I differ from some Guppies in this respect. I don't think of Saddam a hero, I have little sympathy for a man who kills his people with such brutality. On the flip side, the senseless murder of Iraqi people by Daisy cutters and cluster bombs..or uranium depleted shells is not exactly the act of a kind and beneveolent people.
If America is liberating people from tyranny why Iraq?, why not start with Cuba?
It shall remain the US governments three greatest accomplishment, the first that for every person killed in the World Trade Centre they will soon have killed anything from 3 to 10 people, most of whom were innocent civilians who combined did not earn as much as one person at the WTC(and hence who died without camera's clicking or publicity)
The second greatest accomplishment the US government has done since 9-11 is successfully turning all the sympathy and sorrow the World felt at what happened into hate.
The third greatest accomplishment the US government managed since 9-11 was turning tyrants and killers into hero's .
The sad part is that even your countires worst enemies could not have dreamed off such an outcome.
Your reply sounds as if you might be a fairly reasonable person. As one person who might be fairly reasonable to another, let me offer a comment or two. You speak of "the senseless murder of Iraqi people by Daisy cutters and cluster bombs..or uranium depleted shells." Much of what Ohio Guy cites in this thread indicates that the Iraqi people realize that some innocent civilians will die in this war but they do NOT view those deaths as their "senseless murder" by US troops. (Nor for that matter do they view it as sensible murder.) The point being, they know who the murderer is and it aint us.
I do not for a moment believe or argue that the PURPOSE of this war is to free the Iraqi people. That will, however, be a wonderful byproduct of accomplishing our objective. Americans, as well as a lot of other people around the world, know the price/cost of freedom as we have fought and lost many lives to obtain it and defend it. The Iraqi people seem to have a strong desire for freedom but have unfortunately been rendered helpless to obtain it on their own by the brutal regime of Saddam. When they have tried, they have lost many lives and been thoroughly trounced in the process.
While the non-free, non-Iraqi Arab street looks at civilian deaths in Iraq as "senseless murder," I believe the Iraqi street knows that those deaths are the price of freedom and they are willing to pay it. That is what the voices cited by OhioGuy are saying.
It will not be until AFTER Saddam is gone that we will really know what the majority of the Iraqi people truly think about this. Indeed, their opinions may change and fluctuate based upon what happens in post-war Iraq. If they do not perceive their lives as being significantly better and/or perceive themselves as being a free self-governing people, they are more likely to view the loss of innocent civilian lives as murder rather than a price worth paying.
What I think too many anti-American voices do not realize is that the US has a great deal more at stake in how Iraq's redevelopment progresses and the future happiness of the Iraqi people than the value of a few million barrels of oil.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. My reply is quite long and I am not sure you or anyone else is upto reading all I have written.
The essential premise behind your argument FOR the invasion ( it was not an peace enforcing intervention as it was not sanctioned by International Law hence invasion), is the hope (and I don't doubt your intentions in this regard) that this invasion will pave the way for a Democratic free Iraq where the people can livee and act without the fear of persecution by a brutal and unaccountable regime. The liberated people will then serve as an example to be emulated of Democracy and human rights in the Arab and Muslim World.
I am not an American and I am a Muslim. I too hope that, Democracy and respect for human dignity will come to the Arab World. Unfortunately there are some problems with this "vision". The reason behind the UN resolution was the disarming and removal of Weapons of Mass Destruction, NOT regime change. International Law, the UN and NATO, do not condone military action taken against the sovereignity of another state. We can argue whether International Law has any validity in a World where we have Trans National Terrorist organisations and collapsed states, but that is another issue. There have been other examples of states which have targetted their own people as well as US interests.
A classic example is China, if nothng else can be said about Saddam one fact is accepted in the 1970's he did significantly improve the economic well being of his people. China has not done anything like that in the overall sense(minus certain areas), it's actions in Tibet are well documented, and the gulags operating there are well known. China also played a key role in supporting the Viet Cong against the US and directly attacked the US in Korea, but despite this the US's offical policy towards the Chinese is called "constructive engagement" which is free trade and "dialogue".
