor did we engage in mass
- area attacks.

We did not use indiscriminate weapons like cluster bombs or missiles that shower a square mile with shrapnel and debris.

- Possibly. However, his regime engaged in ethnic
- cleansing of the Kurds to restrict them to areas in
- the North of Iraq and removing them from other
- cities. He then attacked those areas in force when
- he was able to do so and might very well have
- committed genocide if he had not been prevented from
- doing so.

Geist, you and I might commit all sorts of crimes if we are not prevented from doing so. Yes I know that is a ridiculous statement. That's why a rational non-arbitrary legal system only prosecutes crimes that have actually taken place, not crimes that may take place. Catch my drift?

Whatever you say your intentions does not mean anything when the end-game is the same. Dead innocents. We cannot judge intentions but we can judge facts. The fact is, body bags are piling up in Iraq as a direct result of our actions.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

[XyZspineZyX]

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- This is mere semantics. Saddam did not have the
- convenience of pin-point accuracy in his weapons.

No, it is really not semantics. Large gas weapons are by definition inaccurate. Anytime they are used you are going to expect heavy casualties on all unprotected people in the area of effect. Some most civilians don't wear MOPP gear...

And the accuracy of his weapons has nothing to do with what I was referring to. Some of our weapons are capable of "pin-point accuracy," and that does not mean that the family whose home has a SAM launcher installed on its roof will not be killed. And their deaths are the responsibility of the person who caused that weapons system to be placed on a civilian's home.

- Further, it has not been proved that Saddam was
- targeting civilians and it certainly was not
- genocide. You can justify it any way you want but
- if you use bombs to attack one man you know there
- will be civilian casualties. That is murder.

I don't recall calling it genocide. And no, you are quite mistaken. Using bombs to attack an individual does not necessarily mean that there will be civilian casualties. If that man chooses to surround himself with civilians, then thye are likely to die. However, using a 500lb bomb on a building is unlikely to result in substantial collateral damage.

- I disagree. He used the weapons we supplied him
- with. Rumsfeld winked at him for it.. Plus, we
- knew he was a snake when we picked him up.

We were hardly his sole supplier, and were never his primary supplier. Knowing "he was a snake" is such a nice subjective statement. He was an ally of convenience, never a friend.

- We did not use indiscriminate weapons like cluster
- bombs or missiles that shower a square mile with
- shrapnel and debris.

If you're going to use a technical term, know what it means.

- Geist, you and I might commit all sorts of crimes if
- we are not prevented from doing so. Yes I know that
- is a ridiculous statement. That's why a rational
- non-arbitrary legal system only prosecutes crimes
- that have actually taken place, not crimes that may
- take place. Catch my drift?

And rational people with good intentions do not have need of those systems to keep them from preventing crimes. However, since many people are neither rational nor have good intentions, it is often better to cause circumstances to be such that they cannot commit those crimes.

- Whatever you say your intentions does not mean
- anything when the end-game is the same. Dead
- innocents. We cannot judge intentions but we can
- judge facts. The fact is, body bags are piling up
- in Iraq as a direct result of our actions.

And body bags were piling up before we acted. And no, the end game does not have to be the same. Saying that it is the same is rank speculation.

"The submergence of self in the pursuit of an ideal, the readiness to spend oneself without measure, prodigally, almost ecstatically, for something intuitively apprehended as great and noble, spend oneself, one knows not why, - some of us like to believe that this is what religion means. "

[XyZspineZyX]

With all due respect......

Are you seriously saying that use of cluster bombs in a capital city with a population of 5 million was not indiscriminate?

I'm all for arguing devil's advocate, but do you actually believe that this was responsible?

[XyZspineZyX]

That would depend entirely on which cluster munitions were used. Some are "safe" for such use and others are not.

Many of the ones which we used are very specifically designed to take out tanks and other heavy equipment - they are self forging and guided to some extent, enabling them to strike the top of tanks. They would present no danger to civilians afterwards.

