What, besides War, would have stopped these monsters?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

80sU2isBest

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Nov 12, 2000
Messages
4,970
If you can read the following report, and other things that have been posted, and not say that Saddam's evil regime had to end, I don't understand. If you do think his regime had to end, but not with war, I'll have to ask what you would suggest. Don't tell me any of the following 3, because we've tried them and they don't work:

1)Assassination
2)Sanctions
3)Coup from the inside

Report: British Troops Find Makeshift Morgue in Southern Iraq

Saturday, April 05, 2003

British forces say they have found boxes containing hundreds of human remains in a warehouse in southern Iraq.

Britain's Press Association quotes a British military official as saying it appears the people had been dead for several years.

Associated Press Television video showed the boxes stacked five high on one side of the warehouse near Az Zubayr, and other boxes were lined up on the other side.

The video showed one skull which was missing front teeth and had a large hole in the nasal area. A British soldier held up folders containing lists written in Arabic.

Press Association reporter Vanessa Allen says British troops also discovered a catalogue of photographs of the dead. She says the photos indicated some had been shot in the head.
 
Mr 80s-
I hear you.

I dont get the protesters who usually scream for their own civil rights but ignore the need for Iraqi Human Rights.


Oh I forgot, its all about the oil:yawn:
Yeah right.:rolleyes:


DB9
 
Heres a related article-




OPERATION: IRAQI FREEDOM
Saddam's 'gruesome'
Kuwaiti war crimes
Power drills, axes used at a dozen
'torture sites' during prior conflict

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 5, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Paul Sperry


WASHINGTON -- When it comes to war crimes, Saddam Hussein's reputation precedes him.

In the last Gulf war, the Iraqi dictator racked up 16 violations of the law of war under the Hague and Geneva conventions, according to an unclassified report written by Pentagon lawyers in 1992.

Some of them involved "gruesome" tortures by amputation, electric shock, electric drills, acid baths, rape, forced self-cannibalism, dismemberment and ax beatings, according to the "Report on Iraqi War Crimes: Desert Shield/Desert Storm," a copy of which was obtained by WorldNetDaily. (Editor's note: This is a large .pdf file; Adobe Acrobat required.)

U.S. officials say Saddam and his henchmen in the current war are on a path to break their old war-crimes record. So far, Iraqi troops and irregulars loyal to Saddam have, among other things:


Abused the flag of truce by pretending to surrender and then firing on U.S. Marines.

Executed and likely tortured U.S. prisoners of war.

Disguised themselves as civilians, then fired on U.S. troops.
And more atrocities are anticipated as U.S. forces enter Baghdad.

The November 1992 Pentagon report accused Iraqi troops of systematically carrying out grisly acts of torture against Kuwaiti citizens "with the approval of the national leadership in Iraq."

"The evidence establishes that there were at least two dozen torture sites in Kuwait City, most of which were located in either police stations or sports facilities," the report said. "The gruesome evidence confirms torture by amputation of or injury to various body parts, to include limbs, eyes, tongues, ears, noses, lips and genitalia.

"Electric shock was applied to sensitive parts of the body (nose, mouth, genitalia)," the report said. "Electric drills were used to penetrate the chest, leg(s) or arm(s) of victims."

Invading Iraqi soldiers also allegedly beat Kuwaiti civilians, crushing bones, skulls and disfiguring their faces, according to the catalog of abuses. Some victims were soaked in acid. Others were beaten while suspended from ceilings. Axes were allegedly used in some beatings.

"Women taken hostage were raped repeatedly," the report added.

But it gets worse: "Eyewitnesses reported Iraqis torturing a woman by making her eat her own flesh as it was cut from her body," the report said.

Some of the Kuwaiti accounts have since been challenged as exaggerations designed to whip up international sympathy for their cause.

The findings of war crimes were a result of evidence collected by the Army's 199th Judge Advocate Detachment in St. Petersburg, Fla., the 208th Judge Advocate Reserve Detachment here in Washington, and the Defense Intelligence Agency's Document Examination Center in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

According to the report, that evidence included: U.S. documents, captured Iraqi documents, videotaped and written statements of eyewitnesses to war crimes, prisoners of war, "human shields," Kuwaiti victims, and graphic videotape and still photos of war crimes.

Here is the carnage by numbers, according to the report:


A total of 1,082 Kuwaiti civilians were killed.