Again by comparison Iraq has never attacked American interests directly(unless Kuwait has some unqiue relationship with the US prior to 1990 that I am unaware off). Similairly, the fact that Saddam has attacked his neighbours is also not unique, Yemen attacked it's neighbouring state in the 90's. Israel has attacked it's neighbours in 3 wars 1956,1967, and 1982. What makes Iraq different? Is it the presence of WMD? If there presence was the only reason, it is a widely believed fact that in 1973's Yom Kippur War, when during the first 4 days Israel was faced with a near Military collapse, the Israelis had threatened the use of it's Nuclear Weapons against the Arabs (the Samson option).
Perhaps Iraq was a threat to it's neighbours, but then why were the neighbours the strongest advocates of peace?
And if the need was to help foster a Democratic Arab/Muslim state, why not Egypt. It is after all the second biggest recipient of US aid. Wouldn't it be better to put pressure on the Egyptians goivernment to establish a true democracy?
Then there is this argument "why are muslims, supporting a dictator who has only killed More Muslims?", I would also add to that Al Qaeda encouraged the mass murder of Muslims who did not follow it's extremist interpretation of Islam. But, the answer is fairly straight forward, Mao and Stalin committed Murder on a scale of unimaginable proportions to their own people and outsiders, yet their victory over foreign aggression in World War 2 turned them into National Hero's. People as you may well know unite behind someone who seems to lead whenever there is a war. The argument used is simple "my country right or wrong" or "my religion right or wrong". Again I repeat that remains the US governments lasting achievement, turning people like that into hero's (on the reverse side Osama gave George Bush a popularity he probably doesn't deserve)
The next Question is simple, if the Doctrine of pre-emption (attacking whenever you suspect a threat), is now the driving force behind American policy, where do you draw the line? How do you assess the threat? And more importantly, what happens when other states with superior Military power then their neighbours launch attacks (forming the appropriate coalition of the willing in the process and ignoring the UN) declaring they suspected a terrorist attack? (International law was created to prevent that kind of free for all).
Despite all I have said I again say, I do not doubt the good intentions of some Americans like yourself or Ohioguy when they say they want the Iraqi's to rule themselves and be free. But as the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Zakk: I differ somewhat from Ohio Guy in what I believe to be the justification for the action. I believe (and he may correct me if I’m wrong) that he believes Saddam’s history of butchery provides ample justification for the War and he would have preferred that justification be our stated core objective. That is not my justification or argument FOR the war although I think it has a lot of merit. My justification is that WMD in the hands of Saddam presented a clear and present danger to the US, its allies and its interests. (Let’s not get into an argument about whether he has WMD as that is really irrelevant now. The bona fide belief that he has them and will use them directly or indirectly to harm America, its friends and its interests is enough for me). To me, the liberation of the Iraqis is secondary and represents the icing rather than the cake.
I would like to address your comments on the Doctrine of Pre-emption. It may surprise you to hear that I share your questions and concerns which I would rephrase a little to asking: “are we not opening the lid a little to Pandora’s box?” Prior to 9/11, I don’t think I would have gone along with this justification for war without UN Security Council cover. But, it is now abundantly clear to me that more traditional notions of the concept of self defense are not applicable in a world where terrorist thugs and regimes which sponsor and/or aid and abet them can strike anywhere causing massive loss of life and economic turmoil of staggering proportion. We may not be in a position where we can keep the whole world from having WMD, but we are in a position where we can eliminate from the equation the most dangerous tyrants who are most likely to use such weapons or aid and abet the use of them against us by other madmen. And, if that proves to be the road to hell, well then …. So be it. I could not support any President or any administration that would sit back waiting quietly in the night for the next terrorist attack before acting. If that’s the only path to heaven, I guess we won’t get there.
"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy" -- US Supreme Court Justice Robert L Jackson, Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunals.
