Why We Fight
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<div class="IPBDescription">Part 2 (read Flay's salon article for 1)</div> In my continuing campaign to present reasoning behind this war with Iraq, and hopefully have the more knee-jerk anti-war people learn something about this region that needs fixing, here's my follow on to Flay's salon.com piece (see other thread - it's an intense read). And since some people have trouble following links before posting, here it is in its entirety from <a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/World/saddam_son_030214.html' target='_blank'>abcnews.com</a>. The article is about the history of Saddam's son. You know, the one that will be the next dictator of Iraq if we just sit around and waited for Hussein to die from old age as many would have us do. I strongly suggest you read the entire article before posting (especially the section about the olympic team), then explain to me how this fight to remove these filthbags is unjust and bad for iraq:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Son of Saddam
Odai Hussein Brutal to Iraqis, Behind Torture of U.S. Prisoners
Feb. 14 — It was a father's dilemma: What to do with a wayward son? In Saddam Hussein's case, the problem was his son Odai, who has been accused of murders and rapes too numerous to count.
For Saddam, the answer was to put Odai in charge of Iraq's Olympic committee. In the 16 years since, Odai Hussein has more than lived up to his reputation for capricious cruelty.
One example: 20/20 uncovered evidence linking Odai with the torture and interrogation of some 20 American prisoners captured during the 1991 Gulf War, including former Navy Cmdr. Jeff Zaun, who was forced at gunpoint to appear on Iraqi television and forced to denounce his country.
In his first television interview, Zaun told 20/20 that he was routinely beaten and threatened with death before he made the tape.
"They brought me in and told me they were going to kill me," he said. "I'll remember — for the rest of my life I'll remember — the guy with the pistol in his hand."
According to Odai's former press secretary, Abass al-Janabi, the dictator's son was one of five people supervising the treatment of the American prisoners. If the pilots did not give information, the orders were to torture them, Janabi said. He said he did not know if any of the pilots revealed accurate information.
American investigators believe Odai is one of the few who could know the whereabouts of American pilot Scott Speicher, who remains missing after his plane crashed in northern Iraq.
"If you say that this is a sadistic regime ... then it is possible to understand that Saddam and Odai might keep an American pilot alive ... for the purpose of causing other people pain," said Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. diplomat who works with Indict, a London-based group that tracks alleged human rights abuses by Iraqi officials.
Olympic Horror
But Odai saved some of his harshest cruelty for his own countrymen. "Odai Hussein as head of the Olympic committee has personally directed the torture of athletes who have not done well. He has participated himself in beatings, in amputations," Galbraith said.
"It's the only Olympic committee in the world that has its own prison. … It has really become a chamber of horrors," said Galbraith, whose group receives funding from the U.S. government.
If only a fraction of what is said about 38-year-old Odai, Saddam's eldest son, is true, he would still be considered at least as brutal as his father — and more deviant.
"I think the best comparison is with the [former] Ugandan dictator Idi Amin ... who also was a sadist, who enjoyed killing people, and who engaged in all sorts of very erratic behavior," said Galbraith.
Galbraith says Odai is guilty of a long list of atrocities, from his treatment of Olympic athletes, to rapes and murders, to his reported role in ordering the torture of American prisoners of war.
In the event of war with Iraq, Odai will be "one of the top targets for the United States," Galbraith said.
Wealth and Power
With his dictator father looking the other way, Odai has amassed a fortune in a country of great poverty. Former aides say he has collected some 1,200 luxury cars, buying them or simply taking them because it suits his fancy.
"Odai is a spoiled child, but one with lots of power," said Galbraith.
Odai's power may explain why when 20/20 asked people on the streets of Baghdad about him — with government guards watching — they were quick to praise him and defend him against his critics in the West.
"He's very kind. He loves the people very much," said one woman.
Defectors Tell of Torture
But Iraqis who have left Iraq tell a much different story. Former members of Iraq's Olympic teams gave numerous first-person accounts of Odai's behavior to 20/20 and ESPN.
A former player on Iraq's soccer team, Sharar Haydar, said Odai sent him and other players to prison as punishment for the team's defeat by Jordan. Haydar, who defected in 1998, said he was beaten daily with 20 blows to the feet, and given only bread and water.
