[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
P.S. utd, if this was about "WMD" then why not go after North Korea? To scared..? :)
[/QUOTE]
see my post under the N. Korea topic.
Nadia, I do think the administrations should remind the world that Saddam is not a teddy bear, to not do so would be dumb on their part.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Nadia, I do think the administrations should remind the world that Saddam is not a teddy bear, to not do so would be dumb on their part.
[/QUOTE]
Saddam was not a teddy bear when Donald Rumsfeld went out of his way to meet him in Baghdad in 1983 and 1984, and share cosy chats about boosting Iraq militarily against Iran.
Please cite for me the UN resolution that would have allowed any coalition troops to intervene on their behalf! Funny how you can call for unilateralism at one moment and then condemn it the next.
You can't have it both ways, wanting UN resolutions, then expecting that we would rush in, cross borders and start an unauthorized invasion of Iraq.
The height of hypocracy comes when I hear about complaints of the US No-fly zone effort even after these incidents.
And yes, the people of Iraq should have risen up and slaughtered the regime. It is now clear that they could not. It will have to be done for them.
"Iraq's Elite Guard massacred"
Funny, now when we are practically begging to go into Iraq to right these wrongs, you guys flip flop. Amazing how you forget it was Saddams' men pulling the triggers, yet your anti-US bias makes you blame the US.
That is because the US miltary let the Iraqi army use helicopter gunships under the ceasefire agreement, and then sat back while those same gunships were used to slaughter the Shia’s. A rebel brigadier reported ‘We had the message that the Americans would support us. But I saw with my own eyes the American planes fly over [the regime’s] helicopters. They were taking pictures. They knew what was happening.’](http://pilger.carlton.com/iraq/motives2)
No UN Resolution allows the US to set-up those “No-fly zones” over Iraq. If those were set up to protect the Kurds and Shias it was not in accordnace with UN resolutions, but you are arguing that you need a UN resolution to help the Iraqi people. So I guess the “No Fly Zones” were not set up to help the Kurds and Shias?
So Malik,
Rather than dance around your infinite loops of logic, here is mine.
Screw the UN Resolutions. I do not care a wit about whether we are respecting the sovereignty of a regime that would slaughter it's own people with helicopter gunships. If those no-fly zones have saved a single sole from a reoccurance of Saddam's slaughter then they are the right thing to do.
The US did not go to Baghdad and oust Saddam. The UN was wimpy and would not authorize it. The US in an attempt to listen to the wisdom of the arab world and did not want to be seen as a unilateral power. It defies all military logic not to finish off your opponent when you have them on the run. We will not make that mistake again. Thank you for confirming that the right thing to do for the Shia would have been to defy the UN, and not wait for a resolution which would never come, and to go defend them and liberate them. You are coming around.....
Back to the original article. i found the link referred to in the BBC website (the one referring to Schwarzkopf’s interview in the Washington Post). Article is pretty long; as usual, posting my highly selective extracts below.
Desert Caution - Once ‘Stormin’ Norman,’ Gen. Schwarzkopf Is Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq, Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post, 28 January 2003
Norman Schwarzkopf wants to give peace a chance. The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn’t seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He’s worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq.
And don’t get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
…] This isn’t just any retired officer speaking. Schwarzkopf is one of the nation’s best-known military officers, with name recognition second only to his former boss, Secretary of State Powell. What’s more, he is closely allied with the Bush family. He hunts with the first President Bush. He campaigned for the second, speaking on military issues at the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia and later stumping in Florida with Cheney, who was secretary of defense during the 1991 war.
…] “Candidly, I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made,” says Schwarzkopf. He contrasts Cheney’s low profile as defense secretary during the Gulf War with Rumsfeld’s frequent television appearances since Sept. 11, 2001. “He almost sometimes seems to be enjoying it.” That, Schwarzkopf admonishes, is a sensation to be avoided when engaged in war.
The general is a true son of the Army, where he served from 1956 to 1991, and some of his comments reflect the estrangement between that service and the current defense secretary. Some at the top of the Army see Rumsfeld and those around him as overly enamored of air power and high technology and insufficiently attentive to the brutal difficulties of ground combat. Schwarzkopf’s comments reflect Pentagon scuttlebutt that Rumsfeld and his aides have brushed aside some of the Army’s concerns.
What those “No Fly Zones” have resulted in is the killing of 144 civilians and 446 being wounded by UK/US airforces - till the end of Dec 2000]('It is an outrage that you repeat fabricated disinformation' | World news | The Guardian). Now as the “No Fly Zones” were not set up under any UN resolution, then they were obviously not set up to help the Kurds and Shias?
This is further backed up by the clear fact the US military allowed Saddam to use his helicopters after the Gulf War, which he then proceeded to use to slaughter tens of thousands Shias in the south. All the time US planes just overflew these helicopters and just take photos. Why did the US allow him specifically to use those helicopters?
Malik,
Perhaps you should be asking:
"Why has no one called for Saddam and his henchmen to be indicted for war crimes against his ethnic minorities?"