"The submergence of self in the pursuit of an ideal, the readiness to spend oneself without measure, prodigally, almost ecstatically, for something intuitively apprehended as great and noble, spend oneself, one knows not why, - some of us like to believe that this is what religion means. "

[XyZspineZyX]

It all comes down to this.

If the UN was not a spineless institution, and took over the Part of the US and defend peoples rights and freedoms as human beings there would have been no Gulf War II.



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- This is mere semantics. Saddam did not have the
-- convenience of pin-point accuracy in his weapons.
-
- No, it is really not semantics. Large gas weapons
- are by definition inaccurate. Anytime they are used
- you are going to expect heavy casualties on all
- unprotected people in the area of effect. Some most
- civilians don't wear MOPP gear...
-
- And the accuracy of his weapons has nothing to do
- with what I was referring to. Some of our weapons
- are capable of "pin-point accuracy," and that does
- not mean that the family whose home has a SAM
- launcher installed on its roof will not be killed.
- And their deaths are the responsibility of the
- person who caused that weapons system to be placed
- on a civilian's home.

I agree about your characterization of gas weapons being inaccurate but in any case I think what you said applies equally to our bombing campaign. We expected and realized heavy civilian casualties as a result of our bombardment of Iraq. I never heard of any civilians who had weapon systems placed on their roof but two points: a) can you imagine a civilian hanging around if a sam site was placed on their roof (however impractical that might be), b) most civilians were killed or maimed by errant bombs/missles or flying debris from accurate hits on legitimate targets. Either way, you cannot tell me that Rummy & Co were suprised by civilian casualties.

The unfortunate fact is Geist, is that there is no such thing as an accurate "safe" high explosive weapon unless you can build one, that instead of exploding, implodes and sucks the target in.
-
-- I disagree. He used the weapons we supplied him
-- with. Rumsfeld winked at him for it.. Plus, we
-- knew he was a snake when we picked him up.
-
- We were hardly his sole supplier, and were never his
- primary supplier. Knowing "he was a snake" is such
- a nice subjective statement.

Yes I knew you'd like that... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
-
-- We did not use indiscriminate weapons like cluster
-- bombs or missiles that shower a square mile with
-- shrapnel and debris.
-
- If you're going to use a technical term, know what
- it means.

Meaning what eh?
-
-- Geist, you and I might commit all sorts of crimes if
-- we are not prevented from doing so. Yes I know that
-- is a ridiculous statement. That's why a rational
-- non-arbitrary legal system only prosecutes crimes
-- that have actually taken place, not crimes that may
-- take place. Catch my drift?
-
- And rational people with good intentions do not have
- need of those systems to keep them from preventing
- crimes. However, since many people are neither
- rational nor have good intentions, it is often
- better to cause circumstances to be such that they
- cannot commit those crimes.

Wha..? scratches head

Geist don't take this the wrong way but I believe you have been reading from the Stalin book of law...
-
-- Whatever you say your intentions does not mean
-- anything when the end-game is the same. Dead
-- innocents. We cannot judge intentions but we can
-- judge facts. The fact is, body bags are piling up
-- in Iraq as a direct result of our actions.
-
- And body bags were piling up before we acted. And
- no, the end game does not have to be the same.
- Saying that it is the same is rank speculation.

Not at all, Geist it is factual observation of the result. There is no speculation required ex post.

As for the fact that body bags were piling up before... taking for granted that that was all Saddam's fault, are you saying that it is better that we fill the body bags instead of Saddam?


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

[XyZspineZyX]

Hornet57 wrote:
- It all comes down to this.
-
- If the UN was not a spineless institution, and took
- over the Part of the US and defend peoples rights
- and freedoms as human beings there would have been
- no Gulf War II.
-

The UN is not a military organization nor is it allowed to intervene in the soverign sule of a nation.

The UN does many good things that are not based on the security council, which is only a small part of the over-all organization.