Another defector, weightlifter Ahmed Reham, who was the flag bearer for the Iraqi team at the 1996 Atlanta Games, also says he was tortured.
"They used special sticks — electric sticks. Pipes filled with stones, and the special sticks. If you get hit on the head you might die. You have no idea how cruel these guys are," he said.
Rape Called a ‘Hobby’
When it comes to women, Odai's behavior is reputed to be even more dangerous.
"Raping is one of his, let me say, hobbies," said Janabi, Odai's former press secretary. "I am not exaggerating."
Janabi, who defected in 1998, says he witnessed Odai committing numerous rapes.
According to Janabi, Odai's rape victims were as young as 12 and powerless to resist him. After a visiting Russian ballerina resisted Odai's advances in 1994, Odai had his men secretly film her making love with her trainer, Janabi said, then invited her to a party and told her he had a surprise. "He showed her the film. And he raped her after that." said Janabi.
Latif Yahia, who for years served as Odai's security double, says Odai found violence sexually exciting. "He loves to hear the woman scream. … He loves the rape. … He's a sadist."
Yahia described, in detail, nighttime scenes in Baghdad of group sex and violent acts. He said he once saw Odai beat and rape a pregnant woman. "Odai, he can't sleep with a woman if he don't hit her and see the blood coming out of her," he said.
Yahia, who wore the same French suits and aftershave as his boss to fool potential attackers, admits that he sometimes took advantage of his assumed status and had women brought to him.
Odai has made his share of enemies. He was seriously wounded in a 1996 assassination attempt, and now walks with a limp. His younger brother Qusai has emerged in recent years as a top military adviser to Saddam, and Odai is said to be jealous of his brother's power.
Allegation From Visiting French Students
Such stories from defectors are hard to confirm. But in Paris a former French official told 20/20 of an equally bizarre, more recent account allegedly involving Odai and a delegation of French college students in 2000.
Two of the students, a man and a woman, told French authorities that Odai invited them to a party in their honor at a Baghdad hotel. But when they got to Odai's room, they say three of his bodyguards forced them at gunpoint to have sex with each other while being taped on video.
According to Alexis Debat, who was a desk officer at the French Ministry of Defense at the time, the French government concluded there was little they could do about it. "I mean, after all, this is Saddam Hussein's son," said Debat, who is now a consultant for ABCNEWS.
A ‘Bully’ Unlikely to Fight
When the United States last attacked Baghdad in January 1991, Odai went into hiding, according to former aides, at one point literally cowering in his bedroom by himself at a protected safe house on a small island in the Tigris River. Janabi says Odai spent the first 23 days of the war at the safe house.
Odai does have several thousand troops supposedly loyal to him, but his detractors doubt he will make a last-ditch stand and fight to the end.
"Odai Hussein is like any bully," said Galbraith. "He enjoys exercising power on those who are weak, and when he is threatened, he behaves like a coward. So I don't think Odai Hussein will fight to the end.
"I think there is an excellent chance that he will be captured and will be put on trial for the multiple crimes he has committed," Galbraith said. "The only problem will be if the Iraqi people get to him first. Then there might not be more than very tiny pieces left of him."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So there you go - another 40 years of the Hussein bloodline in the making. Discuss.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Son of Saddam
Odai Hussein Brutal to Iraqis, Behind Torture of U.S. Prisoners
Feb. 14 — It was a father's dilemma: What to do with a wayward son? In Saddam Hussein's case, the problem was his son Odai, who has been accused of murders and rapes too numerous to count.
For Saddam, the answer was to put Odai in charge of Iraq's Olympic committee. In the 16 years since, Odai Hussein has more than lived up to his reputation for capricious cruelty.
One example: 20/20 uncovered evidence linking Odai with the torture and interrogation of some 20 American prisoners captured during the 1991 Gulf War, including former Navy Cmdr. Jeff Zaun, who was forced at gunpoint to appear on Iraqi television and forced to denounce his country.
In his first television interview, Zaun told 20/20 that he was routinely beaten and threatened with death before he made the tape.