This is something I just pasted elsewhere. A point to ponder, when after 9-11 the US went to the UN security council for support to intervene against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It had total support. Now the whole world looks at the US as a International bully. What went wrong?
In any case Myvoice, once the invocation of "threat to the National interest" or "clear and present danger" is invoked, most counter arguments from non Americans like myself are pointless. I suppose only time will tell who was right or wrong, and if more people US or otherwise die because of this policy or less and the million dollar question...how many more governments are now preparing for the eventual day when the guns are turned on them (irrespective of whether they own WMD's or not).
MV, you are indeed right that Saddam himself tilted my decision, and only after some thought and research. I agree that the Nexus of WMD and tyrants represents a threat, but I believe that that is a global problem not a unilateral one. And that commitment is NOT shared universally which may make more unilateralism necessary in the future.
Sometime ago on Gupshup I posted an article that railed against the US foreign policy of stability at all costs. That is, the support of tyrants, kings, emperors, dictators, and any other form of totalitarianism should be fought. Freedom should be our biggest export. Let's go back to our roots, and support "worthy" efforts at free government. (Note the "worthy" qualifier).
After Iraq we should pressure Saudi, Syria, Turkey, North Korea, Iran, (Cuba too, as if anybody still cares) a whole bunch of 'Stans, and other people who suffer from the grinding boot of totalitarianism. That does not mean that we need a strongarm approach, when persistant persuasion might work. The US used to stand for freedom, and somehow we have lost our way. Despite what those on this board migh think, Afghanistan was a good start, and I hope Iraq will as well.
But until Saddam is gone no one will realize how bad things in iraq really are, nor how much the people wanted to be free. In many ways I equate this to a falling of the Iron Curtain (Oil Curtain?). Many of the US "coalition" partners that have not been heard of much are those that suffered repression at the hand of Russia. They had a yearning to be free, and the smell of freedom is very fresh to the people of Eastern Europe.
I think the whole question of WMD was a simply a rallying cry for something that had some universal appeal. Look around the current United Nations, and tell me how many are really free countries. I saw a Kurdish commentator that proposed a "United Democratic Nations". Now that would be an organization with some moral authority!
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
*Please read this and let me know if you really think that there is freedom of expression in Iraq...**
Sorry, but when have i ever stated that there is?
You may not realize it, but your "peace protests" have helped this regime survive.
My "peace protests" were not for Saddam Hussein. Iraq is made up of 24 million civilian individuals.
**Now please tell me that this is not a credible witness to the horrors of Iraq. **
Yes, he IS a credible witness.
The same occurs every hour, of every day, in Saudi Arabia, and i would venture to guess in the majority of Gulf states (UAE, Qatar, etc.). But what does this prove, OG? i still do not believe that regime change, despite how odious the dictators, is something that we can justify under international laws.
i am sorry, i just cannot make myself believe that.
[/QUOTE]
Nadia,
You have to believe that sometimes the choice between right and wrong is gray. Right thing is to depose Saddam. Wrong thing is for helpless civilians to die.
"Right" thing is to allow the people of Iraq their own right to determine their own political fate. They are not 5 year olds whom we can or should take upon ourselves the right of deciding for them what is, and is not, good for them.
"Wrong" thing is to open a Pandora's box by pushing for regime change against govts. not friendly towards us, simultaneously ignoring numerous dictatorships that happen to be US-friendly.
The Baath party regime was a welcome delight to the 12 years of famine, starvation and disease caused by the coalitions who are now getting ready to incinerate Iraq completely to 'liberate' it...Their 'liberation' is a plaque in the name of humanity and their intentions are vile and vicious in the name of 'freedom'...
P.S. O, Ohioguy...I can write a better tale than this garbage you posted...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
"Right" thing is to allow the people of Iraq their own right to determine their own political fate. They are not 5 year olds whom we can or should take upon ourselves the right of deciding for them what is, and is not, good for them.
