OG,
Do you think they would want you to apologize for the hypocritical timing of the release of the dossier that details Saddam's attrocities?
Nadia..it is very confusing. Really. They want to see him gone, but not by the US? Then by whom and when? The reason Bush (and other) use that as an example is because it was the worst crime the world had come to know since the Holocaust. They can also use his sending scuds to Israel as the primary reason, but they don’t (because Israel was guilty of blowing Iraqi reactor some years ago – and thank God for that).
Even with Kurds..there’s catch 22. If US and allied forces took the 36th parallel protection away, Kurds will be used as charcoal in Hussein’s Sheesha. They are happy with the status quo.
Seminole,
Oh yeah.
In my converstaion with the Kurd, I would apologize for putting out a glossy dossier detailing the obscenities that his people have had to endure. Of course, I would apologize that the timing would appear to be so offensive, particularly as compared to the contents. I am sure the Kurd would understand that the timing of the release of the dossier is offensive because it has been done in conjuntion with sabre rattling as we call for the removal of the butcher who has slaughtered 100,000 of his countrymen. I am sure that would make perfect sense to him......
>>I guess Canada, all Arab countries along with the rest of the world deserted them as well, no?<<
Under The Dome, Yes they did.
Ohio Guy,
>>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.<<
Let me quote you excerpts from a British Parliamentary debate on 21 January 1999; the quote is from British Labour Member of Parliament, Alice Mahon: “In 1988, £200 million was spent [on Iraq] on capital goods, £65 million on a power station project and £75 million on pharmaceuticals. I wonder whether it was that power station that was bombed with such precision? We have been told for many years how evil is the Iraqi regime. …] Eight days after Iraq bombed Halabja with chemical weapons, when 5,000 people were murdered by the butcher of Baghdad, the Government expressed their distress, but that did not prevent them from providing £400 million of export credits to British firms to increase their trade with Baghdad. We shall have to debate that question again and again when the war is over.”
>>…the world will not support removing him, and the most resistant to removing him are his Muslim brothers and sisters.<<
Thank you for taking the time to type your reply out; your entire response to the hypothetical Kurdish individual was well-written, (although not surprisingly i was not able to agree with the majority of it).
What sort of precedent do you think the US will be setting if they unilaterally oust a regime? What happens with the governments of Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi? Are we to kick them out as well? They may not have utilized chemical gas against their own people (with the approval of the majority of the world), but when it comes to womens’ and nonMuslims’ rights, they are no less odious.
Seminole, i love your sarcastic remarks but do you have anything substantial to offer in the way of evidence to rebut Amnesty’s and HRW’s claims that the dossier is not selectively released? Afterall, the torture dossier itself contains information that is heavily drawn from the work of both these two organizations. Are they both being anti-American as well, just like myself?
The apology would be needed for issuing a dossier that derives its information from the very organizations whom it ignored and silenced during the 1980s, for ignoring their calls for the Butcher to be ousted when he was committing his worst, repeat worst, crimes. Maybe, just maybe, that might be the reason that drove Amnesty and HRW to both issue separate statements criticizing the timing of this dossier?
I believe the dossier has been selectively released, I never said otherwise. But I don't think we should make wrong decisions today just because we made wrong decisions 14 years ago. Hopefully we learn from history and mistakes. The big mistake Bush Sr. made was leaving Saddam in power after his defeat in the Gulf War. Bush Jr. won't make the same mistake.
Nadia,
Are you kidding me?
"In 1988, £200 million was spent [on Iraq] on capital goods, £65 million on a power station project and £75 million on pharmaceuticals. "
Are you the same person who is now protesting the effect that sanctions have had on medicines, power and water supplies? How did these capital goods advance Saddam's regimes? You have really, really lost me here! You are now arguing that the same crippling sanctions that you protest today should have been enacted in 1988. Which is it?
