The UN did not allow for the removal of Saddam in Gulf War 1, yes perhaps the U.S. should have acted on their own back then but that didn't happen, better late than never. The UN supported Sanctions were brought on because Saddam would not cooperate. Sanctions had to be kept in place as long as Saddam remained in power, one of the major reason I supported the removal of Saddam is so that these sanctions could be removed as they caused the general Iraqi population much suffering. The U.S. was one of many countries that sold weapons to Saddam, an error that it has paid for in blood. Removing Saddam has helped rectify the mistakes of the past and spending Billions of American Tax dollars on rebuilding Iraq furthers the building of a new bridge between the two countries.
Indeed, but some think that slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqi’s in just nine months is really putting then out of their suffering. Here is what the HRW said recently:-
Iraq: Civilian Deaths Need U.S. Investigation
The U.S. military is failing to conduct proper investigations into civilian deaths resulting from the excessive or indiscriminate use of force in Baghdad, Human Rights Watch charged in a new report released today. The 56-page report, Hearts and Minds: Post-War Civilian Casualties in Baghdad by U.S. Forces, confirms twenty deaths in the Iraqi capital alone between May 1 and September 30. In total, Human Rights Watch collected credible reports of 94 civilian deaths in Baghdad, involving questionable legal circumstances that warrant investigation. This number does not include civilians wounded by U.S. troops. The precise number of Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. soldiers since the end of major military operations is unknown, and the U.S. military told Human Rights Watch that it keeps no statistics on civilian deaths.
“It’s a tragedy that U.S. soldiers have killed so many civilians in Baghdad,” said Joe Stork, acting executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch. “But it’s really incredible that the U.S. military does not even count these deaths. Any time U.S. forces kill an Iraqi civilian in questionable circumstances, they should investigate the incident.” Thus far, the military says it has concluded only five investigations above the division level, ordered by the deputy commanding general, into alleged unlawful deaths. Of these, soldiers were found to have operated “within the rules of engagement” in four cases. In the fifth case, a helicopter pilot and his commander face disciplinary action for trying to tear down a Shi`a banner in Sadr City in Baghdad, an incident that provoked a violent clash with demonstrators on August 13. Human Rights Watch conducted its own investigation of two of these five cases, and found evidence to suggest that soldiers had used excessive force, including shooting a person who had his hands in the air and beating a detainee. In some cases, U.S. forces faced a real threat, which gave them the right to respond with force. But that response was sometimes disproportionate or indiscriminate, harming civilians or putting them at risk.
The cases we documented in this report reveal a pattern of over-aggressive tactics, excessive shooting in residential areas and hasty reliance on lethal force,” Stork said. In compiling its report, Human Rights Watch conducted more than 60 interviews and gathered information from five sources: Iraqi witnesses and family members of victims, police records from all the police stations in Baghdad, local and international human rights groups, media accounts, and the U.S. military. The Human Rights Watch report categorizes civilian deaths in Baghdad since May 1 in three basic groups: during raids, at checkpoints, and after ambushes on convoys. In all three circumstances, soldiers often quickly resorted to the use of lethal force. Their fire was not always directed at the intended target, or proportionate to the threat. Iraq is clearly a hostile environment for U.S. troops,” said Stork. “But that does not absolve the military from its legal obligations to use force in a restrained and proportionate manner – and only when necessary.” Part of the problem is the deployment of combat troops, such as the 82nd Airborne Division and the 1st Armored Division, for essentially law enforcement tasks. Many of these soldiers fought their way into Iraq and were then asked to switch from acting as warriors to serving as policemen who must control crowds, pursue thieves and root out insurgents. For these policing tasks they are not properly trained, equipped or psychologically prepared.
In some cases, U.S. soldiers have behaved with unnecessary rudeness toward Iraqi civilians. Human Rights Watch strongly recommended that U.S. forces desist from the practice of putting their feet on the heads of Iraqis whom they have detained face-down on the ground. In Iraqi culture, the use of feet against another person is highly insulting and offensive. .S. military officials told Human Rights Watch they were providing extra training for U.S. forces. Human Rights Watch researchers met many U.S. military personnel who dealt respectfully with Iraqis and were working hard to train Iraqi police, guard facilities and pursue criminals. Some of these soldiers expressed frustration at the behavior of their colleagues. It takes a while to get the Rambo stuff out,” one officer told Human Rights Watch. In the meantime, the lack of timely and high-level investigations into many questionable incidents has created an atmosphere of impunity. Soldiers must know they will be held accountable for the improper use of force,” Stork said. “Right now, soldiers feel they can pull the trigger without coming under review.” The Human Rights Watch report proposed concrete ways to reduce civilian deaths in Iraq. Checkpoints should be better marked with signs in Arabic and lights, and interpreters should accompany all raids. The military’s rules of engagement are not made public due to security concerns, but Iraqi civilians have a right to know how they are expected to behave at checkpoints and during raids. Coalition forces should make such information available through the local media, Human Rights Watch urged. ost importantly, U.S. military authorities should investigate all credible allegations of unlawful killings by coalition soldiers, and punish soldiers and commanders found to have used or tolerated the use of excessive or indiscriminate force.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
The UN did not allow for the removal of Saddam in Gulf War 1, yes perhaps the U.S. should have acted on their own back then but that didn't happen, better late than never. The UN supported Sanctions were brought on because Saddam would not cooperate. Sanctions had to be kept in place as long as Saddam remained in power, one of the major reason I supported the removal of Saddam is so that these sanctions could be removed as they caused the general Iraqi population much suffering. The U.S. was one of many countries that sold weapons to Saddam, an error that it has paid for in blood. Removing Saddam has helped rectify the mistakes of the past and spending Billions of American Tax dollars on rebuilding Iraq furthers the building of a new bridge between the two countries.