Some 120 babies "were left to die after being removed from incubators that were taken to Iraq."

More than 150 children between the ages of one and 13 were killed "for various reasons."

Fifty-seven mentally ill individuals were killed "simply because of their handicap."
Among U.S. military personnel, 21 individuals were captured and held as prisoners of war by Iraq.

"All of the prisoners of war were the victims of war crimes committed by Iraq," the report said.

Interestingly, U.S. military investigators found no evidence Iraq used chemical weapons against U.S. forces or Kuwaitis, although they established that it "intended to use" them.

The first Bush administration had refused to declassify the document reportedly because it worried it would hurt former President Bush's reelection bid by underscoring his failure to drive Saddam from power.

The Clinton administration finally released the report in March 1993.
 
diamond said:

I dont get the protesters who usually scream for their own civil rights but ignore the need for Iraqi Human Rights.

We don't. That's why the slogan is "No to war, No to Saddam" (please see my signature...). The reason I oppose this war is that it is not a war for liberation and it is not a war to bring democracy or human rights to Iraq. I don't believe you give people human rights by murdering them.

As for protestors demanding their own civil rights: when I see my friends hit with police batons for no reason, when I see police officers scream in my friends face that they're "wasting our ****ing time", when I see police arrest two fifteen year old Asian boys for no reason other than to intimidate the rest of the protestors, you bet I'll be complaining about the violations of protestors' civil rights.

(edited for typos)
 
Last edited:
"The reason I oppose this war is that it is not a war for liberation and it is not a war to bring democracy or human rights to Iraq. I don't believe you give people human rights by murdering them." Well said, FizzingWhizzbees. That report is disgusting :( . Even so, by the way, to this day I am still amazed at how we keep talking about Saddam and not Al Qaeda... I just don't understand how easily distracted Americans seem to be? How come I rarely see Osama/Al Qaeda's name on anti-war banners? There doesn't seem to be any more push to get 'those guys' who wronged you. It's all become more of a Bush-and-Blair mudslinging exercise.

foray
 
what makes you think the government has forgotten about al Qeada? much of the infrastructure has been decimated and the organization is under seige, it's more of a silent war.

the statement about giving people human rights by murdering them is convenient I guess, but is it really accurate? there's no perfect solution. people suffer either way, maybe the short term suffering will end the long term suffering? let's hope because that's the path that was chosen.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


The reason I oppose this war is that it is not a war for liberation and it is not a war to bring democracy or human rights to Iraq. I don't believe you give people human rights by murdering them.


Well, then you say what you think the war is not about.....What is it about then?

I don't believe it either, and it is a good thing the coalition is not murdering anyone because we would be doomed to failure.
 
1. Different embargo than in the past
JUST a weapon embargo (no embargo against eggs (because the leader of the UN command disslikes them because they are imported from the wrong country)
2. the UN should provice food and medicine to the people directly, not through the iraqi government
3. un patrols at all iraqi borders (especially to the borders of the US alies who smuggled most of the weapons inside the iraq)
4.UN weapon inspections (which get access to all secret service documents of the UN members and not the other way around)
5. UN humanitarian inspections(which get access to all secret service documents of the UN members and not the other way around)
6. Free press (funded by the UN)
7. free elections ensured by UN
8. warcriminals who had or are still violating international laws in this conflict should be sent to the ICC to show the arabic world that we are not taking revenge but care about justice (and not only for our enemies)

There are things that work out better than war:

:)
jpeg_1cvh3759_20030329_3704006_onlinebild.jpg
:)

Klaus

p.s. diamond:
thanks for the "great" contribution to the topic of this thread :(
just to the 120 babies: afik this thing turned out to be pure propaganda according to the post-irakIwar-press
 
Last edited:
Dreadsox said:
Well, then you say what you think the war is not about.....What is it about then?

It's about who has control over and dominance of the Middle East region. It's about who controls the second largest oil reserves in the world. It's about the United States asserting itself as the dominant power in the world and reminding other countries of its military power.

I realise a lot of people disagree with this analysis of the war, and I'm sure I'll get a lot accusations of "anti-americanism" or "wanting 'our' troops to be killed in Iraq" and probably "supporting Saddam" for making those suggestions. However, you did ask why I think this war is being fought and so I've answered honestly.

