Iraq: Tell-Tell Signs of a Ruthless Tirant
The deteriorating security situation in Iraq can only leave one wondering as to how oppressive and ruthless Saddam Hussein's methods must have been in order to keep the country as "orderly" as he did. If the Americans, investing close to a billion dollars a day in Iraq and under the world's watchful eye, are left with close to 1500 civilian causalties in the month of August as a result of battling the insurgency, then one can only imagine Saddam's methods.
With the world focused on his alleged WMD program and first Gulf war, Saddam must have slaughtered people by the thousends in order to make sure fear permates through the ranks of the insurgency as the prosecution in his now laughable trial alleges. He did not care about human lives because this method worked much better for him and was much cheaper... in money, not human lives. With such a conclusion anyone still having doubts about the ousting of the dictator, should stop thinking of himself as a Human Rights advocate.
With the world focused on his alleged WMD program and first Gulf war, Saddam must have slaughtered people by the thousends in order to make sure fear permates through the ranks of the insurgency as the prosecution in his now laughable trial alleges. He did not care about human lives because this method worked much better for him and was much cheaper... in money, not human lives. With such a conclusion anyone still having doubts about the ousting of the dictator, should stop thinking of himself as a Human Rights advocate.
posted by The Middle East News Addict at 12:07 AM
11 Comments:
No, I still support human rights.
The US invasion of Iraq caused a number of changes to occur. Ever heard a war supporter say "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here."? They're not just talking about Iraqi terrorists, a lot of foreign Islamic extremists came to Iraq to fight the US there, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi leading "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is an example that comes to mind, and they wouldn't be there if it weren't for the US invasion.
Saddam did kill many people, but if the US hadn't invaded there is little doubt that fewer people would have died there in the past few years. Saddam managed to keep the Sunnis and Shi'ites from the extremes they are at now, which the US has clearly failed in doing. Saddam may have been a "ruthless tirant" (sic), but there is a reason that so many Iraqis would prefer the US hadn't invaded.
I am shocked that you say that you are still supporting Human Rights by supporting Saddam; and I admit I am writing this comment somewhat emotionally. Therefore please understand the sarcasem that is going to ooze out of it.
Sure Saddam kept everbody in line, and the US can do the same as he did the moment supporters of Human Rights like yourself would allow them to use Mastard Gas the way Saddam did in the name of HUMAN RIGHTS! (just which humans I am not exactly sure of...).
As for so many Iraqis prefering Saddam back, I assure you the majority of which are Sunnis. It is a shame none of them was that concerend when he gassed the shit out of Kurds and Shia. Shia on the other hand prefer the US to be out while Iran will enter. When either one of these options occurrs, we'll have a second Rwanda on our hands and nobody would be able to say they did not know. The problem in Rwanda is that there were no troop commitment from no one. The problem in Iraq is that after the US withdrawal there WILL be no troop commitment in Iraq leading to mutual genocides.
Where the **** did I say I supported Saddam? I also did not say Saddam did anything in support of human rights. I would not even consider arguing against the fact that Saddam is a ******* *******.
My point was that while the US may not use mustard gas, they torture just like Saddam did, and they use things like depleted uranium (which is beginning to be called "Iraq's Agent Orange") and other things that are clearly not respectful of human rights.
Also, there is already a second Rwanda, it's known as "Darfur." Iraq would be a third.
I am obvioiusly glad that Saddam is no longer capable of killing people. What I am not glad about is that the US seems to be following in his footsteps.
Fine then on one thing we agree, Saddam is bad. Now can we also agree that without the US he would not have been ousted? What is left to do is pressure US to change things not through silly "i,perialist\colonialist" saying, but through "you started a good thing now finish it properly" calls. Otherwise they will leave and as I said, no one will be there otherwise and we'll all eat
$%#@&
I can't necessarily say that he wouldn't have been ousted without the US. The Iraqis, for instance, probably could have gotten him out.
In regards to what will happen when the Us leaves: unless you live in the Middle East, you'll probably be absolutely fine except that you'll pay more for gas. I doubt even Israel would suffer increased civilian casualties. The only losers in the entire war (regardless of the outcome) will be Iraqi civilians and Western troops who die there (not counting Saddam and his party's leadership).
Mostly what I objected to in your statement is the implication that the US government was doing it for a good cause. If I were going to take out an oppressive dictator who killed his people and whose WMDs were a threat to civilians everywhere, Kim Jong-il would easily top the list; but NOrth Korea isn't real oil rich.
You're both correct. Saddam is bad but we (the U.S.) committed a gross error invading Iraq. Were we to depose all evil leaders in the world, we'd have no time or money for anything else. Then we'd be like the terrorists whose only GNP is violence.
The Iraq debacle will continue unless and until the U.S. gets support and help from elsewhere in the world and the more sane elements of the Middle East pressure the wild ones to engage in more productive activities.
Thanks for the contribution of both of you to the international dialogue.
Gma
To Agent KGB
First of all in response to your argument that the people of Iraq could have ousted Saddam, I was recall this story from Iraq: During the second Gulf War, Saddam's two son in laws escaped to Jordan, there they reported of his attrocities. He urged them to return promising nothing would happen to them... they did. The next day they were both hung in Baghdad's central square. Now if you were an Iraqi, would you go against a tirant who controls the army and does not hesitate to hung even his own family? If you do, congratulations you're braver (and stupider) than the Iraqi people.
As for your comment of what would happen if the US left, I am so happy that nothing would happen outside Iraq. At best only Iraqis would be hurt. Really I applaude your Human Rights concerns which extend to everybody (unless of course they are Iraqis, sorry.).
As for North Korea v. Iraq, hmm... let's compare:
People Oppressed?