It does need work, but it is not 'spineless'. It is simply not designed to function as an intervening force by using violence. Perhaps it should be, I don't know.

http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

[XyZspineZyX]

ASHcom wrote: .
-
- It does need work, but it is not 'spineless'. It is
- simply not designed to function as an intervening
- force by using violence. Perhaps it should be, I
- don't know.
-
My point is if the UN would have taken a tough stance on Saddam, he wouldn't have any hopes of winning, and most likely there wouldnt be a need for War.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

Message Edited on 10/15/0308:28AM by Hornet57

[XyZspineZyX]

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- I agree about your characterization of gas weapons
- being inaccurate but in any case I think what you
- said applies equally to our bombing campaign.

That is hardly the case. In WWII that would have been the case, but not now. Our bombing of Iraq was neither indiscriminate nor disproportionate.

- We
- expected and realized heavy civilian casualties as a
- result of our bombardment of Iraq.

No, we most certainly did not. We expected and realized light civilian casualties. Our "bombarbment" of Iraq was quite minimal.

- I never heard of
- any civilians who had weapon systems placed on their
- roof but two points: a) can you imagine a civilian
- hanging around if a sam site was placed on their
- roof (however impractical that might be),

That was the case a number of times in Afghanistan. In Iraq, there were numerous cases of radar masts mounted on civilian homes. And yes, they do stick around. It isn't as though people have so many options in Iraq.

- b) most
- civilians were killed or maimed by errant
- bombs/missles or flying debris from accurate hits on
- legitimate targets. Either way, you cannot tell me
- that Rummy & Co were suprised by civilian
- casualties.

And some were quite likely injured by errant Iraqi weaponry. However, I don't recall saying anything about Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or anyone else being surprised by the collateral damage.

- Meaning what eh?

"Indiscriminate weapon" is a technical term. You and others have misused it.

- Geist don't take this the wrong way but I believe
- you have been reading from the Stalin book of law...

You mean that there is a "right way" to take such a comment?

Let me make this more understandable for you. There are three entities involved - Mr. Mister, Mr. Nice and Mr. Guy. Mr. Mister is known for killing people. Mr. Nice lives right by Mr. Mister's home and has stated publicly how happy he was to kill Mr. Nice's family, and looks forward to finishing the job. He then begins to walk towards Mr. Nice's home with a weapon in his hand. Mr. Guy can now either wait until Mr. Mister kills Mr. Nice and commits a crime, or he can place a barrier in his way to prevent him from killing Mr. Nice. It really isn't that hard.

- As for the fact that body bags were piling up
- before... taking for granted that that was all
- Saddam's fault, are you saying that it is better
- that we fill the body bags instead of Saddam?

No, I'm not. Actually, just like in Afghanistan there are far fewer body bags piling up now than there were before. Not to mention a few other things that are different, like religious and political freedom.

"The submergence of self in the pursuit of an ideal, the readiness to spend oneself without measure, prodigally, almost ecstatically, for something intuitively apprehended as great and noble, spend oneself, one knows not why, - some of us like to believe that this is what religion means. "

[XyZspineZyX]

Hornet57 wrote:
- My point is if the UN would have taken a tough
- stance on Saddam, he wouldn't have any hopes of
- winning, and most likely there wouldnt be a need for
- War.


Don't be so quick to blame the UN for this stuff, U.S. officials knew what was going on in Iraq well before it was being reported, and they could have done something about it, like imposing economic sanctions.

[XyZspineZyX]

Oh please, if you really believe the sanctions is what hurt the people of Iraq, then you're following the typical trend of finding some way to blame everything on the US. You don't notice that Saddam and his family and top staffers were all living in these super elaborate palaces?? Hm, I WONDER where all the money was going...

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

Demon,

I think what Cow is saying that if we HAD sanctions in Iraq it would have worked better, but we did and it did nothing to saddam.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- I agree about your characterization of gas weapons
-- being inaccurate but in any case I think what you
-- said applies equally to our bombing campaign.
-
- That is hardly the case. In WWII that would have
- been the case, but not now. Our bombing of Iraq was
- neither indiscriminate nor disproportionate.

