Suffering of Iraqis through Saddam...

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
61

Title: Suffering of Iraqis through Saddam...

Title of this thread is misleading, please ask yourselves these questions...

Who sponsored Sadams war against the Iranians which led to the deaths of thousands on both sides? Who was silent and denied Knowledge of Sadams forces attacking the kurds and shiaas in the South.. ? Who destroyed most of the Iraqi infrastructure and has prevented VITAL supplies to be sent to Iraq so that essential repairs can be carried out on ageing water treatment works, on the electricity power stations, on the sewage system, on the roads etc? Who killed thousands of Iraqis in Operation desert storm when DU weapons were unleashed upon the Iraqis, which many scientists believe caused a HUGE increase in cancer rates ie. 7 to 10 fold increase in Cancer cases in iraq, 100's of babies are dying permaturely and many children dying of leukemia and other cancers? Above all..** Who sponsored and implemented a draconian sanctions regime upon the Iraqi people which analysts believe have led to the deaths of 2 million Iraqi children? **.

After answering the above CAN you honestly say that pro-war supporters are justified in placing ALL blame on Sadam ?

62

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by myvoice: *
**Then you come along and criticize the US and the UK for SPREADING THE TRUTH !!!!! Basically, you find it sinister and evil that our governments are doing exactly what our governments are supposed to do before sending troops to war. ....it’s a lot harder to get anyone to join an anti-War rally if they know what kind of a brutal, despotic, monster he is and how much better off the Iraqi people will be when he is gone.
[/QUOTE]
*
MyVoice,
"Sinister and evil"...? erm no. In essence what i find deeply suspicious about what Jack Straw and the British government just did by releasing this dossier, is the timing of such reports. By all means, they should feel free to spread the truth. i smiled when i read your statement that, with the publication of these reports, it increases my worry about getting individuals to join anti-war rallies. :) i don't need to 'convince' those who are not convinced to participate in such rallies - thank you very much, but we just saw literally millions of individuals participating in anti-war rallies right across the globe from monks in Italy to Australians to Brits and to Canadians, to name just a fraction of the countries' citizens that participated.

Back to the bottom line - the issuing of these reports is deliberately done at politically opportune times in order to sway British public opinion. You appear so insistent on the government's right to publish the "truth" - where was your insistence for the "truth" during the 1980s when Rumsfeld was shaking hands with the demon?

63

Ohio Guy,
You stated that Rumsfeld "was a private citizen acting as a Special Envoy to the Mideast. He was not an ambassador, nor establishing diplomatic relations."
Rumsfeld may have been at this time only the Special Envoy to the Middle East, yet simultaneously he was carrying to Baghdad, under the orders of then-President Reagan, “a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.”

One aspect of the British dossier that we have not yet discussed, is the four(?) minute accompanying video. In some clips of this video, they actually show corpses from Halabja subsequent to the chemical attack. Now this is rich indeed - i am NOT opposed to the aspect of the corpses being broadcasted, NOT opposed to the fact that now millions of individuals will learn the truth about Saddam’s atrocities in Halabja. i am not at all worried that now the “truth” will be exposed about Saddam. None of that whatsoever. What - exclusively - i find the height of hypocrisy is to show the bodies of the very same individuals whose lives the British govt. could have saved had they not been busy coddling up to Saddam during those years. There it is in a nutshell - why i am ranting on like a lunatic in this thread. By 1988, the year of the Halabja attack, everyone with rational faculties including both the British, other European, as well as American governments, knew what Saddam was about - were aware that the guy had utilized chemical gas against Iranian soldiers, had now used them against the Kurds. So when they discuss this in the year 2002, i am not entirely certain what sort of reception i should give them - should i, as MyVoice would wish, be thankful that the truth is being released? What is the truth to those who silenced it fourteen years ago? What does the truth mean for those dead bodies in the video as well as their family members and friends ? Would they believe that the very same Rumsfeld who was hosted by, shook hands with Saddam and Tariq Aziz, is now to be thanked for his bravery in periodically releasing torture reports about Saddam?

Regarding your comments about Russia - granted the fact that Russia did enjoy relations with Iraq in the past. But atleast one does not see Putin or his Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, frantically brandishing torture dossiers today when they want to sway Russian public opinion to favour a war on Iraq. Russia still maintains some degree of level of contact with Iraq (for whatever financial reasons they may have vis-a-vis debts and Gulf War reparations). Maybe Putin realizes that for his government to today issue torture reports when in the past they did nothing to condemn those very atrocities, would be grounds for others to call into question issues of hypocrisy.