As far as UAE, Saudi, and Kuwait, I believe that the the US should unilaterally oust any of them that slaughter 100,000 of their citizens in a genocidal frenzy. You are talking about the difference between a regime that the Head of Human Rights Watch described as "beyond the pale" to countries that need reform and democratization. If you are unable to distinguish, I will elaborate further. If Saddam were ousted today, can you imagine the litany of horrors that have not been reported? For all the ranting of AI and HRW, they have probably reported on a portion of the abuse, and it continues every day. The good news is that iraq is so kind as to publish the purported deaths of people killed by US retaliation at being shot at by missles, but they are not reporting the people killed daily by their goevernment. Read the AI discussion on "the disappeared", and they put that number at over 16,000. Saddam is by far the biggest threat to the Iraqi people. But they do not issue press releases on these deaths.
Lastly, what good are all of those AI disclosures if nothing is ever done about them? If you are not willing to embrace Human Rights, then do not just pay lip service to it.....And truely,truely, this is a case where it is better late than never....
OhioGuy,
>>Are you kidding me?..Are you the same person who is now protesting the effect that sanctions have had on medicines, power and water supplies? How did these capital goods advance Saddam’s regimes? You have really, really lost me here! You are now arguing that the same crippling sanctions that you protest today should have been enacted in 1988. Which is it?<<
We all know i am not an advocate of any remotely similar type of civilian embargo that has been imposed. The reason that i keep bringing up Thatcher’s £400 million of export credits to British firms is NOT to illustrate that civilian sanctions should have been imposed during that time - however, what would have been so horribly wrong about imposing military sanctions at that time? Please elaborate how this is inconsistent with my previous stances vis-a-vis sanctions on Iraq. Even though it is not my personal preference, on Gupshup’s political forums i have predominantly maintained that all non-military sanctions should be immediately lifted. How is this thus far inconsistent with my present statements? There is a definite imperative to distinguish between military, and non-military, sanctions. Subsequent to Halabja, why did the US and UK admins. continue exporting arms and weapons to Iraq? Was the exporting of arms and weapons to Iraq necessary? Why did the US administration block a proposal in the Senate subsequent to Halabja - a proposal that sought to stop exports of “sensitive equipment” to Iraq? AFTER Rumsfeld’s visit with the demon, and later a visit to shake hands with the demon’s protege, AFTER the UN and the US itself had released statements that verified the use of Iraq’s chemical gas against the Iranian soldiers, the US still went so far as to export **biological seed stock** to Iraq! And everyone in this thread is jumping at me because i maintain scepticism regarding supposedly noble US intentions this time around. 
>>If you are unable to distinguish, I will elaborate further.<<
Ohio Guy, we agree on one aspect - that Hussein is capable of committing all sorts of horrible atrocities. Read the words of an Iraqi dissident, Hussain al-Shahristani, (a former nuclear scientist who was tortured and jailed for 11 years for refusing to work on Iraq’s secret nuclear programme; al-Shahristani was chosen by Jack Straw and the British govt. to present the latest torture dossier to the public): “When I was in jail I was held with British-made handcuffs. In the cells next door, I could hear the screams of people who were having holes drilled into their bones. Those drills were made in Britain.”
Even an Iraqi (tortured) dissident — the very same individual whom the British government trots out to present its dossier to an unbelieving public — goes on the record to state that individuals in Iraq were tortured with equipment, some of which was UK-manufactured. al-Shahristani’s own handcuffs were made by the very same country that today criticizes those torture techniques in dossiers selectively released months before a planned invasion of Iraq. Despite the fact that the British government itself manufactured some of the torture devices that were utilized by Saddam, Straw and his colleagues possess the sheer hypocrisy needed to condemn Hussein’s torture techniques while neglecting to mention how they supplied him with equipment to facilitate the tortures!