Note that I said inaccurate but why split hairs? In any case we did use indiscriminate bombing. To my knowledge cluster bombs are indiscriminate since they do not hit a specific target. Correct me if I am wrong but cluster bombs drop hundreds of bomblets over several hundred square yards. Hard to see how that could be anything other than indiscriminate. Second, the missile or laser guided bomb may accurately strike its target but it will scatter debris for hundreds of yards. This is indiscriminate.
-
-- We
-- expected and realized heavy civilian casualties as a
-- result of our bombardment of Iraq.
-
- No, we most certainly did not. We expected and
- realized light civilian casualties. Our
- "bombarbment" of Iraq was quite minimal.

Geist if you consider 10,000 deaths "light" I cannot argue with you. But the number is irrelevant. The fact is there is no way to excuse sacrificing these innocents to our ends.

- That was the case a number of times in Afghanistan.
- In Iraq, there were numerous cases of radar masts
- mounted on civilian homes.

Can you document this please Geist? Thank you.

- And some were quite likely injured by errant Iraqi
- weaponry. However, I don't recall saying anything
- about Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or anyone
- else being surprised by the collateral damage.

Exactly, so they knew there would be civilian deaths meaning that there is nothing accidental about it. It was intentional.

- "Indiscriminate weapon" is a technical term. You
- and others have misused it.
Geist I have a reasonable command of the English language. I know what 'indiscriminate' means.

-
-- Geist don't take this the wrong way but I believe
-- you have been reading from the Stalin book of law...
-
- You mean that there is a "right way" to take such a
- comment?
-
- Let me make this more understandable for you. There
- are three entities involved - Mr. Mister, Mr. Nice
- and Mr. Guy. Mr. Mister is known for killing
- people. Mr. Nice lives right by Mr. Mister's home
- and has stated publicly how happy he was to kill Mr.
- Nice's family, and looks forward to finishing the
- job. He then begins to walk towards Mr. Nice's home
- with a weapon in his hand. Mr. Guy can now either
- wait until Mr. Mister kills Mr. Nice and commits a
- crime, or he can place a barrier in his way to
- prevent him from killing Mr. Nice. It really isn't
- that hard.

First, regarding the Stalin comment. I did not mean to imply that you are a genocidal maniac. But you clearly do follow the arbitrary approach to law. Meaning that you consider it acceptable to punish someone for a crime they have not committed. This is irrational and leads us down the road to despotism.

Your example was very cut and dry, and life with individuals can be. Mr. Guy could make a judgment call and either act or not. I personally could not call it. The problem with your example is that we could all use that as an excuse to do away with someone (i.e. being threatened), hence arbitrary law. A murder is an objective fact. Whether I think so and so will commit a murder or not is subjective. If one takes to threatening the life of someone else that is something that could be dealt with, particularly if this same person has the means to carry out the threat.

However, when you are dealing with other nations the stakes are much higher and hence the burden of proof is much higher. The case for war was non-existent and your example is radically different to the situation faced here.. The US claimed it was threatened by a third world country barely capable of defending itself against the US onslaught. By your rationale, all a country has to do to justify a war is merely claim they are 'threatened'.
-
-- As for the fact that body bags were piling up
-- before... taking for granted that that was all
-- Saddam's fault, are you saying that it is better
-- that we fill the body bags instead of Saddam?
-
- No, I'm not. Actually, just like in Afghanistan
- there are far fewer body bags piling up now than
- there were before. Not to mention a few other
- things that are different, like religious and
- political freedom.

Anarchy is more like it. And no there are not less body bags piling up. Morgue details in Baghdad indicate three times the murder rate. And that does not include the bombing campaign but it does include those shot by US troops. Last year, people in Baghdad did not have to deal with being shot at road blocks.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

[XyZspineZyX]

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Note that I said inaccurate but why split hairs? In
- any case we did use indiscriminate bombing. To my
- knowledge cluster bombs are indiscriminate since
- they do not hit a specific target. Correct me if I
- am wrong but cluster bombs drop hundreds of bomblets
- over several hundred square yards. Hard to see how
- that could be anything other than indiscriminate.