>>Rumsfeld visited nearly every Middle Eastern country that year. Did they all become US puppets?<<
He may have visited several other Middle Eastern countries, but did he visit any in that year in which the government was using chemical gas against enemy soldiers?

>>And that assumes that you would let a leader guilty of genocide STAY in power.<<
:confused: Saddam was guilty of far, far worse fourteen years ago than he is being accused of today. i feel it beyond my power to believe that the very same govts. that prevented his being ousted back then, will do it today out of pure love for democracy.

>>Removal of a genocidal tyrant is a much better reason for war than any other reason for war.<<
i am treading into an area i know i should not go. Suffice it to say that, NOwhere in ANY UN resolution does it authorize the removal of any government however justly loathed. But i fear i am drifting off now into other tangents, and i believe other threads have been the source of this discussion.

64

Nadia,

Not that I agree with your points, but for the sake of discussion let's say that there was benign neglect of Britain and the US in the past. I personally believe they did little to contribute to the situation, and that after the UN confirmation of the use of chemical weapons they became very wary of Saddam. But for the sake of discussion let's move on.....

You say:

"Saddam was guilty of far, far worse fourteen years ago than he is being accused of today."

I say that given the magnitude of his horrors, he CONTINUES to be guilty of crimes against humanity. The worst possible way to compound the "errors" of the past is to continue to make the same mistakes twice. Two wrongs do not make a right, and if we continue to allow genocidal leaders to remain in power that is indeed the worst possible outcome. What you are argueing is that the US and the UK have some sort of contributory negligence, and that they should be punished for their misjudgements. You are wishing and hoping that someone will stand up and say, " we made mistakes and we were wrong and now let's get on with it." Personally, I think this is wrong for two reasons. First, it moves the spotlight away from the main actor to a bit player and allows Saddam to continue to act away in the dark. Second, govenments generally admit fault when it comes to crimes. Sometimes it takes decades, or even centuries, witness Noth Koreas' admission that they abducted foreign citizens. But governments never admit errors in judgement. You will die holding your breath waiting for this one.

So let me start with the key question in my mind. Did Saddam commit genocide on the Kurds, yes or no?

I have heard NO one dispute this as a matter of fact. So let us proceed from there. Should he be allowed to continue to rule? Regardless of the invasion of Kuwait, scud attacks on Saudi, use of chemical weapons against Iran, launching scuds at Israel, and flaunting UN resolutions regarding chemical weapons, I believe that on the basis of his genocide he should be removed. That one fact makes up my mind. Try as they might, HRW cannot get a government to sue for a war crimes tribunal. So why not try him in public? Why not put out every damning fact, in every possible forum, videos, dossiers, print, and continue to focus on the real crime against humanity? To me the "timing" of this remains unimportant. There should be no statute of limitations for Genocide. He has had 14 years of freedom since the end of the Anfal campaigns.

Infact, the Anfal campaigns, in and of themselves, are much worse than portrayed in both the video and the dossier! Quite frankly there were no videos at most of the mass graves, concentration camps, and torture chambers. There is far more that is untold than is revealed in a four minute video. I am absolutely certain that if Saddam and his cronies were to fall today, that the stories of his brutality would multiply enormously. This story cannot be overtold, or shouted too loudly. If the evidence is finally used to build pressure for his removal, then that evidence is serving it's purpose. It is far worse to have the evidence and to not have the world community pay attention to it as has happened in the past.

Frankly, your insistance that the US and Britain have some measure of culpability is distracting. The world can survive one govenment supporting a leader who proves to be unworthy. The world cannot allow a proven genocidal tyrant to continue to enslave his people. The magnitude of horror here is exponential. Alliances have been formed and unformed between governments for thousands of years. Sometimes for good reason and sometimes for bad.

You are trapped in a room with a tiger and a mouse and you are chasing the mouse around while ignoring the tiger.