"They brought me in and told me they were going to kill me," he said. "I'll remember — for the rest of my life I'll remember — the guy with the pistol in his hand."
According to Odai's former press secretary, Abass al-Janabi, the dictator's son was one of five people supervising the treatment of the American prisoners. If the pilots did not give information, the orders were to torture them, Janabi said. He said he did not know if any of the pilots revealed accurate information.
American investigators believe Odai is one of the few who could know the whereabouts of American pilot Scott Speicher, who remains missing after his plane crashed in northern Iraq.
"If you say that this is a sadistic regime ... then it is possible to understand that Saddam and Odai might keep an American pilot alive ... for the purpose of causing other people pain," said Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. diplomat who works with Indict, a London-based group that tracks alleged human rights abuses by Iraqi officials.
Olympic Horror
But Odai saved some of his harshest cruelty for his own countrymen. "Odai Hussein as head of the Olympic committee has personally directed the torture of athletes who have not done well. He has participated himself in beatings, in amputations," Galbraith said.
"It's the only Olympic committee in the world that has its own prison. … It has really become a chamber of horrors," said Galbraith, whose group receives funding from the U.S. government.
If only a fraction of what is said about 38-year-old Odai, Saddam's eldest son, is true, he would still be considered at least as brutal as his father — and more deviant.
"I think the best comparison is with the [former] Ugandan dictator Idi Amin ... who also was a sadist, who enjoyed killing people, and who engaged in all sorts of very erratic behavior," said Galbraith.
Galbraith says Odai is guilty of a long list of atrocities, from his treatment of Olympic athletes, to rapes and murders, to his reported role in ordering the torture of American prisoners of war.
In the event of war with Iraq, Odai will be "one of the top targets for the United States," Galbraith said.
Wealth and Power
With his dictator father looking the other way, Odai has amassed a fortune in a country of great poverty. Former aides say he has collected some 1,200 luxury cars, buying them or simply taking them because it suits his fancy.
"Odai is a spoiled child, but one with lots of power," said Galbraith.
Odai's power may explain why when 20/20 asked people on the streets of Baghdad about him — with government guards watching — they were quick to praise him and defend him against his critics in the West.
"He's very kind. He loves the people very much," said one woman.
Defectors Tell of Torture
But Iraqis who have left Iraq tell a much different story. Former members of Iraq's Olympic teams gave numerous first-person accounts of Odai's behavior to 20/20 and ESPN.
A former player on Iraq's soccer team, Sharar Haydar, said Odai sent him and other players to prison as punishment for the team's defeat by Jordan. Haydar, who defected in 1998, said he was beaten daily with 20 blows to the feet, and given only bread and water.
Another defector, weightlifter Ahmed Reham, who was the flag bearer for the Iraqi team at the 1996 Atlanta Games, also says he was tortured.
"They used special sticks — electric sticks. Pipes filled with stones, and the special sticks. If you get hit on the head you might die. You have no idea how cruel these guys are," he said.
Rape Called a ‘Hobby’
When it comes to women, Odai's behavior is reputed to be even more dangerous.
"Raping is one of his, let me say, hobbies," said Janabi, Odai's former press secretary. "I am not exaggerating."
Janabi, who defected in 1998, says he witnessed Odai committing numerous rapes.
According to Janabi, Odai's rape victims were as young as 12 and powerless to resist him. After a visiting Russian ballerina resisted Odai's advances in 1994, Odai had his men secretly film her making love with her trainer, Janabi said, then invited her to a party and told her he had a surprise. "He showed her the film. And he raped her after that." said Janabi.
Latif Yahia, who for years served as Odai's security double, says Odai found violence sexually exciting. "He loves to hear the woman scream. … He loves the rape. … He's a sadist."
Yahia described, in detail, nighttime scenes in Baghdad of group sex and violent acts. He said he once saw Odai beat and rape a pregnant woman. "Odai, he can't sleep with a woman if he don't hit her and see the blood coming out of her," he said.
Yahia, who wore the same French suits and aftershave as his boss to fool potential attackers, admits that he sometimes took advantage of his assumed status and had women brought to him.