No, we did not bomb indiscriminately.

Yeah, you're wrong. In context in any event. Some cluster munitions do exactly what you described. Most of the cluster munitions we used in Iraq were a whole new generation of weapons. Most of them were kinetic devices with a rudimentary guidance system (primarily magnetic in nature) designed to annihilate tank groups. Also, most of our cluster munitions these days are also "semi-smart" and deactivate themselves after either a failure to find a target or after a set amount of time. The one we use to take out runways are generally of the older and dumber varieties.

- Second, the missile or laser guided bomb may
- accurately strike its target but it will scatter
- debris for hundreds of yards. This is
- indiscriminate.

No, it is not an indiscriminate weapon. Again, it's a technical term and you're continuing to misuse it.

- Geist if you consider 10,000 deaths "light" I cannot
- argue with you. But the number is irrelevant. The
- fact is there is no way to excuse sacrificing these
- innocents to our ends.

If the number is irrelvant than why even use one? Clearly you find the number relevant or even significant. And figures do differ. Anything can be excused or rationalized - it is one of humanity's most often used abilties. You're making a wholly subjective judgement and stating your opinion.

- Can you document this please Geist? Thank you.

Don't have a link offhand - you forget, I'm a big fan of reading things that come in paper form. If you wish to consider it anecdotal until I find the time or inclination to look up a link feel free to do so.

- Exactly, so they knew there would be civilian deaths
- meaning that there is nothing accidental about it.
- It was intentional.

No, that's simply wrong. They would be intentional if the goal was to go out and kill those civilians. That would something that Hamas does. Recognizing that due to the arab habit of placing their civilians at risk that some civilian would die is simply recognizing the unpleasant reality of the situation.

- Geist I have a reasonable command of the English
- language. I know what 'indiscriminate' means.

That's nice. It is still a technical term that means something different to the people who use these weapons.
that hard.

- First, regarding the Stalin comment. I did not mean
- to imply that you are a genocidal maniac. But you
- clearly do follow the arbitrary approach to law.

Like hell I do. You should have been more specific in the first place to avoid making such a rude comment.

- Meaning that you consider it acceptable to punish
- someone for a crime they have not committed. This
- is irrational and leads us down the road to
- despotism.

No, I do not. I would prefer to prevent a crime rather than wait until after the fact. This is neither irrational nor punishing someone for a crime they did not commit.

- Your example was very cut and dry, and life with
- individuals can be. Mr. Guy could make a judgment
- call and either act or not. I personally could not
- call it. The problem with your example is that we
- could all use that as an excuse to do away with
- someone (i.e. being threatened), hence arbitrary
- law. A murder is an objective fact. Whether I
- think so and so will commit a murder or not is
- subjective. If one takes to threatening the life of
- someone else that is something that could be dealt
- with, particularly if this same person has the means
- to carry out the threat.

You're saying that you could not make the call to defend someone's life? What is wrong with you?

I said nothing about killing Mr. Nice or doing him any harm. You're drawing conclusions based on your own assumptions.

- However, when you are dealing with other nations the
- stakes are much higher and hence the burden of proof
- is much higher. The case for war was non-existent
- and your example is radically different to the
- situation faced here.. The US claimed it was
- threatened by a third world country barely capable
- of defending itself against the US onslaught. By
- your rationale, all a country has to do to justify a
- war is merely claim they are 'threatened'.

No, that is the rationale you seem intent on projecting onto me. The stakes are quite different and not necessarily higher. Unless of course you wish to place relative value on human life. You certainly seem to be doing so, and this directly contradicts what you said, but did not indicate earlier in this same post.

Again, the recent conflict with Iraq can be quite easily seen as a simple extension of the 1991 war brought about by repeated Iraqi violations of the 1991 armistice. My example dealt with the no-fly zones that we were discussing, and you're taking it out of context in an attempt to prove a point.

- Anarchy is more like it. And no there are not less
- body bags piling up. Morgue details in Baghdad
- indicate three times the murder rate. And that does
- not include the bombing campaign but it does include
- those shot by US troops. Last year, people in
- Baghdad did not have to deal with being shot at road
- blocks.