65

Ohio Guy,
:( 'afraid too much uni-related work today, i won't be able to post on Gupshup until the end of this day. (It must currently be about 10am where you are, unfortunately i won't be able to reply until the time i get home, about 11pm my time). i WILL post then. All my thanks in advance for your patience. Sincere regards,
nadia

66

Ohio Guy,

You state that, >>…after the UN confirmation of the use of chemical weapons [the US and the UK] became very wary of Saddam.<<
Sorry i realize you wanted to move on from this point, but just to add a quick note. We know by now that, subsequent to the Halabja attack being publicized, the British government continued to maintain trade links with Iraq. Not only ‘maintained’ their economic affiliations, but infact the UK increased trade with Iraq by providing £400 million of export credits to British firms. As the Financial Times reported on 23 March 1988: “The international community’s response to the Kurds’ mounting cries of alarm has so far been a deafening silence.” This was dated March 1988. Note that this was subsequent to the chemical attack in Halabja, so therefore five years subsequent to Rumsfeld’s first visit to Iraq. As is widely reported now, in 1988, the then US administration blocked a proposal in the Senate to stop exports of sensitive equipment to Iraq. Even on the day that Rumsfeld paid his second visit to Tariq Aziz four years earlier in 1984, UPI had already reported the use of chemical gas by Iraq against Iranian soldiers. Yet, subsequent to this story breaking out, as well as the report from the UN that we have already discussed, Thatcher’s government, in 1988, increased trade with Iraq by providing £400 million of export credits to British firms, and during the same time period the US admin still chose to block a Senate proposal that would have sought to restrict the sale of sensitive equipment to Iraq.

i think, in my personal opinion (which can be extremely wrong), one has to keep the above in consideration when discussing any aspect of Saddam’s brutalities. How am i, let alone an Iraqi and a Kurd, supposed to believe that this time around the US’s intentions towards Iraq do not derive from a purely self-interested, selfish motive this time around? How does one harbor expectations towards the Kurds (that lived through Halabja), and the same towards Iraqis (that experienced the brunt of his dictatorship during the 1980s when western countries were lining up to do trade with Iraq), of sincere intentions THIS time? In light of the past intimate history between Iraq and particular democratic governments, who is to definitively assert that this time around will be different in a postitive sense? Can anyone provide that guarantee?

>>Did Saddam commit genocide on the Kurds, yes or no? …I believe that on the basis of his genocide he should be removed.<<
Alright. Fair enough.

:flower1: Here is a question i am afraid you will not like: if Saddam is to be removed on the basis of the genocide against the Kurds, what of the parties that assisted him tacitly in that genocide? What happens to parties that increased their financial trade with Iraq subsequent to 1988? What happens to the fate of the silent parties during the 1980 - are they in any way not responsible to some degree for what occurred in Halabja? Not only did the UK remain silent over Halabja, but Thatcher actually sought to increase the UK’s trade links with Iraq subsequent to the gassing of 5000 Kurds! Surely that must account for some degree of culpability?

>>Why not put out every damning fact, in every possible forum, videos, dossiers, print, and continue to focus on the real crime against humanity? To me the “timing” of this remains unimportant. There should be no statute of limitations for Genocide. He has had 14 years of freedom since the end of the Anfal campaigns.<<
Yes, and of those 14 years, at least four years were spent with NO ONE uttering a word in condemnation regarding his atrocities. When did the US and the UK initiate its policy of demonizing Saddam? It was not when the Kurds were being gassed, it was not when Iranian soldiers were choking on mustard gas. Demonization of Saddam initiated only subsequent to Iraq’s invasion of another oil-rich country. The 5000 dead at Halabja was not sufficient to stir the international ‘community’ towards ousting Hussein.

>>Frankly, your insistance that the US and Britain have some measure of culpability is distracting. The world can survive one govenment supporting a leader who proves to be unworthy. The world cannot allow a proven genocidal tyrant to continue to enslave his people.<<
Sorry OG, i honestly do not intend to be getting on your nerves here, but how is it distracting to keep insisting upon the measure of culpability of the US and the UK? Doesn’t the past have any bearing upon the present and the future? We have seen in this thread how short-sighted many of their foreign policies were vis-a-vis Iraq; we have seen how Thatcher - rather than decreasing (forget ceasing!) trade with Iraq - actually increased the momenutum. i comprehend and appreciate your points that two wrongs do not make a right, and that to do nothing NOW, would be wrong. Yet i fail to see how all that justifies ignoring the culpabilities of other governments as well - the very govts., as Jack Straw’s does, who pride themselves on being so democratic. IMO, Amnesty’s gripe with the timing of this dossier is legit for the simple reason that, in preparing this dossier about all of Saddam’s atrocities, Straw utilized the very same information from Amnesty and HRW (regarding Halabja et al) that both orgs. had published during the time that the atrocities were occurring. And their work was ignored and silenced by the British govt. Who is to say that, today, their present policy towards Iraq is not motivated by the same motivations they possessed when fourteen years ago, they walked away from Halabja?