>>And truely,truely, this is a case where it is better late than never…<<
It is far, far too late for 5000 who died at Halabja. Let it never be stated that this time around we are doing it for noble intents. The past is too bloody, too full of direct and unfettered hypocrisies:
- Walter Lang, retired US Defence Intelligence Agency officer, telling the New York Times that “the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern”
- Reagan’s administration covertly providing “critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons [against Iran]”
- US supplying Iraq with “intelligence collected by…Saudi-owned but Pentagon-operated Airborne Warning and Control Systems”
It never seems to cease, this endless list of hypocrisies.
More to the point, why did it take fourteen years for the US to collect its outrage against Saddam? If Hussein is ousted and replaced with a new pro-US government, who will provide the Iraqis and the Kurds with the oath that, it will not take another fourteen years to prevent similar silent massacres as the west and the world both look away?
When US turned a blind eye to poison gas, Dilip Hiro
1 September 2002, The Guardian
Britain accused of providing Saddam torture instruments, Anton La Guardia
Telegraph, 3 December 2002
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole: *
I believe the dossier *has been selectively released, I never said otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
Seminole, i appreciate that at least you have acknowledged it.
>>Hopefully we learn from history and mistakes.<<
i just wonder - do we really? Are we learning anything as we continue cosying up to dictatorships around the world? In 30 years' time, may God Forbid that your children and my children ever ask us as to why we stayed silent as the likes of Sharon, Putin, Suharto, the Sabahs, and the Sauds strutted around the international arena with no one uttering a word in condemnation.
I'd just like to say that there's no need to get uptight over anybody pointing out the use of cynical propaganda, it's hardly a state kept secret.
Obviously it's in America's interests to paint Saddam in as bad a light as possible right now because they have substantial financial interests in that region and a quick decisive war will lead to a boost for the American economy. And of course Saddam IS a bad guy which makes things a lot easier :)
Nadia,
This is getting worse not better:
1) British "torture" equipment. I have gone throught the article, and there are only two items that were British made, handcuffs and a drill. Now handcuffs are one of the most ubiquitious items in law enforcement. They could have been forty years old. How do you embargo these? The same with a drill. There are no specifically designed "torture" drills. It could have been a dental drill, a surgical drill, or a construction drill. So now you are basically claiming that the UK and the US should have withheld these types of drills?? These types of "dual-use" items should have been embargoed? You would be screaming bloody murder if Iraq childrens teeth rotted for a lack of a dental drill. Absolutely ludicrous.
2)The US and the UK should have a military embargo on Iraq? They were sending virtually nothing. By the Gulf War, what did the US face? Mirage jets (france), and MIGS(russia). Virtually every piece of Army equipment from ak47's to tanks to howitzers were supplied by Russia. About the only thing that the US supplied were a few unarmed civilian helicopters, which could indeed have been converted to military use. You are talking about withholding one drop of rain in a rainstorm.
3) As we have just discussed, almost anything with a moving part can become a "torture" device. So how do you really distinguish between civilian and military? The article you cited to me would NOT have been newsworthy at all if there were no mention of British "drills" and "handcuffs". If anything, the main point of the article should be that Saddam tortured this poor scientist and kept him in solitary confinement for over 10 years. Is it any wonder that the US would like to offer green cards to scientist willing to help with the weapons inspections?
4)The US was indeed feeding Saddam intelligence information. Iran was sending huge human wave attacks at Iraq. It is no secret that the US had a problem with Iran. The type of intelligence that was given to Saddam is called "order of Battle". That is, troop movements and rough estimates of size. The Awacs used to do this can only do this in rough terms. The more current Jstar could have given much more precise information, but it was not available until it was rushed into service for the Gulf War. At best this information helped Saddam to fight the Iranians to a stand still.
5)We are agreed that the continued export of biological stock was stupid. however at the time no biologicals had been used, and these do have certain medical and research uses.