Odai has made his share of enemies. He was seriously wounded in a 1996 assassination attempt, and now walks with a limp. His younger brother Qusai has emerged in recent years as a top military adviser to Saddam, and Odai is said to be jealous of his brother's power.
Allegation From Visiting French Students
Such stories from defectors are hard to confirm. But in Paris a former French official told 20/20 of an equally bizarre, more recent account allegedly involving Odai and a delegation of French college students in 2000.
Two of the students, a man and a woman, told French authorities that Odai invited them to a party in their honor at a Baghdad hotel. But when they got to Odai's room, they say three of his bodyguards forced them at gunpoint to have sex with each other while being taped on video.
According to Alexis Debat, who was a desk officer at the French Ministry of Defense at the time, the French government concluded there was little they could do about it. "I mean, after all, this is Saddam Hussein's son," said Debat, who is now a consultant for ABCNEWS.
A ‘Bully’ Unlikely to Fight
When the United States last attacked Baghdad in January 1991, Odai went into hiding, according to former aides, at one point literally cowering in his bedroom by himself at a protected safe house on a small island in the Tigris River. Janabi says Odai spent the first 23 days of the war at the safe house.
Odai does have several thousand troops supposedly loyal to him, but his detractors doubt he will make a last-ditch stand and fight to the end.
"Odai Hussein is like any bully," said Galbraith. "He enjoys exercising power on those who are weak, and when he is threatened, he behaves like a coward. So I don't think Odai Hussein will fight to the end.
"I think there is an excellent chance that he will be captured and will be put on trial for the multiple crimes he has committed," Galbraith said. "The only problem will be if the Iraqi people get to him first. Then there might not be more than very tiny pieces left of him."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So there you go - another 40 years of the Hussein bloodline in the making. Discuss.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.”<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can read where it came from <a href='http://www.indict.org.uk/newsarticles.php?article=news180303' target='_blank'>in this link.</a>
Every thing from rape to people suddenly disappearing
And the pay out for successful suicide bombing goes to their family’s etc
Whey is the main stream media always ignoring facts like this? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
regardless of who the oil goes to in the end, saddam hussein and his regime should be taken out
but i believe the UN should step in at the last moment and allow a proper democracy type government to be created for iraq - not this sus dictatorship the american government has set up over the years 'see bowling for columbine cartoon thing'
Red Cross and Red Crescent Moon have started collections for refugees from the Iraq war. Remember to donate
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
This pro-war rhetoric holds no water due to the fact that the presentation of horrendous crimes is very one-sided. Note this:
Only one example, of which there are [/I]dozens or even hundreds[I]:
Panama:
Gen. Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the invasion of Panama. In his memoirs he states that he recommended the invasion to President Bush (Also see, Bob Woodward 'The Commanders', 1993). Previously, the US had supported the then dictator of Panama, Gen. Noriega. -- he was on the CIA’s payroll. In terms of international law, there is no difference between the invasion of Panama by the U.S. and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq -- both are illegal. The number of civilian deaths caused by the invasion in Panama have been estimated to be between 1000 to 4000, greater than the number killed in Kuwait by the invasion of Iraq. The Central American Human Rights commission (CODEHUCA) studied the invasion and reached the following conclusions:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1) The U.S. Army used highly sophisticated and experimental weapons against unarmed civilian populations;
2) Estimates of the number of non- combatants killed run from as few as 2200 to as high as 4000 Many of the mostly black victims were residents of the El Chorrillos slum which was next to the Panamanian military headquarters and was razed to the ground in the attack;
3) U.S. efforts to obscure the actual death toll included massive incineration of corpses prior to identification, burial in mass graves prior to identification, and U.S. military control of administrative offices of hospitals and morgues;
4) "A thorough, well-planned propaganda campaign has been implemented by U.S. authorities to... deny the brutality and extensive human and material costs of the invasion." (CODEHUCA report submitted to Americas Watch 6/5/90)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Washington Post Columnist Colman McCarthy commented on Powell's actions in Panama:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of the victims of the one-sided, sure-thing massacre, Powell says the "loss of innocent life was tragic." Of course. Tut tut. This superficial expression of grief was a run-up comment to Powell's telling of "the lessons I absorbed from Panama": "Use all the force necessary, and do not apologize for going in big if that is what it takes." For sure. In the name of peace, kill as many women and children as get in the way of U.S. policies. (Washington Post, 10/3/1995)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another quote from Colin Powell some days before the start of the first Gulf War:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If driven to it, I wrote, we would destroy the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and flood Baghdad, with horrendous consequences. (Powell, 1995; p.491) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another fact:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
During allied bombing campaigns on Iraq the country's eight multi-purpose dams had been repeatedly hit... Four of seven major pumping stations were destroyed, as were 31 municipal water and sewerage facilities -- resulting in sewage pouring into the Tigris. Water purification plants were incapacitated throughout Iraq. (Scottish Sunday Herald, 9/17/200)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Water is one of the main necessities of civilian life. Bombing water supplies violates Article 54 of the Geneva Convention titled the Protection of Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Civilian Population. Article 56 specifically bans the destruction of dams, even for military objectives.