>>You are trapped in a room with a tiger and a mouse and you are chasing the mouse around while ignoring the tiger.<<
Please forgive me for stating so, but i think it’s the other way around. i think we are ignoring the tiger here and going after a mouse (but manifestly that’s just my own personal opinion).

67

Nadia:
I’ve got to tell you that this “timing” argument you have really boxes up anyone who disagrees with you.

It is OK by you for the US and the UK to release truthful information about Saddam’s lunacy during times when nobody will do anything about it BUT it is dreadful to do so if you plan on doing something about it.

Then, the UK is criticized for not terminating economic affiliations with Iraq in 1988 (i.e. for not imposing sanctions) AND is criticized for participating in sanctions 10 years later.

:confused: :mudhosh:

68

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
It is OK by you for the US and the UK to release truthful information about Saddam’s lunacy during times when nobody will do anything about it...
[/QUOTE]

And it is OK by you if other parties (Amnesty, HRW) release truthful information about Saddam's lunacy at times when the US and UK respond by increasing their exports of arms and biological weapons to Iraq.

Cute use of smilies, by the way.

69

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *

Cute use of smilies, by the way.
[/QUOTE]

Even old dogs like me can learn some new tricks. :)

BTW: My reference to "dogs" is not intended as commentary to another thread floating around GupShup dealing with Islam's dislike of said animals.

70

Nadia,

Yes, it is supremely ironic for you to be saying that at least by 1988 the US and the UK should have imposed trade sanctions on Iraq, due to the gassing of the Kurds. Yet we have seen how those very same sanctions have worked out starting in 1991. Now you have me really confused.

Perhaps you are disturbed that immediately in 1988 the UK and the US should have loudly spoken out against Saddam. Granted. but governments change direction about like the Queen Mary.

Your arguement that those who tacitly approved of Saddams evils are somehow cuplable in his genocide. I am sorry, but that is a huge leap. Look sometime at all of the countries that not only TRADED with Saddam, but actually helped him build his nuclear weapons program! Most of it was EU countries! Germany alone provided over 50% of the equipment, and France built the reactor! Holy Cow! Like they did not know what was going on!

http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/whoarmediraq.pdf

But for one small minute entertain the possibility that Governments, like human beings, can CHANGE THEIR MINDS! After the facts came out, it became increasingly clear that Saddam was not just one more Middle Eastern “strongman” but a complete maniac. At that point the government does have an obligation to CHANGE IT’S MIND and expose him for what he is, and given the genocidal nature of Saddam, is it not the RIGHT THING TO DO to remove him? You are so completely and thoroughly convinced that the US and UK governments are evil and miguided, that you are refusing to consider that they may be correct…

Let’s do a quick reality check. The war against Iraq cost the US billions. Much of it was reimbursed by the Saudis and the Kuwaiti’s, but not all of it. If we wanted to “nationalize” somebodies oil fields we could have done it with Kuwait, but we did not. Given the prospective cost of a new gulf war, we could BUY all of the oil reserves beneath Iraq. So the conspiracy theories pretty much go out the window. We have been spending billions in no-fly zones trying to protect ethnic civilians, with no help and no support. So what is you huge theory as to why we would want to remove Saddam, other than our stated pupose? I have a backround in economics and finance, and have worked with Wall Street people for 20 years. Not a single one of them sees a short or long term gain for the US for this war. There is plenty of oil coming out even under the sanctions, and frankly if the sanctions were removed Saddam would sell a lot more oil, making oil cheap and helping consuming nations such as the US.

Ultimately if Saddam is allowed to remain in power, I think the US should do the following:

  1. Maintain bases in Kuwait and Qatar, they have been loyal and helpful.
  2. Remove all US support for the Saudi’s. They are wealthy enough to defend themselves.
  3. Give the UN 6 months notice that we intend to cease monitoring of the no-fly zones. We have done our part, let the UN find someone else who cares about those poor people for a while.
    4)Do nothing regarding Iraq, other than seek and indictment for genocide.
    5)Drop all sanctions other than those directly related to WMD.

Now if we did that, what do you think would happen in the Mideast?

71

I am supposed to be working but i have just time for this: If saddam is so evil and so bad...why does the US allow billions of dollars to go to his govt through the oil for food program?

I expect this to be ignored.

72

Read up on the oil for food program. The procedes of the sale of the oil goes into a UN account, and can then be used to reimburse legitimate purchases. Saddam has managed to skirt this system in two ways, smuggling, and kick backs from the intermediaries who buy the oil. The former happens in three ways, trucks to and from Turkey, Jordan and Syria. Oil tankers sneaking out of the Gulf and a huge pipeline that goes to Syria. In my opinion we should have taken out the pipeline, but there is no UN authorization to do so, and it sends billions of clandestine funds to Saddam. The kickback loophole was plugged earlier this year through a change in procedures.