I'd suggest people have a look at some of the articles on the website of Project for the New American Century (www.newamericancentury.org) where you can see that plans for this war began long before September 11th and long before Bush came to power. Note how many contributors to PNAC are now working for, or have worked for the Bush adminstration: Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld... There are even articles entitled "How to Attack Iraq" as well as suggestions that containment is not a desirable strategy with regards to Iraq, regardless of whether it is an effective strategy or not.

And finally, if this were a war for democracy and human rights then one would expect the US to be at least a little consistent in its support for human rights: for instance, handing Israel billions of dollars each year when it continues to oppress the Palestinians and violate numerous UN resolutions, seems to go against this commitment to human rights. Similarly, the US seems unconcerned that Kuwait is a dictatorship, and continues to support Saudi Arabia despite that nation's appalling human rights record, neither of which are actions which suggest a huge concern for democracy.
 
Klaus, :lol: @ that picture. Some people in the Stop the War group at my college proposed that we hold a 'kiss-a-thon' against the war. Needless to say the idea didn't gain a huge amount of support...
 
Klaus, those are fine and noble ideas, but as soon as you start to implement #2,3, 6,7 and 8, there will be war anyway, because Saddam wouldn't just sit by and let people (UN or not) do these things on Iraqi soil. He would send forces and suicide bombers against them.
 
FizzingWhizzbees,
I do not think you are correct about what this war is about. I think you don't know Bush's character very well, honestly. However, even if you are correct, do you think that Saddam shouldn't be overthrown because the Coalition's intentions supposedly "aren't right"? Even if we are doing it "for oil" (which we aren't), the Coalition is conducting itself in an honorable and compassionate manner, taking careful steps to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible, and an evil Regime is going down. How can that be a bad thing?
 
80sU2isBest said:
Klaus, those are fine and noble ideas, but as soon as you start to implement #2,3, 6,7 and 8, there will be war anyway, because Saddam wouldn't just sit by and let people (UN or not) do these things on Iraqi soil. He would send forces and suicide bombers against them.

And had Klaus posted those suggestions a year ago, you'd have claimed that #4 (the weapons inspectors) was entirely unfeasible for the same reason....
 
I also think that most pro/anti war countries care about their influense in the mid east. Imagine someone who can control Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia...
..that's the main reason why i think the war against iraq was just the first step. If G.W.Bush will continue to be President of the USA i excpect 4 more wars.

FizzingWhizzbees:
:lol: why did you disslike that idea? :sexywink:


80sU2isBest
They are not only noble - they can work if we'd spend about 10% of our war money and energy in supporting this. Was it a problem that this money wouldn't flow back direckktly to the funders of the G.W:B. election campaign?
And.. the use of cluster bombs isn't exactly "an honorable and compassionate manner, taking careful steps to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible". I'm affraid either your media didn't show this yet or you didn't want to see

The Wanderer:
Free elections is that was democracy is about, you think the US installed regime dosn't need them because they are sent from gods country? :(

Salome:
I also trust bush more than Saddam - but i don't trust both of them verry much. Take a look how he treats the weak countries and you know how "honorable" he is.


There was a big chance to take away the power of Saddams regime without a war - but oviousley some things were more important to the US government than a few hundred allied soldiers, several hundred more iraqi soldiers and sevral thousand civilists :sad:

Klaus
 
"free election" would never happen under saddam hussein's regime, that was one item put forth as an alternative to the current course of action, I laughed at it. it would be really great to have a democratic election in iraq, first let's try giving them a chance to establish their own free press and flow of information and ideas, otherwise you will end up right back where you started, which we've seen far too often already. if they do it right it can work, but it's certainly not gonna work by removing saddam and then backing off to see what happens, certainly you arent proposing this? or did you want the UN to choose an election? cause they have a great track record too...
 
The Wanderer:

you're right, that's why i mentioned:

6. Free press (funded by the UN)
7. free elections ensured by UN

and it wouldn't be the first time a dictator falls because of UN ensured free elections (UN troops are in the country to ensure that everyone can vote and to ensure that noone cheats while counting the votes)

Of course my plan wouldn't work out in weeks - it's a long term plan.