According to UNICEF the sanctions imposed on Iraq after the Glf War did not hurt Saddam Hussein in any way (moreover, strenghened him in his possition) but have killed over 1 Million civilians, half of them under the age of 5. ("Iraq Survey Shows ‘Humanitarian Emergency,’" 8/12/1999)
This example does NOT, I repeat, NOT justify the crimes of Saddam Hussein in any way. But this does question the moral values of the US administration which makes their stated reasons for war incredible. And furthermore, this example calls into question why US war-criminals such as Colin Powell are not trialed, whereas war criminals as Saddam Hussein are being removed by ANY means including the death of thousands of innocent people.
According to your logic, the attacks of Sept. 11th were justifyed in every way because they may have been aimed by Osama Bin Laden to remove a US administration full of war-criminals. In his view, the death of 3000 civilians is justifyed by the aim to free the islamic world from American opression, as he sees it. So you see, as soon as one gets into this 'war-logic' there is no clean way out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Do not become like the ones you hate the most <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well said.
This topic is about saddam husseins son and why you cannot let that line of succession continue. Answer the question posed, and go start your own topic about Colin Powel being a war criminal. Which is again, ridiculous.
I don't think asking questions of "right" or "wrong" is a good way to go about it. Within five minutes of reading you're going to encounter mountains of evidence that both sides are rotten. The flaws of the United States are sufficient to dwell on for a lifetime.
But the "big picture" is very big indeed. You have to try to zoom out to the farthest extent and THEN make the call as to which road involves the least amount of pain. That's all there really is to it in an ethical sense- cutting the overall losses. The world reality is so far gone that it has never in recorded history been useful to try to identify which side was "right", or "generally right", even maybe "not that bad." Humans in general louse things up for their own gain, regardless of what flag they march under.
Despite this pessimistic view, however, there still remains a big difference between "pretty bad" and "ghoulishly morbid." Say what you will about being entombed alive sewing Nike shoes or whatever else comes with Western power, and I'll probably share in the outrage, but that still doesn't mean that there aren't other systems which sink even lower. Far lower.
The examples you cited allege atrocities committed by the United States during a series of missions. Without even looking into the validity of these claims, it remains an easy choice which system is "better" even if for the sake of argument we accept the Panama atrocities as fact. Atrocities committed during a military action, no matter how heinous, STILL rate FAR ABOVE atrocities that are simply omnipresent and unceasing. In other words, at least the U.S. is safe to be in the same room with when there are no battles going on. Regimes like Iraq can't even meet that simple qualification. So much of their atrocities fail to meet even basic conventions of self-interest, making them infinitely more dangerous than other countries like the U.S., who at least make demands that are perceivable. At least if the U.S. says, "Your money or your life," they have a pretty good track record of going off and minding their own business if you hand over the money. Regimes like Saddam don't necessarily play that way- they might STILL have sex with your dead skull and EAT the money.
The bottom of the well is deep, very very deep.