6)The "sensitive equipment" is largely related to Iraq's nuclear program. You will never guess who was incharge of inspecting Iraq's nuclear programs, and gave them a clean bill of health until the Unscom inspections after the Gulf War. Hans Blix! Yes, Hans at the time was assuring the world that Iraq had NO nuclear program that could be used for a bomb! Ironic HUH!
At any rate if you read the article on the construction of Iraq's nuclear program, you would see that the US and Britain each provided about 3.5% of the items crucial to Iraq's nuclear porgram. the "sensitive equipment" may sound good in an article, but in general it was not very significant to Iraq's weapons program.
Top 5 Torture Devices Supplied to Iraq by US and UK
- Pictures of Phyllis Diller (the Post-surgery Years)
- Video Collection of Gilligan’s Island reruns
- Swanson TV Dinners
- Nut Crackers
- Pictures of Phyllis Diller (the Pre-surgery Years)
Ohio Guy,
>>How do you embargo these? The same with a drill. There are no specifically designed “torture” drills.<<
On previous occasions, the US has embargoed toys, pingpong balls, shoelaces, paper, and books - all this in the name of representing ‘dual-use’ items. If they are able to embargo pingpong balls and shoelaces, then in my very humble opinion handcuffs and drills should not be two very difficult items to embargo.
>>The US and the UK should have a military embargo on Iraq? They were sending virtually nothing.<<
i am truly sorry, but simply to ensure we are not getting our wires crossed, which time period are you referring to? This is not anywhere near perfect but this is my incomplete list of what the US and UK exported to Iraq during the 1980s:
- Towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988, the UK’s then Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, developed a paper entitled ‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace’. According to him there were “major opportunities for British industry”. He set out, with governmental approval, to formulate a plan to increase British arms exports to Iraq (a plan that was later fully revealed via the Scott report of Lord Justice Scott’s). "It could look very cynical if so soon after expressing outrage about the treatment of the Kurds, we adopt a more flexible approach to arms sales," one of Sir Geoffrey Howe’s officials was to later inform the Scott inquiry. Source.
British ministers admitted that UK exports to Baghdad “could be used to produce chemical and nuclear weapons”. Sir Geoffrey Howe ordered his paper to be kept under wraps until, in the words of Ian Blackley, a senior Foreign Office diplomat, the “cloud had passed” - a reference to the attack on Halabja. Source.
-
Not desiring to be outdone, Washington approved “the export to Iraq of virus cultures and a $1bn contract to design and build a petrochemical plant the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas.” Source
-
During the same time, US officers “were secretly supplying Iraqi generals with bomb-damage assessments and detailed information on Iranian troop deployments.” Source
*British-manufactured torture weapons. If the US is able to prevent books and papers from entering the country on the basis of their being ‘dual-use’ items and successfully pass this in the UN Security Council, then surely they should have applied that to items such as handcuffs and drills.
- Iraq received “seed stock for biological weapons of mass destruction” from the US (source). As you agreed, this was stupid. You stated that …these do have certain medical and research uses. In their proper place, yes. This US export to Iraq occurred subsequent to Halabja - any exports of such seed stock that might potentially be utilized towards developing biological WMD, or augmenting that part of Iraq’s industries, should have been strictly banned. Why did it immediately become illegal for Iraq to possess biological weapons only subsequent to Kuwait’s invasion, and not immediately subsequent to Iraq’s chemical gassing of 5000 Kurds? At that time that the seed stock was being delivered to Iraq, the US was aware of Halabja.
Perhaps the worst export they gave to Iraq, however, was immunity from diplomatic censure in the international arena. 5000 Kurds were gassed, 1988 came and passed, exports continued (infact increased!), seed stock for biological WMD were exported to Iraq, no passionate calls for his ousting, no passionate calls for Saddam to appear before the Hague. What does that state about our level of hypocrisy? (Never solely for the US and the UK, but ALL governments combined). It is the identical self-serving hypocrisy from where Jack Straw issues his torture dossiers. By all means release all the dossiers one wants to - but never for a second claim that it is done in the name of pursuing a governmental ousting in favour of a more democratic government. Nay, it is for the identical purpose that led the US government to export biological seed stock during the 1980s to an ally recently returning from embarking on a gassing spree. To each civilian who suffered under Hussein during the 1980s whether s/he be Kurdish or Iraq, Straw’s selective timing of releasing this dossier does an insult, not a favour.