73

Ohio Guy,
>>Perhaps you are disturbed that immediately in 1988 the UK and the US should have loudly spoken out against Saddam. Granted.<<
Alright, thank you. Partially, that’s what i was looking for - just an acknowledgement.

>>Look sometime at all of the countries that not only TRADED with Saddam, but actually helped him build his nuclear weapons program! Most of it was EU countries! Germany alone provided over 50% of the equipment, and France built the reactor! Holy Cow! Like they did not know what was going on!<<
Alright, you don’t have to sound like you’re screaming at me:( i realize, and i appreciate, that other countries’ governments also collaborated with the Iraqi govt. They imported and exported diverse equipments, arms, etc.; i accept this as a fact. Undisputed. Simultaneously, at least none of those countries today (with the exception of the UK) has launched on the same path that the US has vis-a-vis Iraq: at least they don’t have the hypocrisy to issue torture reports about Hussein that are filled with how evil Saddam was with nary a word of their own silent culpability.

Please bear with me for five minutes - let’s just pretend for an instant that i happen to be Kurdish, and i lost my grandfather in 1988 during the Halabja incident. Let’s say that you are talking with me face-to-face, i am explaining to you how DEEPLY i loathe Saddam, how my family members and friends experienced his dictatorship during the 1980s, and so on and so forth. Now, as a genuinely concerned American citizen, you ask me whether i endorse your government’s (i.e., President Bush’s) attempts to oust Hussein. Do you believe that a Kurdish individual, who has lost a much loved grandfather in a now infamous chemical attack fourteen years ago, would in any way whatsoever possess confidence that, this time around in 2002, the world will act differently? What guarantees can you give her? How can you be so certain that this time around the US is seeking regime change for noble purposes? Above all, i am not entirely certain how anyone expects every Kurd (and Iraqi) to have full faith in the US admin. (or any other admin. for that matter). You will find a number of Iraqi exiles who have no hesitations whatsoever regarding regime change; they are in favour of it. Simultaneously i am pretty certain that most Iraqis residing in Iraq, while not entirely abhorred by the idea of seeing Saddam go, would possess plenty of reservations as to why - this time around - anything is different. Why should we expect them to believe in us - have any of our acts in history given them this assurance?

>>You are so completely and thoroughly convinced that the US and UK governments are evil and miguided, that you are refusing to consider that they may be correct…<<
If it were within my powers to somehow convince each of you that i am not anti-American, i would grab that opportunity. As it is, i am unable to. i am not “completely and thoroughly convinced that the US and UK governments are evil and misguided” - first off, i don’t think any govt. or individual is ever truly, in the purest sense of the word, “evil”. i disagree with their foreign policies, that’s all.

>>We have been spending billions in no-fly zones trying to protect ethnic civilians, with no help and no support.<<
i realize this thread is not about no-fly zones, and the better part of myself (if there is one) tells me not to enter another controversial issue; yet here goes - no one is requesting the US govt. to enforce those no-fly zones. Since their unilateral enforcement, 144 civilians have died and 446 wounded by UK/US airforces, (counting until January of 2001). The UK’s Foreign Office has classified all of this, manifestly, as Iraqi propaganda — although the UN official who introduced air-strike reporting back in 1999 (the same official who assumed overall responsiblities for the oil-for-food programme in Iraq) has gone on record as stating that “much of [this information] was collected and verified by UN staff travelling in the areas at the time of the strikes.” Anyways, sorry, i realize i am going horribly off-topic.

>>Ultimately if Saddam is allowed to remain in power, I think the US should do the following…Now if we did that, what do you think would happen in the Mideast?<<
In my opinion…due to the continued presence of bases in Kuwait and Qatar, there will continue to be anti-American sentiments in the region, BUT, that might not be the number one priority of the Bush admin. anyways. With regards to #5, that’s excellent. Should be undertaken regardless of whether or not Saddam stays in power or whether or not (if he continues to stay in power) he cooperates vis-a-vis ongoing inspections. As far as indicting Hussein for genocide… well, i have mixed views regarding that. If we are going to indict him, then let’s go after the whole gang - this includes ALL tyrants, despots, and dictators of the world such as Pinochet, Suharto, Sharon. 'Else it will be just another technique of implementing double-standards while selectively pursuing justice. Agreed?