True, they only had to worry about vanishing in the middle of the night and dying in one of Saddam's many prisons or in a mass grave somewhere. Oh, I forgot about being tortured and/or mutilated. So yes, I would say that there are fewer people dying now. Is ther anarchy? Certainly there is in some places. Iraq is a very violent culture and has lots of issues to deal with. Not the least of which is people there learning to respect each other's rights without having to be cowed into doing so by a bloody handed tyrant.

"The submergence of self in the pursuit of an ideal, the readiness to spend oneself without measure, prodigally, almost ecstatically, for something intuitively apprehended as great and noble, spend oneself, one knows not why, - some of us like to believe that this is what religion means. "

[XyZspineZyX]

MDS_Geist wrote:
-
Some cluster munitions do exactly what you described.
- Most of the cluster munitions we used in Iraq were a
- whole new generation of weapons. Most of them were
- kinetic devices with a rudimentary guidance system
- (primarily magnetic in nature) designed to
- annihilate tank groups. Also, most of our cluster
- munitions these days are also "semi-smart" and
- deactivate themselves after either a failure to find
- a target or after a set amount of time. The one we
- use to take out runways are generally of the older
- and dumber varieties.

So how is it that these civilians are continuing to be killed by these devices?

--- Second, the missile or laser guided bomb may
-- accurately strike its target but it will scatter
-- debris for hundreds of yards. This is
-- indiscriminate.
-
- No, it is not an indiscriminate weapon. Again, it's
- a technical term and you're continuing to misuse it.

I am not misusing it I am simply not using it in the technical sense that you keep mentioning.
-
-- Geist if you consider 10,000 deaths "light" I cannot
-- argue with you. But the number is irrelevant. The
-- fact is there is no way to excuse sacrificing these
-- innocents to our ends.
-
- If the number is irrelvant than why even use one?
- Clearly you find the number relevant or even
- significant. And figures do differ. Anything can
- be excused or rationalized - it is one of humanity's
- most often used abilties. You're making a wholly
- subjective judgement and stating your opinion.

The number is irrelevant in that it doesn't matter whether you think it is "light" or not. Consistently speaking it does not matter whether one or one million people died if the act itself is unethical . My judgment is not subjective nor is it merely "opinion". It is based on a rational and comprehensive approach to ethics.
-
-- Can you document this please Geist? Thank you.
-
- Don't have a link offhand - you forget, I'm a big
- fan of reading things that come in paper form.

Time for you to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.
-
-- Exactly, so they knew there would be civilian deaths
-- meaning that there is nothing accidental about it.
-- It was intentional.
-
- No, that's simply wrong. They would be intentional
- if the goal was to go out and kill those civilians.

Geist it is easily foreseeable that if you let off bombs in the middle of a city that innocent people will die. This is not accidental. Precisely who you kill will be incidental but the fact that people will die can be taken for granted. Bush & Co. simply made the decision that this was a sacrifice they were willing to have other people make own their behalf.

-- First, regarding the Stalin comment. I did not mean
-- to imply that you are a genocidal maniac. But you
-- clearly do follow the arbitrary approach to law.
-
- Like hell I do. You should have been more specific
- in the first place to avoid making such a rude
- comment.

Well sometimes people need to be shaken up. People often look at the obvious with Stalin (that he murdered millions of people) and forget the important subtleties (that he was a socialist and that he proceeded from arbitrary approach to law). Stalin was merely continuing the Bentham tradition of government to its ultimate conclusion: a government that decides who lives and who dies.

You are not too far from this perspective since you have already decided that it is OK to sacrifice people in Iraq to the ends of the US government. In your mind it is alright as long as we are doing the killing.
-
- No, I do not. I would prefer to prevent a crime
- rather than wait until after the fact. This is
- neither irrational nor punishing someone for a crime
- they did not commit.