Nadia,
1) I want to know when it was evident that UK drills and handcuffs were being used as torture implements. Don't you think that even if the flow of drills stopped, that there would still be enough in the country so that torture would not stop? What about car batteries? They can be used, and probably are today, for torture. Should the Iraqi's not have a single operable car or truck? How about razor blades, should everyone in Iraq go unshaven because some demented soul uses a houshold object badly?
You are absolutely failing to see that it is not the object, it is the hand that wields it that is the crime. It is the regime that orders the torture that should be changed, not every houshold implement.
2) I stand by my contention that there were very few military exports.
3) The British drawing up a "plan" that needed to be hidden is perhaps dumb, but it is not unusual to plan for events and their economic consequences. I'll bet when the Berlin wall fell there was an economic plan to address opportunities.
4) I agreed befor that the biological seed stock was a mistake.
5) Please see my above posts. The EU, the US and the UK had all clamped down on chemical precursors in the Spring of 1984. A petrochemical plant cannot build chemical weapons without these precursors, but it could produce chemicals used in everyday manufaturing. This is essentially the problem with dual use items. You are essentially argueing for very tough and expansive sancitons again that are essentially where we are today!
6) The US did provide intelligence information to Iraq. Without it it may have been overrun by the larger Iranian Army. That would have aallowed a larger crisis, and a much larger scale war to occur. I do not view this as a real problem.
So now you are arguing that the Kurds would be insulted by the release of a dossier. What is the alternative? Sitting quiet? What has changed since 1988? Has Saddam ceased torturing his people? Is he behind bars? Is he facing a war crime trial? Each day that goes by compounds the crime, and the screaming should get louder.
That was a quick response, OG.
>>You are absolutely failing to see that it is not the object, it is the hand that wields it that is the crime. It is the regime that orders the torture that should be changed, not every houshold implement.<<
i am not trying to, in any way subtly or not, divert attention away from the acts of the regime. Yes the hand that wields it does commit the crime. And so does the hand that acts as the supplier.
In 1989, a National Security decision directive signed by President Bush ordered “closer ties with Baghdad and pav[ed] the way for $1 billion in new aid.” (i admit, in regards to your point #2, i am not certain whether the majority of this “aid” was in the form of military, or other, types of assistance; i merely bring it up because this was signed by then President Bush senior a year subsequent to Halabja).
>>The British drawing up a “plan” that needed to be hidden is perhaps dumb, but it is not unusual to plan for events and their economic consequences.<<
Maybe officials did develop a plan subsequent to the falling of the Berlin wall, but the situation with Iraq (in my opinion) is different - 5000 individuals were gassed. If they had wanted to draw up any plans as such, it should have been along the lines of how to indict him for war crimes, not in my opinion regarding the economic consequences of the ending of the Iran-Iraq war.
>>I agreed befor that the biological seed stock was a mistake.<<
Thank you. Fair enough.
Now, the refrain i have been repeating is that - how is anyone supposed to possess the faith that the very same government that supplied Iraq with biological seed stock is this time around possessed with noble intentions? What is the factor that has opened the US’s eyes since 1991 - not the use of gas against Iranian soldiers, nor the gassing of 5000 civilians, both of those couldn’t cut it - precisely what is different this time around that makes his ousting such a necessity? i mean if you view Hussein’s prior record, his worst atrocity has not even been the invasion of Kuwait, he was pretty nasty years prior to that. How can you, OG, as a well-informed, rational American citizen, be so convinced that this time around all the talk of the perceived necessity for his ousting is truly out of concern for there being a democratic government in Iraq? What convinces you? i am being this insistent about this particular point because i really truly do want to know how you possess this much faith and optimism; if i could change the way i believe without feeling that i am compromising anything, i would.