Longterm is a problematic thing for leaders who's horizon is the next election campaign :(

Klaus
 
80sU2isBest said:
If you do think his regime had to end, but not with war, I'll have to ask what you would suggest. Don't tell me any of the following 3, because we've tried them and they don't work:

1)Assassination
2)Sanctions
3)Coup from the inside

U tried them and they don't work? Poor boys...
Of course, it's harder to multiply 2 by 2 than to start a war. It's harder to use one's brains than fists, especially when fists are the biggest...:wave:
 
Last edited:
dont you think UN troops in Iraq would have been seen as an act of aggression by saddam, since it would have put his regime in peril and would have resulted in violence? first of all against anyone who opposed saddam, secondly between the UN forces and saddam's military force
 
The Wanderer said:
what makes you think the government has forgotten about al Qeada? much of the infrastructure has been decimated and the organization is under seige, it's more of a silent war.

So why is it silent? Why we still know NOTHING about Bin Laden's whereabouts? Why NYC authorities regularly increase alarm colour? Becuase the war against Al-Qaeda is successful?

Im afraid it all will stop being silent when another tragedy breaks out.....:no:
 
The Wanderer:

You can't do this with force - DIPLOMACY is the keyword - you must convince the Iraqi regime that it's the only way..
..but i'm afrraid rumsfeld or bush are not good enough in that business. And the troops have to pay the price :(

ALEXRUS:
Wasn't capturing Bin Laden the mayor goal of the afghanistan attack?

Klaus
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


It's about who has control over and dominance of the Middle East region. It's about who controls the second largest oil reserves in the world. It's about the United States asserting itself as the dominant power in the world and reminding other countries of its military power.

I realise a lot of people disagree with this analysis of the war, and I'm sure I'll get a lot accusations of "anti-americanism" or "wanting 'our' troops to be killed in Iraq" and probably "supporting Saddam" for making those suggestions. However, you did ask why I think this war is being fought and so I've answered honestly.

I do not agree with you on the first paragraph by itself. If it were about controlling Iraqi Oil, it would have been very easy to ease sanctions. I am not naive enough to believe that oil was not part of it, but, I do believe that it was not the reason.

AS for the US flexing its muscles based on your interpretation about Wolfowitz and others I can understand your interpretation. I will finish my thoughts below.

FizzingWhizzbees said:

I'd suggest people have a look at some of the articles on the website of Project for the New American Century (www.newamericancentury.org) where you can see that plans for this war began long before September 11th and long before Bush came to power. Note how many contributors to PNAC are now working for, or have worked for the Bush adminstration: Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld... There are even articles entitled "How to Attack Iraq" as well as suggestions that containment is not a desirable strategy with regards to Iraq, regardless of whether it is an effective strategy or not.

What bothers me is your interpretation that there was some hidden agenda on the part of this administration. I too do not like the fact that many, especially Richard Pearle, wanted to attack Iraq immediately after 9/11. This was not hushed up, or kept secret. It has been on the news, in the news, and in at least two books that I have read.

Mr. Pearle was urging Israel to attack Iraq in 1997-98 when he worked for the Israeli governement. There is no smoking gun, nor any secret that this is what he desired to do.

Now having read books on the topic, and I admit it bothers me that there are hawks that have wanted to attack Iraq, I do not agree with your analasis of the situation. We have been bopgged down for 12 years, with little help from the UN and the Arab allies in the area. IN my opinion, the influence of Saddam on our Foreign Policy in the region has forced the USA into some very poor decisions, IE Building bases and sending troops to Saudi Arabia, sending troops to Kuwait among them. These policy decisions in my opinion are one of the reasons 9/11 occured.

Aside from that, we have countries on the Security Council that have contributed to the failure of containment. Russia breaking the no fly ban into Baghdad, France helping put the "food for oil" program under the control of Iraq, ect. There was no way the UN Security Council was going to support any action, due to the relationships between Iraq and their countries.

That said, I am so refreshed by your comments, I just want to thank you, because you explained yourself and provided some evidence of your line of thought.

Peace
 
Klaus said:
2. the UN should provice food and medicine to the people directly, not through the iraqi government

[I am not certain I agree with all you said, especially about US allies smuggling weapons into Iraq. So I will not comment in that area, because I fear it will throw the thread off topic.


I will comment on the above idea however. That #2 should have been done from the start. The Food For OIL program did nothing other than provide Saddam with the ability to suppress his own people and use the program to increase his power over the territories under his control.

This would have been great to see done years ago. Maybe Saddam would be gone, instead the UN Created a tool that helped keep him in power.
 
the thing I find interesting about it all is the changing of motives.