74

Eid Mubarak. :flower1:
One point regarding the ‘OFF’ - Hussein doesn’t get to touch a dinar of the legal revenues proceeding from those transactions. Contrary to popular opinion, the illegal revenues that come in via smuggling etc. infact go partially towards paying Iraq’s entire civil service. (Nowhere in the ‘OFF’ does it provide for the paying of wages of Iraq’s doctors, teachers, professionals, etc.). There was a quote of this nature by the Irish individual who used to supervise the ‘oil-for-food’ programme, Denis Halliday (too lazy to find the URL right now, but will dig up later if requested).

i THINK what CM is trying to get at, though, is that - IF there are loopholes in the ‘OFF’ programme, why do the UK and the US continue to insist upon maintaining this programme if he is apparently able to derive so many kickbacks from it? Illogical stance?

75

Nadia,,,what %age of Iraq is Kurdish? What %age is Shia? Why should the world be concerned with what Kurds feel while they are not alone at the receiving end of his butchery?

The reason Kurds dont want to see him go is because they are under protection because He is in power (under protection by the Allied Forces). They are uncertain what the next government will be like. That's all. It is not as deep as you are trying to make it sound.

76

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
The reason Kurds dont want to see him go is because they are under protection because He is in power (under protection by the Allied Forces). They are uncertain what the next government will be like. That's all. It is not as deep as you are trying to make it sound.
[/QUOTE]

In Iraq if you can get past the government minders, i am certain you will find the majority of individuals you talk to do want to see Hussein gone, (whether they are Kurdish or not). They want to see him out of power but not in perhaps the same manner that the US has planned out. Can you blame them for distrusting the same foreign power that previously deserted them as they were being gassed? In my opinion, i'm sure they want to see the last of Saddam, but have no trust in the strategy that is being proposed.

>>Why should the world be concerned with what Kurds feel...<<
They always come out at number one on everyone's lips when the Bush admin. wants to contrive reasons for ousting Hussein.

77

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *

Can you blame them for distrusting the same foreign power that previously deserted them as they were being gassed?

[/QUOTE]

I guess Canada, all Arab countries along with the rest of the world deserted them as well, no?

78

The number one reason I hear from Bush is to prevent Saddam Hussein from obtaining nuclear weapons and other WMD that could use against Israel, blackmail the world or supply to wacky terrorists.

79

Nadia,

I have disabled my Caps Lock! My point was that you on one hand are condemning the US for trading with Iraq, when the entirety of the world was infact doing more, and Russia was the leader of the pack. That is my frustration with you theory of cuplability. Please read the above posts, the US, the UK and most of the Western World cut off the flow of Chemical precursors in March of 1984, within thirty days of the confirmation that the UN had detected use during the Iran-Iraq war. With perfect 20/20 hindsight you may argue that this was not enough, but it is incorrect to state that the world did not act!

If I met a Kurd today I would be apologetic as hell. Not because of what has happened to them, but because of what is continuing to happen to them. I would explain to them how for years we had tried to get the world to see what a criminal Saddam is, but the world will not support removing him, and the most resistant to removing him are his Muslim brothers and sisters. I would explain that many Muslims do not believe that the No-Fly zones are right, and that they would have been abandoned to further slaughter were it not for the will of the US and the UK to interpret UN resolutions to mean that we could protect them. I would explain that the US and the UK want to see Saddam and his evil henchmen gone, and that we would prefer a representative and democratic country. I would explain that US and UK citizens are willing to spend our money and our blood to come and liberate them, but we have gotten virtually no support from the world community. I would explain that we are going to give it one more big push to try to free Iraq from the man who ordered the deaths of 100,000 of his countrymen, but that the world is unwilling to risk further deaths, and would prefer the status quo even though it means that Saddam may some day be able to continue his genocide because the world lacked the will and the backbone to remove the monster who has been slaughtering his people. I would explain that everyone knows that Saddam is a genocidal tyrant, but nobody cares enough to really do anything about it. I would explain that there are many who want all sanctions on Saddam removed, ostensibly because of the harm it is doing to the Iraqi people, but that I fully expect a refreshed, refunded and reinvigorated Saddam to declare victory, and to rebuild his military and to further use it against his people. I would explain that I expect this situation to continue for decades as the mantle of the "Butcher of Baghdad" is passed to his sons.

80

UTD,

The point is that those countries are not producing magical glossy dossiers at this time. I think that cleans their hands of any responsibility in the matter. The gassing of Kurds may continue because he was not ousted the first time he did it.