NKOR: YES
Iraq: Yes
Use of Chemical Weapons?
NKOR: Has, Hasn't used.
Iraq: Had. Used? ask the "liquid Kurds" who are such as a result of Saddam's use of mastard gas.
Conquering other countries?
NKOR: Don't know, enlighten me
Iraq: See Kuwait
Attacking Countries with no mutual border?
NKOR: again enlighten me
Iraq: see Israel
so evidently, the cases of Iraq and NKOR are not that similar as previously thought. Yes both opress their people; but Saddam took extra care to hurt people who are hundreds of miles away.
As for NKOR nuclear plan it will not get anywhere soon. They might be able to fully develop their nukes; but Mr. Jong-ill should be quick about because the people are starving and will soon lose patience.
To Gma
Thank you for your comment. I agree the international community as a whole should help in the Middle East and not just in Iraq. Hopefully future wars will only be fought on the pages of the internet.
[I think I may have submitted this already but Blogger seems to be having some problems so it may not be there. Sorry about that.]
In regards to what would happen if the US left, I was not in any way suggesting that the deaths of Iraqis is a good thing, I was just correcting your statement about all the world suffering. If you have something to say about what I actually said, I'd like to hear it, but don't put words in my comment box.
In regards to whether the Iraqis could have overthrown Saddam, it is my view that an entire nation of people has a substantially better chance of overthrowing a leader than a pair of people.
In reagrds to which country is more of a threat, Iraq or North Korea, yes I am aware that Saddam had and used chemical weapons, and it was beyond awful and should never be done again (by anyone, might I add, Americans aren't special and I see no reason why their use of depleted uranium is acceptable). I am also aware though that North Korea is in possession of nuclear weapons, which are usually regarded as more dangerous than chemical weapons. One of Bush's main justifications for the war was that Saddam was a threat to the rest of the world, I was saying that North Korea is probably more of a threat to the world now than was Iraq. Yes, Saddam has invaded, but western nations (Israel leaps to mind here, but it'd be nice if this thread stayed on topic so it might make more sense to respond to that point on one of the other posts if you're going to argue it, also the US and Britain, etc. invade other nations) also invade places. Incidentally, North Korea is believed to have committed acts of terrorism in South Korea. Basically my point is that Iraq was not the primary threat to the world at the time.
As for the human rights records, first of all I would like to point out that torture has occurred under US occupation. Also though I would like to note that North Korea's human rights record is even more abominable than Saddam's. For instance, it is estimated that 150,000 to 200,000 people are in concentration camps.
I also see that you suggest that North Koreans might be able to overthrow their government, which I find interesting considering how qucik you were to disregard that possibility in Iraq.
First of all, we'll start with correcting some of your misconceptions about Israeli occupation: Gaza strip was taken from Egyptians. In 1979 Israel wanted to return it to Egyptians who in turn threatened to collapse the entire peace if this was to occur. Same was with the west bank. That is why King Hussein was so quick to make peace with Israel after Oslo because he feared set borders be agreed upon between Israel and the PA that would leave him with the Palestinian problem (see my previous comment about like father like son in Jordan). The Palestinians never pushed for a state of their own (or their own individual identity separate from the Arab) until 67 when they realized the Arab states would not be able to erase Israel for them. Read CFR's Yousef Ibrahim to understand all that. I think occupation is bad for both sides (more to the Israelis) but at the same time I am also thinking of that old prison saying "if you can't do the time (lose land), don't do the crime (start a war)".
As for the comparison Saddam-North Korea you still have not answered my question of the fact Saddam attacked Israel, a country he does not even has a border with? This is far beyond self defense.
Speaking of putting words in one's mouth (something I keep looking as to where I did. You are simply complaining that I am repeating your own words to you so to make sure these are your ideas). North Korea on this plane is different than Iraq in several ways. First, no pan-Asian nationality to support it. No Syria, no anything else. Second, as a second example after Iraq, Jong-Ill will be perfectly aware that any uprising by his people will be more than supported by the West. Furthermore, Jong-Ill's regime is not oppressive to one side. Do not forget that Saddam oppressed the Shia and the Kurds but kept Sunni (about 30% of the country) perfectly happy with no desire for change (hence the insurgents), could you say that Me. Jong-Ill has the full-hearted support of 30% of his people? Again, please enlighten me.
First, regarding what I said vs. what I didn't say: you said that "At best only Iraqis would be hurt. Really I applaude your Human Rights concerns which extend to everybody (unless of course they are Iraqis, sorry.)." Since I didn't say anything of the kind, I find this somewhat irritating.
Regarding Israel: again it would make more sense to put that on the Israel threads, especially since I've made some points there you haven't responded to and I would prefer not to retype them.
Regarding Saddam attacking Israel, you make reference to a question but I'm not sure exactly what it is.
Regarding North Korea: of course North Korea is different in some, in fact in most aspects, from Iraq. For instance, many people in Iraq are unable to speak Korean, whereas in North Korea people do this quite frequently. In many ways that are relevant, however, they are similar. North Korea is more oppressive, and likely a bigger threat than Saddam, partially because Kim Jong-ill is even crazier than Saddam. In one important aspect though, they are different: North Korea isn't rich in oil, like Iraq. For the moment I won't argue with the idea that, for those Iraqis who survive and aren't imprisoned or tortured by foreign troops, life will likely improve in the long run. Many though are currently without water, missing family members, starving, etc. While I don't know any stats offhand, I find it likely that Iraq is a much less happy place right now than it was prior to the invasion for most people. However, I will most certainly argue that the invasion was not for a good cause. And I will also argue that the invasion of Iraq should not have occurred without UN approval, unless the UN suddenly disappeared off the earth or other similar near impossible circumstances.
Post a Comment
<< Home