>>The EU, the US and the UK had all clamped down on chemical precursors in the Spring of 1984. A petrochemical plant cannot build chemical weapons without these precursors, but it could produce chemicals used in everyday manufaturing.<<
i am not certain whether or not (and/or with what ease) a petrochemical plant is able to develop chemical weapons or not; this field lies entirely beyond my capacities. You state that the plant “could produce chemicals used in everyday manufacturing”. Since it appears as though the US and UK had no compunctions whatsoever (until recently) about restricting items such as shoelaces and paper from entering Iraq, then why is it that they could not avoid signing a contract that would have assisted Iraq’s develoment of a petro-chemical plant? If shoelaces can be seen to be a ‘dual-use’ item, then why not this particular petro-chemical plant? i am not arguing that a sweeping, broad regime of sanctions should have been enforced - i am simply arguing that priorities were clearly not in order. In 1992, the UN Security Council was banning pingpong balls and shoelaces from entering the country; yet, subsequent to Halabja, Washington signed a contract “to design and build a petrochemical plant the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas”. Priorities seem rather skewed; why not enforce military sanctions (which i THINK you yourself suggested on another page of this thread) - yes, there is the aspect of ‘dual-use’, but the alternative of retaining civilian sanctions, in my personal opinion, is utterly valueless.
>>The US did provide intelligence information to Iraq. Without it it may have been overrun by the larger Iranian Army. That would have aallowed a larger crisis, and a much larger scale war to occur. I do not view this as a real problem.<<
Sorry, but wait. You have no problems with your govt. providing intelligence information to another government that has just gassed to death 5000 innocent civilians?
>>What is the alternative? Sitting quiet?..Each day that goes by compounds the crime, and the screaming should get louder.<<
This is what i would propose - by all means, go after Hussein but not in a unilateral manner and do not single him out as though he is the only dictator in the world. There are others just as odious as him, sitting not too far away in the same region as him.
Yes i agree with you that it is important to do something in the light of his atrocities - simultaneously this particular fact does not negate my repeated claim that it is possible that the intentions this time around, as they were in the past, are not entirely what they seem to be. Go after him, but do not do it claiming that you are doing it purely out of the love for democratic leadership; it was not accurate in 1989, (in my opinion) it’s not accurate today in 2002.
Nadia,
We have beaten up most of the other points, so let me focus on your one question regarding today:
"How can you, OG, as a well-informed, rational American citizen, be so convinced that this time around all the talk of the perceived necessity for his ousting is truly out of concern for there being a democratic government in Iraq? What convinces you? i am being this insistent about this particular point because i really truly do want to know how you possess this much faith and optimism; if i could change the way i believe without feeling that i am compromising anything, i would. "
First, I am in favor of this action based on a number of things:
1) Time. Saddam has shown remarkable resiliancy, and is attempting to wait out the world. He believes that if he hunkers down long enough he can wear out the world community, remake himself and survive. I think this is a dangerous example for the world.
2) As much as we would like to forget it, the US wanted badly to go get Saddam and have this over with in 1991. The "highway of death", and the media coverage it generated threatened to paint the US as a mosterous superpower so we stopped. The lack of a UN resolution also made us stop. That was probably the worst mistake we have made. Instead, the Iraqi's have had to live with sanctions, that no one including Noam Chomsky thought he would make his people endure. Certainly no one thought he coule have survived this long.
Regardless of what you think the US mistakes have been in the past, this, I believe is the biggest one. That mistake did not come from failing to speak out against a horror in Iraq, it was a failure to DO something about the horror in Iraq. If we had gone in to oust Saddam in 1991, the Iraqi's might well be on their way to a lively economy, and a government that is certainly better than what they have today.