Perhaps you think he is immune from these types of indictments? As far as I am concerned the No-Fly zone prevents FUTHER war crimes and anyone who interferes with that effort should be co-indicted and any one who shoots at these planes does so at their own peril. Further, any Iraqi officer who co-locates anti-aircraft equipment in residential neighborhoods should also be indicted. Do you deny that slaughtering his own people with helicopter gunships would constitute a war crime? Why has the muslim world not risen in outrage against the slaughter of ethnic minorities? Please never use the words "war crimes" again on this board, as you obviously have no idea what the words mean.....
I hereby volunteer the 101st airborne to go into Iraq and find those responsible for the slaughter of these people and bring them to justice....That will bring the end of sanctions, as well as the no-fly zones!
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
Perhaps you should be asking that to Saddams’ old chum Rumsfeld, Powell etc and co who are now publicly saying they would help Saddam and his henchman to find a safe haven in another country?
Result in144 civilians and 446 being wounded by UK/US airforces - till the end of Dec 2000]('It is an outrage that you repeat fabricated disinformation' | World news | The Guardian).
Now please cite the UN Resolutions which allow those to be set up to specifically help the Kurds and Shias? After all it was you who asked Please cite for me the UN resolution that would have allowed any coalition troops to intervene on their behalf!? Now if you are clearly conceding that no UN Resolution allows this (and the No-fly zones) then you are admitting they were set up for some other purpose than to protect these peoples.
After all you would not specifically allow Saddam to use those helicopters to gun down the Shias’s and then overfly those very helicopters and take photos of the slaughter. After that shameful episode (along with what you did to the Kurds in the 1970’s), the Americans have no right to lecture anyone of their ‘concern’ for Iraqi people, or use them as a propoganda tool. Hypocrisy and double standards of the first order…
Schwarzkopf said he expects key facts to emerge after Powell briefs the U.N. Security Council next Wednesday. "I think that the intelligence people obviously have information about activities, and I think you're going to see proof of those activities that show that in fact *Saddam Hussein still has nuclear weapons or chemical weapons or biological weapons in his possession and has in fact hidden them someplace...*I think that there's going to be conclusive evidence to show that he has not destroyed all the weapons that they say he's destroyed."
An AAG silly ponder...
If Saddam Hussein did have Nukes/a Nuke? Why would he be hiding them? Wouldn't you think, just by his personality, that he would make it obvious??
Why the descriptions of him identify him as a madman ready to use chemical weapons at the drop of a hat...and stop at nothing to achieve his goals.
I would think if he had posession of one...we wouldn't need to be looking for one? We'd know it.
Then again... if he is truly a madman then ....... he should be stopped.
Tough call isn't it?
And... Good point about the slaughter of Kurds..both points...
Why isn't Saddam and those responsible being prosecuted for crimes against humanity? Why wasn't he the very moment it was discovered?
Who cries for them?
When did the Mulah cry? Why are the American's again crying?
Don't the kurds matter?
Sorry sorry state of the world.
People should have learned to concentrate the positive, on solutions to help and care for each other rather than the negative of making threats and hurting each other. Why is a positive idea concidered so nieve?
AAG.
"Perhaps you should be asking that to Saddams' old chum Rumsfeld, Powell etc and co who are now publicly saying they would help Saddam and his henchman to find a safe haven in another country? "
So what is more important to you, indicting Saddam or sparing the civilian population? Exile for Saddam is a distateful but expediant alternative.
Specifically allowing someone to use a helicopter IS not giving a green light to war crimes. There were thousands of US troops chomping at the bit to finish off the Iraqi army. What could you possibly be thinking in implying that some provision of the cease fire agreement some how endosed slaughtering innocents? By the way, there were Muslim countries present in the 1991 coalition. Saudi, Egypt etc. Where were they?
But we digress.
I would wager that the main part of Norman's article has been missed. He describes Saddam as a monster. Indeed. There has got to be a huge burden on his shoulders to see what has transpired since 1991. The US did not march to Baghdad, almost everyone involved now wishes we had. The b*****d should have been gone a long time ago. He has had 12 years in power that he did not deserve. It is time to right that wrong and start over. The UN should not make the same mistake now that it made in 1991.
Norman will be the first one giving a toast to the fall of Saddam.
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
Thank you for rubbishing your very own question as to why “Why has no one called for Saddam and his henchmen to be indicted for war crimes against his ethnic minorities?”
Its allowing him to use those tools to commit those crimes, while your troops sit only miles away occupying a large swath of southern Iraq, AND taking pictures of those US-sanctioned helicopters mowing down the Shias. Shameful hypocrisy, as much as this - 144 civilians and 446 being wounded by UK/US airforces - till the end of Dec 2000]('It is an outrage that you repeat fabricated disinformation' | World news | The Guardian).
No I think most people have got the main gist of what he is saying, namely that there is no justification for the US to wage war on Iraq.