[/QUOTE]
UTD, im sure you will agree that the sanctions policy was a total failure in that it had no effect on the regime instead it caused untold misery on millions of civilians. But what you failed to mention is that during the latter years of the sanctions regime almost all of the member nations of the UN security council including France, Russia and China wanted to remove or ease the sanctions but this was rejected by the Bush Adminstration. They insisted all along to continue their implementation even though the UN had officially reported that thousands of civilians were dying from their effects. Point is, the Bush administration could of acted years ago to stop these civilian deaths.
UTD, many thousands of civilians died as a direct result of Bushs illegal pre-emptive attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq and many civilians continue to die, how do you envisage building bridges with thousands of Iraqi civilians who have had a member of their family ie there sister, mother, father, brother cold-bloodely shot dead by trigger happy GI's?
'Smart Sanctions' were supported by the U.S. and passed / put to use by the UN.
It’s Catch 22, do nothing more people die, do something and less will die. History will question why the U.S. and the world allowed Saddam to behave as he did and it will condemn past actions in the way the U.S. / world dealt with Iraq, but in the end it will read that it was the U.S. and it's coalition partners that freed the Iraqis from Saddam while the world condemned the U.S. for doing so.
After the deaths of up to 1.6 million iraqis, the Bush adminstration decided to implement smart sanctions. Ive heard it all now. I suppose the previous ones were dumb sanctions. Call them what you like the end results were always the same i.e they caused untold misery to millions of civilians.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
UTD, im sure you will agree that the sanctions policy was a total failure in that it had no effect on the regime instead it caused untold misery on millions of civilians.
[/QUOTE]
But remember the deaths of millions of Iraqi's was "a price well worth paying" according the American regime at the time.
Now the supporters of this extremist American regime think that the US military has killed tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, to end their suffering. They should tell that to the families of the kids they murdered in two separate attacks in Afghanistan last week...
UTD, many thousands of civilians died as a direct result of Bushs **illegal pre-emptive attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq and many civilians continue to die, how do you envisage building bridges with thousands of Iraqi civilians who have had a member of their family ie there sister, mother, father, brother cold-bloodedly shot dead by trigger happy GI's? **
Hmm.. not surprisingly, UTD et al have failed to answer my question!.
The U.S. has a good relationship with Japan does it not Dil?
How do you expect Iraqi's to build any bridges with any country that has let them suffered under Saddam and opposed the U.S. taking him out?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Madhanee: *
Aunt Haifa called me today from DC (she teaches Arabic to State Department employees) she was crying with joy and she didn’t believe that it really happened. She said and I quote “Never thought that I would live to see this day”. She left (escaped) Iraq in early 80s when all her family was found to have their throats slashed (18 of them). I just don’t understand how can people blame the US for killing of innocent Iraqis. Saddam killed ½ a million Kurds, completely annihilated the Marsh Arabs (shias), and killed many hundreds of thousands of Shias. It’s time for some scores to get settled. The great people of Iraq will settle those scores, and US will help them.
[/QUOTE]
Just like US helped him commit all those attrocities. Its about time you admit that Saddam committed all of these crimes with the blessing from US. Bio weapons, anthrax and diffreent strands directly supplied by US and knowing fully how and where he will use them.
Anthrax was available via Internet until 1996.
Mistakes were made and the U.S. has paid dearly for them. The U.S. did sell weapons to Iraq but comparably less so than others. Those who knew of Saddam’s chemical weapons usage and decided that continued supported should be administered should be held accountable.
UTD, does that include Donald Rumsfeld?
*Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department “evidence.” On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.” * The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet](http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm)
"anthrax and diffreent strands directly supplied by US and knowing fully how and where he will use them."
Completely wrong. The US did provide anthrax samples to the Universiy of Baghdad. And perhaps we should have known better. At the time, there was no intelligence assessment ANYWHERE in the world that knew that Saddam had a bioweapons program. The anthrax itself is extraoridinalirly easy to culture, it exists in nature in every sheep farm in the world. Anthrax skin leasions crop up all the time in workers shearing sheep.
What was not known, and should have been known is that Germany was providing Saddam with the machinery do dry and weaponize the Anthrax. In it's natural form is is not harmless, but it is useless as a weapon of mass destruction.
Now at the time, Iraq was a very cosmopolitan culture with a good reputation for scientists and engineers. The University system was thriving and higher education was something that Iraqi's were very proud of... the US should not have provided POTENTIALLY abused anthrax samples to Saddam based on his use of chemical weapons. But given the ease with which anthrax can be cultured anyway, it can be argued that the contribution of these samples contributed very little to Saddams efforts.
Essentially what we are battling here is what we will call in the future "Muslim Urban Myths" a little independent research would give you some backround beyond the inflamatory crap on al-jazeera.
OG try as you might, You can come up with all the excuses in the world but the fact remains US supplied arms, weapons (of mass destruction) including Bio weapons to Saddam and was completely comfartable with it. He was just a dog, when he started to bark and attacking his master he had to be put down. This is not aljazera crap, this is crap from your very own ABC...this sunday morning. Please keep your Michael Savage crap to yourself and dont spread it like Diarrhea.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Essentially what we are battling here is what we will call in the future "Muslim Urban Myths" a little independent research would give you some backround beyond the inflamatory crap on al-jazeera.
[/QUOTE]
Which "independent" resource did you use? CNN? FOX News, State Department, Pentagon's declassified documents? Get over your self, it will not kill you to admit your fault when you are wrong.