The whole pretense of the war started on selfdefense...that was the only way they could legally do it - war of agression is a huge no no! That whole pretense rested on the iraqis having WMD.
Then Bush realized it could very well happen that they don't find any WMD and that would be humiliating, so he decided that he had better change the reason for this...so...."iraqi freedom"...
I seriously don't think that Bush cares about iraqi freedom very much.

The whole war is plagued with awkward lines like "Shoick and Awe" and "operation irqi freedom"
no trouble to tell these are some of the same people who coined "freedom fries"

don't get me wrong, I'm all for the downfall of saddam and the freedom of iraqi people. I'm not all about Bush and his cronies invading the country under that false pretense, however.
 
Dreadsox:

you're right, it should be number one, it's much more important!

maybe
0. stop war (most humanitarian organisations can't work when there is war)
1. the UN should provice food and medicine to the people directly, not through the iraqi government
2. Different embargo than in the past
JUST a weapon embargo (no embargo against eggs (because the leader of the UN command disslikes them because they are imported from the wrong country)
3. un patrols at all iraqi borders
4.UN weapon inspections (which get access to all secret service documents of the UN members and not the other way around)
5. UN humanitarian inspections(which get access to all secret service documents of the UN members and not the other way around)
6. Free press (funded by the UN)
7. free elections ensured by UN
8. warcriminals who had or are still violating international laws in this conflict should be sent to the ICC to show the arabic world that we are not taking revenge but care about justice (and not only for our enemies)

...and finally Peace
jpeg_1cvh3759_20030329_3704006_onlinebild.jpg

Klaus

p.s. i edited it after a simple copy & paste to remove the (especially to the borders of the US alies ...) to keep this thread on topic
 
Last edited:
Klaus said:

ALEXRUS:
Wasn't capturing Bin Laden the mayor goal of the afghanistan attack?

Klaus

Well, it was.
At least the Taliban was overthrown.. thus a great REAL threat for Russia's security was removed by the US...for some time.
The Taliban is regrouping its ranks...:sad:
 
Dreadsox said:
I do not agree with you on the first paragraph by itself. If it were about controlling Iraqi Oil, it would have been very easy to ease sanctions. I am not naive enough to believe that oil was not part of it, but, I do believe that it was not the reason.


True, lifting sanctions would have given access to Iraqi oil. However, it wouldn't have given the US control of Iraq's oil reserves, and in fact if you look at which countries had contracts with Iraq's government (primarily Russia and France) you can see that the US' access to Iraqi oil reserves could have been very limited indeed.


What bothers me is your interpretation that there was some hidden agenda on the part of this administration. I too do not like the fact that many, especially Richard Pearle, wanted to attack Iraq immediately after 9/11. This was not hushed up, or kept secret. It has been on the news, in the news, and in at least two books that I have read.


I don't necessarily think it was a hidden agenda: the fact that PNAC publishes its opinions openly clearly demonstrates that. However, I don't think the mainstream media has devoted a huge amount of time to putting across that information. I watch news shows everyday, as well as reading a newspaper and yet I found out about sources such as PNAC through my involvement in the peace movement, not through mainstream media. Again, that's not to say it was a hidden agenda, simply that I don't think it was a highly publicised agenda.

Mr. Pearle was urging Israel to attack Iraq in 1997-98 when he worked for the Israeli governement. There is no smoking gun, nor any secret that this is what he desired to do.


I've always found that really frightening. Surely someone like Richard Perle should be aware of the relationship between Israeli and most countries in the Middle East and realise that had Israel attacked Iraq, it would almost certainly have been met with very serious retaliation. I know that the US would of course have come to the defence of Israel had it attacked Iraq, but it would still have been an extremely volatile situation.

Aside from that, we have countries on the Security Council that have contributed to the failure of containment. Russia breaking the no fly ban into Baghdad, France helping put the "food for oil" program under the control of Iraq, ect. There was no way the UN Security Council was going to support any action, due to the relationships between Iraq and their countries.

That said, I am so refreshed by your comments, I just want to thank you, because you explained yourself and provided some evidence of your line of thought.

I agree to an extent: the relationships of many countries in the Security Council towards Iraq is partly dictated by their business interests in the region. However, I think the US' policy towards Iraq is similarly dicated by business interests in the region and I don't believe you can condemn France and Russia's opposition to war as "just about protecting their interests" without also realising that the US' decision to go to war was also based on protecting their own interests.
 
Back
Top Bottom