Beginning of list:
<a href='http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/countries/usa?OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Expandall' target='_blank'>http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/countries/us...nt=30&Expandall</a>
Excerpts:
Death penalty:
<a href='http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510412003?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\USA' target='_blank'>http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510...NTRIES\USA</a>
Sept 11th detainee abuses:
<a href='http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510452002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\USA' target='_blank'>http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510...NTRIES\USA</a>
Umm...double standards for international crimes. "US declares self immune from war crimes". Seriously:
<a href='http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/IOR400132002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\USA' target='_blank'>http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/IOR400...NTRIES\USA</a>
There seems to be no mention of Panama here, which I find very strange. They also mention nothing of Al-Shifa, where Clinton's bombings resulted in the deaths in well over a million civilians (the pharmaceutical plant manufactured medicines and vaccines needed for the animals that supported all the local farms, already teetering on the brink of the survival).
The list goes on and on. So to be clear, no one is saying that the US doesn't commit atrocities, and I hope we clean up our act ASAP (declaring ourselves subject to war crimes seems to be all that would be needed).
And just to show it's not just US-bashing... We all know the USA has not signed up to the Ottawa agreement against the use of landmines, and indeed <a href='http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0320-05.htm' target='_blank'>wants to use landmines in Iraq</a>. Now, its chum the UK has signed up to the agreement, so it can take the moral high-ground, right? Aha, but some cunning bugger in the government put a loophole in saying it retained the right to use landmines if <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/130000.stm' target='_blank'>working with another nation that hadn't signed the treaty</a>. And who is the UK almost always fighting alongside? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Whoever came up with that gem was as cunning as a fox what used to be Professor of Cunning at Oxford University but has moved on, and is now working for the UN at the High Commission of International Cunning Planning.
I realize that the subject of landmines is a tangent, but I wanted to say a few things.
The biggest complaint about landmines, as far as I know, is not the fact that they kill or maim soldiers who step on them. The biggest complaint is that if they are scattered haphazardly and left behind, they kill whoever happens to step on them, from people to cows to falling trees. They become an omnipresent and uncharted threat long after the war is over. Additionally, they don't always stay in the same place, if they are laid in ground that is particularly muddy or prone to floods.
All of these complaints make perfect sense when you consider the way in which mines were laid without record or foresight in places like Vietnam, Cambodia, etc, and continue to be a threat.
But the United States does not drop them indiscriminately any more. They keep records and put little X's on maps. And they remove them upon exit. (Some of them self-destruct.) (I don't have a source on hand, so correct me if I'm wrong.)
That said, what is the purpose of agreeing not to use landmines in future conflicts? With the problem of the mines remaining active after the conflict solved, what is the remaining issue? They are a weapon of area-denial just like any other. It just saves soldiers the trouble of having to be there in person to shoot the very same trespasser such an agreement is trying to save. Places that the military takes the trouble to mine during combat are not random places where normal people are just strolling around. If some person walking their dog wanders into these areas, they are so far and gone into the wrong place that landmines are probably only one of a hundred things that will take them out, and it really begs the question what the hell they are doing there. A soldier stuck on duty is probably not going to compromise his cover to walk out and ask what's up, only to find out the "villager" wants to detonate a grenade, or lure him out for a sniper. A soldier is probably just going to start shooting at a certain point, so I don't see what difference not using landmines makes, other than tying up unnecessary manpower.
OK, People: <b>This is the thread where you talk about how letting Saddam's family succeed him is an acceptable or unacceptable scenario. </b>Loosely, it's supposed to get people to think about the consequences of inaction, or to argue against that point (which no one seems to be doing, leading me to believe they are just waiting for a topic that provides more opportunities for 'me-too' anti-war rhetoric because they have no good answers).
So - Go make your own topic about how the US is on amnesty international's list!!! Along with such infamous despot countries such as <a href='http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/countries/sweden?OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Expandall' target='_blank'>Sweden</a>, <a href='http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/countries/bahamas?OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Expandall' target='_blank'>The Bahamas</a>, and <a href='http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/countries/switzerland?OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Expandall' target='_blank'>Switzerland</a>. Yes, those tyranical swedish despots!!! The point being that EVERYONE is on amnesty international's list - the difference is that in the US it's an individual policeman that uses to to much force on a suspect, whereas in Iraq it's a secret police force that tortures, rapes, and murders 'suspects' (who are automatically guilty, along with their whole family) they get.