3) I have listened very carefully. I have heard from no country, organization, or leader a single effective alternative. No one has come up with a better plan for dealing with Saddam. At best, we hear people like yourself decry Saddam and say, "something must be done", but then the discussion stops as people realize that we have run out of alternatives. We are at a stalemate, and it is the people of Iraq who have suffered. It is simply time for that to end. I am open to other solutions, but there is a deafening silence about what that might be??!!
4) I personally wish that Saddam would be indicted for war crimes, even in absentia. This would make the ouster of Saddam a lot more legitimate, and I think that was the intent of the British Dossier. How about you Nadia? Do you believe that there is sufficient evidence to convict Saddam of Genocide? What should be done to a leader whom has been so convicted but refuses to step down? Don't you think that the UN has been a miserable failure in this regard? Are you willing to wait a few more years with Iraqi's dying to go though a charade of a trial to legitimize what we already know? Please answer these questions directly.
5) I do not have a good feeling about what will happen to Iraq after Saddam is removed. I think there are a lot of people who will have revenge in mind, and that needs to be avoided. But essentially there are no leaders or opposition, because they have been killed! I think in many ways it will be up to other regional powers to help support the country while they recover. But who will take the lead, Saudi, Kuwait, Iran, Turkey? Saddam has made enemies of them all. The most democratic and acceptable country is Jordan, but they are poor and overwhelmed by Palestinian refugees. They are not really democratic, but are the least of the available evils. And that is essentially the problem with the Mid-East. For all of the feelings of Pan-Arab brotherhood, there is still a deep mistrust of each other, and the history of democracy is pathetic. The only saving grace is that Iraq is a wealth country. Rebuilding the country is easy with the available oil money, but rebuilding a political system is essentially a ground up situation. And won't you feel good the day Saddam is gone and the sanctions are lifted and children stop dying?
And by the way, the intelligence the US gave Saddam was during the Iran Iraq war, which ended in 1988. The gassing of the Kurds occured by Iraqi soldiers on the way back from the front at the end of the war at the end of 1988. Thus your statement:
"Sorry, but wait. You have no problems with your govt. providing intelligence information to another government that has just gassed to death 5000 innocent civilians? "
is not possible, as you have the timeline wrong.
Sorry for the late reply, OG. Before 5am here, about the only time i can think of an appropriate reply to your most recent comments in this thread. Let me respond, point-by-point, to each of the five factors you listed, (regarding why you are convinced that this time around all the talk of the perceived necessity for Hussein's ousting is truly out of concern for there being a democratic government in Iraq, and does not emanate substantial hypocrisy).
i. Have we not seen other dictators hunkered down in their respective niches of the world - Suharto did much the same for quite a long time period, Pinochet made a life-long career out of doing no less. You would argue that Iraq's chemical gas aspect makes this dissimilar than any other cases; as Lord Justice Scott's Scott Inquiry report illustrated, the UK continued exporting to Iraq up until 1996 (URL provided in one of the previous pages of this thread). We have ascertained in this thread that the US exported biological seed stock to Iraq (which i realize, and i do appreciate, you acknowledged as being a stupid thing to do). Those such as Amnesty and HRW that criticized Hussein long, long before it became politically-fashionable to do so, were treated to the same derision that is now doled out to those who argue that Iraq isn't a threat. From the very governments that had no repercussions about going to Iraq and shaking the hand of he who personifies Hitler, from these identical countries' governments, we are told we must believe that Hussein is a WMD-demon sent from some remote abyss of hell. There are dictators a dime a dozen in this world - one need not look too far from Hussein, there are quite a few a stone's throw away from Iraq. Non-Muslims, Phillipino domestic workers, Bangladeshi and Indian manual labourers - none of these groups possess any substantial rights in the majority of Arab countries. (Bahrain is an exception in some respects due to free elections and its affording of women's right to vote - albeit, unfortunately, it is a very recent, and the sole, exception in this particular regard). Odious dictators such as Hussein - we have no shortage of them; none of them may have utilized chemical gas against their own people, but the accomplishments of Suharto against the peasants of East Timor have infact killed far more than 5000 civilians - albeit Suharto's one saving grace was to have the sense not to threaten the civilians of an oil-rich nation such as Kuwait.