[/QUOTE]
Which, God willing, they will finally have that opportunity. An opportunity unavailable under Saddam Hussein.
[QUOTE]
"Wrong" thing is to open a Pandora's box by pushing for regime change against govts. not friendly towards us, simultaneously ignoring numerous dictatorships that happen to be US-friendly.
[/QUOTE]
Your probobly right Nadia_H. about ignoring other dictatorships, but there is a remote possibility that once Iraqi becomes a free and productive society something good may just rub off on others.
Well, here is one story that can be closed. Up further in the thread I posted a story of captured Jounalists being held at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, and the torture of prisoners that took place just a fewfeet away.
Apparently the men who were being tortured were executed just a short time later.
Mass grave holds victims of Saddam’s last purge
By Catherine Philp
IT WAS the stench that hit us first, gusting like a chemical cloud across the prison courtyard. The smell, unmistakable to anyone who has scented it, of human flesh slowly decomposing just under the surface of the earth.
One by one, the grave diggers, toiling in a dust storm under a blazing sky, lifted the crumbling bodies from the clay-lined mass grave stretching along the prison lawn, in the shadow of an empty watchtower on top of the sprawling prison block. Each of the 13 corpses pulled from the ground was still dressed in his blue-and-white-striped prison pyjamas, his hands tied behind his back, a bullet hole in his skull and his face blindfolded by a thin strip of cloth.
Anxious relatives of the missing, peering at each swollen face for any sign of recognition, covered their mouths and noses with handkerchiefs against the choking stench as the grisly disinterment rumbled on.
I, too, held a handkerchief to my face, but not just against the smell. Exactly a month earlier my boyfriend, the British journalist Matthew McAllester, was arrested in his hotel room in Baghdad and brought to the same cell block in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison as the men now being dug up from the ground.
For a week those men were his neighbours, men who ate the same tasteless food and stale bread rolls, who padded silently to the same filthy bathroom at the end of the corridor and gazed across the concrete corridor that ran along the centre of their prison block, reserved for foreigners and suspected spies.
After eight days, he and four other Westerners arrested with him were suddenly released and swiftly deported from the country. The other inmates left in the block were to live for just seven more days.
But none of us knew that then, of course. Arriving at the prison yesterday Said Hussein, a former inmate, guided us to the block where Matt and the others had been incarcerated. He had been in the neighbouring block, looking out on to the common courtyard, when the guards came for the men in the spy wing. “They took ten men from here and then three more from my block and led them away to the water tower,” he said, pointing along the dingy corridor. “Then I heard gunshots. Then the sound of a mechanical digger.”
At first count, there were 16 cells. On further inspection, one was not a cell but a steel cupboard where prisoners “in need of discipline” were shut up for days at a time. Fifteen cells in all. Five Westerners released. Ten Iraqis killed.
No one but Matt and the other Westerners had got out of that wing alive. Seven more days and they, too, could have gone down in history as members of Saddam’s final purge.
We returned to the mass grave site, where the relatives of the missing were still digging for bodies. The task was hopeless. After more than a fortnight in the ground, the faces of the dead were unrecognisable. Still they carried on digging under the hot sun, gently laying out the bodies and cutting bindings from their wrists, trying delicately to remove the blindfolds melted on to their faces. One corpse pulled from the ground was missing all the toenails from his right foot, a classic method of torture in Saddam’s jails.
One man held the identity cards of his son, Amr Abbas Mohammed, a member of the persecuted Sufi religious minority against whom Saddam had started a final crackdown in the last days of his regime. But the handsome young face staring out from the cards bore no resemblance to the bloated bodies.
“They said he was a spy because he had a Thuraya phone,” Dasoul Abbas Mohammed said, referring to the make of handheld satellite phone strictly banned under Saddam’s regime. Such equipment was habitually used by members of opposition groups to keep in secret contact with associates outside Iraq, but many were used simply as a means to contact loved ones abroad.
Matt’s possession of a Thuraya phone had come up regularly in his interrogations inside Abu Ghraib. For others it had cost them their lives.