In a black & white example like the one you gave preventing the crime might be possible. But apply this to Iraq. What crime was about to take place? Was Saddam publicly threatening America? Did he have his navy in the water bearing down on the east coast? Did he even have the means to make good on this threat? No he did not. Your example is invalid.
- You're saying that you could not make the call to
- defend someone's life? What is wrong with you?

Unlike you Geist, I do not feel it is my responsibility to run around saving the world. Involving yourself in other peoples' problems only makes for more problems. Witness the disaster in Iraq.

- No, that is the rationale you seem intent on
- projecting onto me. The stakes are quite different
- and not necessarily higher. Unless of course you
- wish to place relative value on human life. You
- certainly seem to be doing so, and this directly
- contradicts what you said, but did not indicate
- earlier in this same post.

I do not see where I am placing relative value on human life. Please demonstrate this. If your rationale for war is different to what I represented please correct me. You mentioned a 12 year old war and some no-fly zones but I really do not see how this is relevant.
-
-- Anarchy is more like it. And no there are not less
-- body bags piling up. Morgue details in Baghdad
-- indicate three times the murder rate. And that does
-- not include the bombing campaign but it does include
-- those shot by US troops. Last year, people in
-- Baghdad did not have to deal with being shot at road
-- blocks.
-
- True, they only had to worry about vanishing in the
- middle of the night and dying in one of Saddam's
- many prisons or in a mass grave somewhere. Oh, I
- forgot about being tortured and/or mutilated

I see, so if it's the Americans that do it, it's OK?

. So
- yes, I would say that there are fewer people dying
- now.

Can you prove this? I already told you that the murder has tripled in Baghdad since the invasion. How can this be consistent with your claim that fewer people are dying now? Of course, this notwithstanding the millions that died as a result of the sanctions.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

[XyZspineZyX]

MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- So how is it that these civilians are continuing to
- be killed by these devices?

The two most reasonable possibilites are that they are either encountering "dumb" cluster munitions or that they are being injured by other explosive devices. Since there appears to be no shortage of IED's in Iraq (and much of the Middle East) it's really quite a tough call to make as for which is more likely.

- I am not misusing it I am simply not using it in the
- technical sense that you keep mentioning.

Then you're using it in subjective fashion that can lead to confusion.

- The number is irrelevant in that it doesn't matter
- whether you think it is "light" or not.

So then clearly you are making this into a subjective issue regarding the value of human life. That's rather repugnant don't you think?

- Consistently speaking it does not matter whether one
- or one million people died if the act itself is
- unethical . My judgment is not subjective nor is it
- merely "opinion". It is based on a rational and
- comprehensive approach to ethics.

Except that you are making the judgement that the act itself was unethical. This is in and of itself a subjective judgement and clearly is your own opinion.

- Time for you to be dragged kicking and screaming
- into the 21st Century.

I'm a very tactile person. I like the feel of books and such in my hands. It's enough that I have lots of ebooks on my PDA, as well as the entire Talmud (mostly). I'm still attached to papers and books sometimes - often easier on the eyes and I can read them on Shabbat.

- Geist it is easily foreseeable that if you let off
- bombs in the middle of a city that innocent people
- will die. This is not accidental. Precisely who
- you kill will be incidental but the fact that people
- will die can be taken for granted. Bush & Co.
- simply made the decision that this was a sacrifice
- they were willing to have other people make own
- their behalf.

How generous of you to inform us of what the Executive Branch of the US Government was thinking. Do you perchance know who is going to win this year's World Series and in how many games? That would actually be useful information rather than your suppositions about the Executive Branch.

And yes, the deaths of civilians are still accidental. We did not bomb indiscriminately (you do like this word, so I figured I would throw it in for you) nor did we bomb excessively. Had we done so, Bagdhad would be a parking lot. Even the much touted "Shock and Awe" campaign was really pretty mild and certainly did not live up to its name.

- Well sometimes people need to be shaken up. People
- often look at the obvious with Stalin (that he
- murdered millions of people) and forget the
- important subtleties (that he was a socialist and
- that he proceeded from arbitrary approach to law).