Not black and white people.
Now shoo, go make your own topic and use this one to it purpose, please.
Very simple. Saddam's sons are more brutal then Saddam himself, if that's even possible. Saddam has trained his sons into something worse than he is. He even shot his son because he was afraid of him.
Simply. We cannot let a dictatorship continue in Iraq. Saddam's family should <i>NOT</i> be his successor. The coalition needs to stay in Iraq until a stable republic is established.
And... if I may, this is not a war on oil, your believing bias crap. We could <i>ALWAYS</i> buy oil from Iraq, that's a non-point, so saying we were fighting to take over their oil is nonsense. We got their oil through the "Food for Oil" program or something to that degree, sorry, I'm a little iffy on the details of that. We pay the same prices as everyone else who bought oil so please, the argument is void, get a clue.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Clinton's bombings resulted in the deaths in well over a million civilians <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad to see a liberal acknowledge that Clinton is a poor leader.
Invading Iraq now will lead to the death of many, whereas it is unknown what not invading Iraq will lead to.
Furthermore, the USA are not behaving ethically. In order to garner support for their invasion, they resorted to lying to their friends and bribing countries to buy their votes. Of course that is what all countries do in the dirty business of diplomacy, but in order to be able to claim a moral high ground and justify a true "liberation" in the humanistic sense, the USA must subject itself to higher moral standards.
The USA fail these standards. They are waging a war of aggression to expand their power base, using heavy propaganda to influence popular opinion. This behaviour is little different from that of of the Iraqi government, even those "We will prevail!" speeches of the two conflicting leaders begin to sound very much alike.
If the USA were really concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people, they should have stopped vetoing against the end of the draconian embargo in the UNSC instead of carpet bombing Bagdad.
I do not believe in any of these condescending "We fight for the greater good of humanity!" attitudes. America is home of many great people, and I bet a lot of them might <i>want</i> to fight for such noble motives. However, what they are <i>really</i> fighting for are the plans of global domination devised by cynical technocrats of war like Rumsfeld, Perle or Wolfowitz. That even poor naiive George W. Bush might believe these canting speeches of delivering the world from Evil has become a funny side note of history.
I'm already curious how the USA will try to hide their ulterior motives when they invade the next "Evil" country. Let's hope the local leader there happens to have a sadistic son, too, eh?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
From a moral stand point it certainly does, and you would need to philosophize around that notion: A man is drowning. You watch him fight for his life. You do not act, do not help him do not call anyone else to help him. Your inaction has consequences because it was a conscious "inact". One thing is ignorance of events, another thing is ignoring them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Invading Iraq now will lead to the death of many, whereas it is unknown what not invading Iraq will lead to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have Saddam Hussein's track record. His war against Iran and Kuwait. His brutal purgings of political opponents in the Baht party when he came to power. His bloody oppression of his own people as witnessed by the uprisings by kurds in northern iraq and shia muslims in Basra to the south. And there are many reports of torture towards civilians as well.
So, you DO know what will happen by conjecture. At the best nothing worse than we have already witnessed, at the worst, much worse thing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore, the USA are not behaving ethically. In order to garner support for their invasion, they resorted to lying to their friends and bribing countries to buy their votes. Of course that is what all countries do in the dirty business of diplomacy, but in order to be able to claim a moral high ground and justify a true "liberation" in the humanistic sense, the USA must subject itself to higher moral standards.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, we've been around that block earlier and realized no great power in the world does or have done. In that aspect USA is no bigger culprit than anyone else. Btw. what is ethical? I hear that word shot around so often that I fear it has lost it's value.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The USA fail these standards. They are waging a war of aggression to expand their power base, using heavy propaganda to influence popular opinion. This behaviour is little different from that of of the Iraqi government, even those "We will prevail!" speeches of the two conflicting leaders begin to sound very much alike.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We do not know that yet, I am rather sure USA is not interested in expanding territory into Iraq. The true motives behind this are still unclear, but I'd be surprised if your prediction is the true one. For now I will reserve judgement untill I have seen what has come out. But I am also sure that the well being of the Iraqi people is not the reason, but a means to what ever clandestine goals the USA gov't has. There is little I can do at the moment, and gauging from millions of protesters around the world, very little they can do either.