Hussein Shabani, a relative, spotting the mobile tucked into Matt’s pocket, asked shyly if he could use it to make a call to his relations in the States. Matt dialled the number scrawled on a piece of paper and handed the phone over to the man. It was only then that we realised he was using the phone to break the news of his brothers’ disappearance.
“Our family is OK, but we lost two of them, we lost them to the Mukhabarat,” he shouted down the line. “We are looking for our brothers, but we haven’t found them. We will keep on looking.”
Does this human shield person want a medal or something now.
Let's work this out now:
One person from billions decides to change there mind on an issue, which by the way in percentage terms is something like 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 recurring, and you expect us to all say , yes he's right so let's all agree with him.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**Do you think that a man who could order 2000 executions (muslims more than likely)in a day *will change his ways because protestors in London insist on it?**
Firstly, it was not exclusively London. There were protests stretching from the Antarctic circle (a geographical team based there), to Durban in South Africa, from Argentina to Berlin. We were not protesting for Saddam Hussein to 'change his ways'. Good grief, we are not that naive. Does Saddam Hussein really care what millions of global protestors believe? No.
Our message was different and it was directed towards our own democratic govts. - we did not want our names as part of an invasion that we believe is unjustified.
OG, i fear that you are wasting your time with me, and i don't want you to waste your time typing up so many responses. Regardless of how many chilling prison descriptions i read (and the last one was gruesome), it has no bearing upon my belief that this invasion is illegal and that the outcome of it will be - i fear - a govt. that is less than democratic.
When i was about 5 i think, we lived in one of the smaller emirates of the UAE (Sharjah). The country, as you know, is ruled by a 'Sheikh', a president; it's a dictatorial monarchy. When i was about 5 (or less, perhaps?), i used to go out to play with my two older sisters (we lived in a very rural part of Sharjah); afraid that we would not come back early enough, my mother used to scare us with threats that the 'shurta will come and take you'. ('Shurta' signifying in emirati Arabic the 'police'). Although she did that to scare us, that was pretty much the way it worked in the country - anyone could be picked off the road and thrown into jail. You had to have contacts with Sheikh al Nahyan in order to, for eg., purchase more than 50% shares of an Arab company; even until recently, non-emiratis were not allowed to purchase property in the UAE (two years ago, a law was brought in to change that in Dubai) unless they had personal contacts with the Sheikh or one of his close family members.
Anyways my point is that - i know what it is like to live in a dictatorship. i was born in the UAE, spent 12 years of my life there. You don't have to spell it out for me. Despite it all, i still believe that - what is presently occurring - going around overthrowing regimes that we happen to disagree with (although we got along pretty well with them in the previous decade) - gives off no logic to me whatsoever. It's opened a pandora's box - after Iraq, who's next? Who gets to decide which govt. is worthy of being overthrown and which is not ?
Perhaps, most worrying of all - i think that we are completely ignoring the fact here that we are taking it upon ourselves to decide what's best for the people of Iraq. Why now? Why not in 1988? Why not just let the people live - lift the embargo that has intellectually suffocated the country (by denying items such as medical journals and books). We are simply alienating the Iraqi people from the thoughts and ideas of other systems and ideologies; flood them with the positive effects of globalization and they will work out a way, on their own, to change their political system IF they believe that is suitable for them. Who are we to judge what is, and is not, right for others?
(ps- i have to jet, so will check this thread after a while).
[/QUOTE]
Nadia,
Were there poor people in the U.E.?
I mean, did you know any? Did you know any regular people that struggled to care for their families everyday?
Did you know anyone who struggled to feed their families?
Were there Muslim's who provided for those that couldn't take care of themselfs?
Know that I struggle. I have found that colleges in America grant money to foreign people (not that I'm against foreign people) but that there are kids from Asia and the MiddleEast attending college with my kid, but you know? she doesn't qualify for an education grant. Even though I can barely afford her education.