ii. Regarding 1991 - sorry, maybe i am wrong here but why did then President Bush senior refuse to oust Hussein at that time. i think, IF i remember correctly, didn't he give the orders for Shi'ite rebels to "rise up" against Hussein? Not certain but there might be an old thread regarding this (either by Malik73 or myself?); it's insightful to observe what precisely occurred during, and subsequent to, President Bush's order to "rise up" (directed towards Shi'ite rebels). They did indeed "rise up" but the promised complementary American assistance was not forthcoming. Sadly, of course Hussein's elite Republican Guard wasted no time in massacring the traitorous rebels, all of whom were the direct victims of Hussein's dictatorship - massacred under the knowledge of international, including American, forces.
iii. >>I am open to other solutions, but there is a deafening silence about what that might be??!!<<
i am at a loss to understand whom US hawks would wish to see in Hussein's position - is there an Iraqi "replacement", an Iraqi Hamid Karzai waiting in the wings? i am way behind on all my readings, but i have yet to read or come across any rational strategy, from any organization or government, regarding what they plan to do about Iraq's Kurdish population - are they to be allotted their own Kurdistan within Iraq and, if so, how will they precisely abate the calms of Turkey and Iran? What about Shi'ite representation within Iraq's new government - how much precise Shi'ite and Kurdish representation will there be in Baghdad vis-a-vis Sunni? Sometimes it seems to myself as though everyone (referring to particular governmental officials) is gung-ho about invading Iraq but utterly clueless when it comes to post-Hussein Iraq decisions.
iv. >>Do you believe that there is sufficient evidence to convict Saddam of Genocide?<<
Yes, i do - as there is of the UN Security Council (sorry, tried not to include the latter but felt i was compromising if i did not).
>>What should be done to a leader whom has been so convicted but refuses to step down?<<
First, get a conviction via the Hague. Sorry, you are not going to like this one jot, but if Hussein is culpable for war crimes then in my opinion, he should be joined in the dock by other leaders as well - that includes Pinochet, Suharto, Sharon, Bush, Blair. (Sorry).
>>Don't you think that the UN has been a miserable failure in this regard?<<
In my personal opinion -- far, far worse than the UN being a "miserable failure" at not indicting Hussein, has been the UN's miserable failure at preventing a genocide in Iraq - the genocide being not an exclusive responsibility, according to the opinion of UN orgs. themselves, of Saddam Hussein.
Are you willing to wait a few more years with Iraqi's dying to go though a charade of a trial to legitimize what we already know?<<
Ohio Guy, i find it amusing that anyone should ask me whether i am willing to wait a few more years for this particular aspect. Who am i to wait when the parents of Iraqi children have been waiting for almost twelve years for a genocide to cease against their country ? Iraqi parents and their children have waited twelve years to cease being played off as pawns both by their own government as well as by the US and UK. Sanctions have killed far, far more civilians than Hussein ever did - this is not just an over-emotional, biased, subjective Muslim whose comments you are reading. In fact, organizations all the way from Catholic churches to the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, from individuals as unbiased as Irish Catholics responsible for the UN 'oil-for-food' programme, to nonMuslim German UN officials, have ALL stated the same. They have no reason to be biased (as it may be claimed that i do).
>>And won't you feel good the day Saddam is gone and the sanctions are lifted and children stop dying?<<
No. i will feel good the day that the embargo is lifted - with or without Hussein's compliance or non-cooperation. THAT, far more than indicting Hussein at the Hague, would illustrate to me that the west truly is on a moral par superior than that of the very dictatorship it professes to loathe.