300,000 Iraqis May Be in Mass Graves

[Ned]

The mass graves are not so much a justification for the war in the first place as a justification for not pulling out. Restoring Saddam to power will likely result in a bloodbath that would make earlier bloodbaths small details by comparison.

Bush I deserves heavy criticism for withdrawing and allowing Saddam to murder so many. It is surprising that the same people who criticize Bush I for allowing Saddam to stay in power are critical of Bush II for ending his murderous regime regardless of whether that was the official reason for the war.

And, JohnC, you are especially amazing for arguing that restoring Saddam to power is the thing to do because he will now not kill so many people. This kind of thinking is simply stunning.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Ned
Bush I deserves heavy criticism for withdrawing and allowing Saddam to murder so many. It is surprising that the same people who criticize Bush I for allowing Saddam to stay in power are critical of Bush II for ending his murderous regime regardless of whether that was the official reason for the war.

You people don't belong there. Stop thinking that you are the solution to the problem you created. Get out!

[Ted Striker]

Mobius you still have absolutley ZERO clue what you are talking about

There were 2600 US Marines sent Liberia who were there until the Nigerian force arrived, to cover in case sh1t REALLY hit the fan

You should also read up on your own history, did you KNOW that the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy? Oh my you are so ignorant!!! LEARN SOMETHIN!!!!!

Next time make sure to take some Ritalin and stop getting your heart broken by American girls

[oedo]

Originally posted by Ned
It is surprising that the same people who criticize Bush I for allowing Saddam to stay in power are critical of Bush II for ending his murderous regime regardless of whether that was the official reason for the war.

actually this is not the point. the point is that in view of the closer circumstances of the 1991-massacre the so-called humanitarian intentions of the current US goverment are highly questioned. BushI, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn´t care for the shiites as long as they were alive. it´s hard to believe, that they seriously do care more now, after these people have been murdered.
no one doubts that Saddam was a cruel and totalitarian ruler. but the US goverment has forfeited this as an pro-war argument, it´s simply not credible.

with the same justification I could hire a contract killer and shoot him after he has done the dirty job, because he was an evil murderer. I´d like to see the jury who would buy that stuff and set me free.

[Pekka]

WTF? Is Congo still grounds of active fighting and murdering? I thought they already stopped it and are still in bad shape.. but its still going on?

Damn it, we need to get our planes in the air!

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by JCG
The number may be inflated, but the fact remains that SH's direct orders/actions killed a HUGE number of people and these mass graves are proof of it.

Hm, some human rights orgs. gave (before GWII) numbers from 500000 - 1000000 victims in Iraq since Saddam came to power.

[NeOmega]

some also accredit the U.S. for over 500,000 starvation and disease deaths caused by the sanctions.

Both, I assume, are grossly inflated. I mean, we could concievably say almost 1,000 people have been killed every year from political pressure under the Bush and Clinton administrations, it would just be what you considered "killed".

[BeBMan]

Well, Saddam took over in the late 60ies, and whatever one thinks about this war, he clearly wasn´t a nice guy. His campaign eg. against the Kurds was extremely brutal, not only due to the use of chemical weapons. Similar brutality is known in other aspects of the Saddam regime eg. the treatment of opposition groups etc.

And those orgs I mentioned include AI and HRW, which are not interested in making a case against Saddam for the Bush administration. They do however admit that a lot of those numbers are estimations, of course, but there can be no doubt that it was not a soft dictatorship in Iraq under Saddam.

[Sava]

how many people died in South Asia during the US involvement there? 3 million?

Saddam's a lightweight.

[Kuciwalker]

You mean a country can invade another arbitrarily?

No, but 1441 allowed us to.

[Sava]

Originally posted by skywalker

You mean a country can invade another arbitrarily?

No, but 1441 allowed us to.

read the language... it said "serious consequences"... that's it. It did not allow for an invasion, that's why a second resolution detailing invasion plans was suggested, but never submitted because Bush failed miserably at diplomacy and getting our Allies to support the war.

[Kuciwalker]

IIRC, MtG said that that technically allowed us to invade. If you want to debate the fine points of international law with him, be my guest...

[Sava]

Originally posted by skywalker
IIRC, MtG said that that technically allowed us to invade. If you want to debate the fine points of international law with him, be my guest...

too bad MtG isn't a member of the UN...

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by skywalker
IIRC, MtG said that that technically allowed us to invade. If you want to debate the fine points of international law with him, be my guest...

Have you ever, ever in your life stopped for a moment and thought "I wonder what the use of international law is"

And then thought "How can war have laws, if the winner makes the rules?"

The only power international law has is to form international opinion. America may be able to make a great case to some panel of U.N. judges with hundreds of lawyers specializing in international law. But if in the eyes of public opinion, the United States is causing unwarranted aggression, we are wrong.

So there are really only two sides to this argument:

1) We cares about international law or
2) Who cares about international law?

One entails abiding by the laws and attempting to prevent war crimes, but this is purely for show, for diplomatic brownie points. There are no real victories in this war determined by lawyers. All that matters is public perception, since realistically, that is all these resolutions can do.

Two, entails Just doing it. So if you were to try and agrue that 1441 gave you the legal right, you have been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. This is not the good option, because you have lost. So your only other option is to call the U.N. irrelevant, say you are above international law, and invade anyways. But sitting their and trying to lawyer out how 1441 authorized war when clearly France threatened to veto the true authorization for war, is laughable.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Is there anyone participating in this thread not holding the following opinons?

1- The Ba'athists were, and remain, utterly monstrous by any sane standards.

2- That we should have finished them in 1991.

3- That it's one less genocidal regime on the face of this planet.