You failed to "shake me up," nor have I forgotten what I know about Stalin. Suggesting that I am a Stalinist is quite foolish and I would have expected you to know better from the course of our own discussions. However, you did succeed in making an arbitrary point through the introduction of an offensive comment.

- Stalin was merely continuing the Bentham tradition
- of government to its ultimate conclusion: a
- government that decides who lives and who dies.

That's nice. And we generally call that kind of absolutist government a dictatorship or tyrrany - kind of like Iraq used to be. It is not the government I live in or would have any type of positive association with.

- You are not too far from this perspective since you
- have already decided that it is OK to sacrifice
- people in Iraq to the ends of the US government. In
- your mind it is alright as long as we are doing the
- killing.

You should know better by now than to attempt to infer motives or thought over the Internet. It simply doesn't work - or at least it hasn't for you so far. Such a simplistic statement is both absurd and ridiculous.

- In a black & white example like the one you gave
- preventing the crime might be possible. But apply
- this to Iraq. What crime was about to take place?
- Was Saddam publicly threatening America? Did he
- have his navy in the water bearing down on the east
- coast? Did he even have the means to make good on
- this threat? No he did not. Your example is
- invalid.

In case you missed it the first few times, as you clearly have, my example was in reference to the no-fly zones. Your attempts to cast it in any other light are quite invalid.

- Unlike you Geist, I do not feel it is my
- responsibility to run around saving the world.

Not the world - just people. When you have the opportunity to save a person's life and choose to let them die you have made a choice to assist in their death, and to assist their killer. Are you so willing to be an accessory to murder if not the murderer yourself?

- Involving yourself in other peoples' problems only
- makes for more problems. Witness the disaster in
- Iraq.

It can make for other problems. It can also solve problems and save lives. Look up the name "Kitty Genovese" either online or in Lexis-Nexis. Intervention can do a great deal of good.

- I do not see where I am placing relative value on
- human life. Please demonstrate this. If your
- rationale for war is different to what I represented
- please correct me. You mentioned a 12 year old war
- and some no-fly zones but I really do not see how
- this is relevant.

Your failuer to understand relevancy is something that I cannot remedy if you insist on trying to read into things rather that just reading what is posted. The "12 year old war" did not end in 1991. And the no-fly zones were what I posted an analogy about that you insisted on misconstruing. You are saying that it is better to not interfere, and in so doing possibly risking your own life, than it is to intervene to save the lives of others. Intervention isn't pretty, particularly on an international scale. Nor is it at all swift in the resolution (when done by a civilized nation that is). However, it can save lives. Being willing to sacrifice your own life for the good of others is something that you appear to be quite averse to. In making such a judgement, you are placing a higher value on yourself than on anotehr human being. Must be nice to be so special.

- I see, so if it's the Americans that do it, it's OK?

I'm sorry, I must have missed the article that detailed American's cutting the ears off Iraqis, dipping them in acid or feeding them into tree shredders. Can you please point those out to me? If not, then your question is as misguided as it is embarassing to read.

- Can you prove this? I already told you that the
- murder has tripled in Baghdad since the invasion.

And as soon as all of the mass graves are found and missing Iraqis accounted for, I may be able to give you some numbers. Your point about morgue numbers fails to impress for the simple reason that the previous regime didn't give the morgues that much business. They preferred to deal with their problems "in-house."

- How can this be consistent with your claim that
- fewer people are dying now? Of course, this
- notwithstanding the millions that died as a result
- of the sanctions.

Again, the numbers aren't all in yet. Think of it as Florida around midnight on a election night - "too close to call."

Oh and of course the sanctions, how can we forget about those? Oh yes, I know - we'll just admit that they could have been easily lifted had the former regime simply been open and honest. Their failure to do so, as well as the aid of nations such as Syria in violating those sanctions place the responsbility on Saddam's head.

"The submergence of self in the pursuit of an ideal, the readiness to spend oneself without measure, prodigally, almost ecstatically, for something intuitively apprehended as great and noble, spend oneself, one knows not why, - some of us like to believe that this is what religion means. "