Robespierre said , as the new french constitutional monarchy attacked nearby countries (the king's allies btw) , that "No one likes armed missionaries" ... such attitudes indeed only cause hate. Only the people has to chose their government. If America wanted to free Iraq , it would have supplied the rebels , ****.
In your example, my inaction is not the cause of this poor man's death. His death is a consequence of his decision to enter the water although he couldn't swim well enough.
But let's modify your example so that is fits the Iraq context a little better: In order to get a 50/50 chance of saving the drowning man's life, I would have to kill two innocent children. Would that be just? Would it be more just if the two children are neither smart nor rich, but the drowning man knows the cure for cancer?
<b>Does the end justify the means?</b>
I answer no.
"If you cannot act justly, do not act at all. Let events progress in their natural flow and observe patiently until the perfect opportunity presents itself. Then act, and your action will be harmony with the world. That is the Tao."
Notice how this view of the universe harshly conflicts with the Calvinistic school of Christianity which is dominant in the USA, but increasingly unpopular in the rest of our planet.
(And I'd like to know how much of Calvin's writings you've read. Any? And can someone point out to me how bashing a religious group is a valid argument? Or maybe just tell me when "unfashionable" became "wrong"? Should I be saying, "Taosim sUxxoRs! Hindu RoXXoRs!" to meet you on your own terms? There are after all many more Hindus than Taoists...)
You cannot stand still, because everything around you will move, and you will therefore be, relatively, moving. The perfect opportunity cannot be known except in hindsight; in the mean time you <i>choose</i> to <i>allow</i> those events in which you may have sought to intervene to continue. SO, inaction may have no consequences, but there is no inaction, ever.
Yes, that's why people are demonastrating against the barbaric war all over the world. It is not an option to let the USA attack another country illegaly and let them glorify that war.
With the war in Iraq an even greater humanitarian crisis is at hand.
During the UN sacntions imposed by the USA since 1991 the people in Iraq were refused to buy medicaments, to get water supply and so forth which resulted in a humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq and, moreover, has strenghened Saddam Hussein in his position. And now, the USA wants to liberate those people by means of war? Imposing the "Pax America" to other countries which are not asked whether they would like it or not.
Boukharine, I think your example is very good as it shows the absurdity of an imposed 'goodness'.
Now stop hijacking my topic and answer the question posed. I'm getting darned irritated about that.
Lifting the embargo would be terrible. Do you rember when we sent food thier and Saddam went and sold it to buy more weapons? When have we ever carpet bombed baghdad?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I do not believe in any of these condescending "We fight for the greater good of humanity!" attitudes. America is home of many great people, and I bet a lot of them might want to fight for such noble motives. However, what they are really fighting for are the plans of global domination devised by cynical technocrats of war like Rumsfeld, Perle or Wolfowitz. That even poor naiive George W. Bush might believe these canting speeches of delivering the world from Evil has become a funny side note of history.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Global dommination? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> We don't have to drop anybombs to know that we already do.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm already curious how the USA will try to hide their ulterior motives when they invade the next "Evil" country. Let's hope the local leader there happens to have a sadistic son, too, eh? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When you launch ballistic missles over our allies we dont care if you have the pope as the leaders son.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But let's modify your example so that is fits the Iraq context a little better: In order to get a 50/50 chance of saving the drowning man's life, I would have to kill two innocent children. Would that be just? Would it be more just if the two children are neither smart nor rich, but the drowning man knows the cure for cancer?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saddam has killed around 1.6 to 2millio that we know of. So it would be more like would you have 1 person die in an attempt to rescue a school bus of drowning people? Yes people will die because of this war. That is inevitable and a given. Letting Saddam stay in power will cause more deaths then this war.
How does leting monsters like Saddam promote peace in the middle east?
Not "have die". Kill!
Would you, personally, murder one innocent person to rescue a schoolbus?
Apparently the war supporters would, whereas those people you call "leftists" could not answer this question with mere arithmetics.
So in your logic we shouldnt have fought against the nazis because well innocent people did die from both sides.