SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: KLP who wrote (171560)9/30/2005 3:47:15 PM
From: Sam  Respond to of 281500
 
No one has ever maintained that Saddam is/was "blameless" for any of the things you list. Except for people who are trying to justify this war and use it as a straw man to "argue" against those who are opposed to it.

That said, he could have blamed for many of those things in the 80s and 90s as well. The Reagan admin did nothing but help the guy in his war against Iran, and even concocted excuses for him when one of his planes blew up a US ship (the Stark). Bush Sr didn't "blame" Saddam for anything until the Kuwait incident, which was almost encouraged by the Admin's own ambassador, April Glaspie, and was certainly "encouraged" by Kuwait's slant drilling into Iraqi territory (I've never seen a good explanation for that, and wonder if it wasn't a deliberate provocation, but nevermind that). And Bush Sr not only didn't help the Shia overthrow Saddam in the aftermath of Gulf I, he helped Saddam brutally quell those insurrectionists, killing hundreds of thousands of people.

So, let's not get all pious now, shall we? There is plenty of blame to go around. And let's not forget the School of the Americas, where so many govt terrorists have been trained by our very own military and govt.



To: KLP who wrote (171560)9/30/2005 5:11:33 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
We know what he did to his own people- heck I've known that longer than the Republicans, who were kissing him not so long ago because he was our Friend in the ME who didn't like Iran (the enemy of our enemy)- but then I read Mother Jones and they had a cover issue on the gassed Kurds, and you probably missed that issue. Be that as it may, what a leader does to his own people is not a justification for the unilateral action of our country to invade another country, so that's an unrelated issue.

The reason we invaded (at least the way it was sold to the US people)- was that Iraq posed a danger to the US. If it did not pose a danger, and it appears it did not (though it sure does now, thank you Mr. Bush), then the justification for the war was very shaky. Hence my question to YOU about the connection with 9/11- and I understand why you are evasive. No one wants to have to revisit a poor call on bad data. If Saddam was terrorizing Iraq or Iran(for example) is that really a reason for the US to unilaterally invade?

What you have done in your post is a classic example of the bait and switch rhetoric we have seen from the right. The right sold this war based on American security, because the AMerican people were afraid, and scared people believe almost anything - for a little while- but that is wearing off. We have known for a long long time what Saddam did to his own people- and it was fine with us when he was a thorn in the side of Iran. So don't go wringing your hands about what Saddam did to his own people, and think I believe that this gives any leader of the US any moral authority to invade, because that is just stupid.

And he doesn't need to be "blameless"- what you really need to explain is how anything in your mess of a hand wringing post gives us any right to invade a country, completely screw it up, and spin it to the verge of civil war. Got an answer for that?



To: KLP who wrote (171560)9/30/2005 5:17:21 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
'They had been in Vietnam for three months and lost about 10% of their people, maybe 10 or 15 to accidents, killings and bombings, and they ended up -- they thought they would meet the enemy and there were 550 women, children and old men and they executed them all. It took a day. They stopped in the middle and they had lunch. One of the kids who had done a lot of shooting.

The Black and Hispanic soldiers, about 40 of them, there were about 90 men in the unit -- the Blacks and Hispanics shot in the air. They wouldn't shoot into the ditch. They collected people in three ditches and just began to shoot them. The Blacks and Hispanics shot up in the air, but the mostly White, lower middle class, the kids who join the Army Reserve today and National Guard looking for extra dollars, those kind of kids did the killing.

One of them was a man named Paul Medlow, who did an awful lot of shooting. The next day, there was a moment -- one of the things that everybody remembered, the kids who were there, one of the mothers at the bottom of a ditch had taken a child, a boy, about two, and got him under her stomach in such a way that he wasn't killed. When they were sitting having the K rations -- that’s what they called them -- MRE’s now -- the kid somehow crawled up through the [inaudible] screaming louder and he began -- and Calley, the famous Lieutenant Calley, the Lynndie England of that tragedy, told Medlow: Kill him, “Plug him,” he said.

And Medlow somehow, who had done an awful lot as I say, 200 bullets, couldn't do it so Calley ran up as everybody watched, with his carbine. Officers had a smaller weapon, a rifle, and shot him in the back of the head.
The next morning, Medlow stepped on a mine and he had his foot blown off. He was being medevac’d out. As he was being medevac’d out, he cursed and everybody remembered, one of the chilling lines, he said, “God has punished me, and he's going to punish you, too.”...

It was about an Arab. This is something no mother should see and daughter should see too. It was the Arab man leaning against bars, the prisoner naked, two dogs, two shepherds, remember, on each side of him. The New Yorker published it, a pretty large photograph. What we didn’t publish was the sequence showed the dogs did bite the man -- pretty hard. A lot of blood. So she saw that and she called me, and away we go. There's another story.

For me, it's just another story, but out of this comes a core of -- you know, we all deal in “macro” in Washington. On the macro, we're hopeless. We're nowhere. The press is nowhere. The congress is nowhere. The military is nowhere. Every four-star General I know is saying, “Who is going to tell them we have no clothes?” Nobody is going to do it. Everybody is afraid to tell Rumsfeld anything. That's just the way it is. It's a system built on fear. It's not lack of integrity, it's more profound than that. Because there is individual integrity. It's a system that's completely been taken over -- by cultists....

democracynow.org

============= Hey, that's us plus there are more photos and videos coming from Abu Ghraib if the military loses its appeal. So, why is the military appealing release of more information?

It couldn't be because they are so heinous could it be?