CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Yeah, we should have left the poor, innocent guy alone.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Yeah, we should have left the poor, innocent guy alone.

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 
3,000 Bodies Exhumed at Iraq Mass Grave

Wednesday, May 14, 2003
AP News

HILLAH, Iraq — Teams excavating a mass grave in central Iraq have exhumed more than 3,000 bodies of people they suspect were killed during the 1991 Shiite (search) revolt against Saddam Hussein's regime, officials said Wednesday.

By every indication, the mass grave in Hillah (search), 60 miles south of Baghdad, is the largest found in Iraq since U.S. forces overthrew the government last month.

Hundreds of people from nearby towns and villages watched from behind a barbed-wire barrier as sets of remains were pulled from the field near Hillah and set aside wrapped in plastic bags, sheets and blankets. Some of the bodies' skulls still had tufts of long hair, and officials said they probably were women.

Many of the onlookers were weeping, and some chanted: "There is no God but God, and the Baath (search) (Party) is the enemy of God." Several women were holding pictures of their missing men.

Rafed Husseini, a doctor leading the group of local men doing the digging, said a total of 3,000 bodies had either been retrieved or located in the past nine days. About half remain unidentified while the rest have been identified mainly through documents found on the bodies, Husseini said.

Villagers from the nearby town of Mahawee first organized the dig by bringing in a bulldozer to open up the site.

"We are organizing it and we are digging," said Abuzaid Dinar, the village headman. He said his dead father and brother were buried somewhere in the area, where several separate mass graves were spread out over about a half-mile-square area.

The excavation Wednesday came two days after Iraqis pulled bodies from a newly discovered mass grave near Basra, the country's second-largest city. That site in southern Iraq was believed to contain remains of up to 150 Shiite Muslims killed by Saddam's regime after a rebellion in 1999.

Human rights groups say they believe Iraq is dotted with mass graves, many filled with victims of Saddam's brutal excesses. Villagers said that appeared to be the case with the latest site.

"About 20 percent of them were buried alive, because they had no bullet wounds, but their hands were tied and they were blindfolded," said Ameer Shumri, an official from the governor's office in Hillah.

Shiites rose up against Saddam after the 1991 Gulf War but were crushed by the Iraqi leader and his police and military apparatus. Thousands of Shiites were killed.

Many Shiites had expected more U.S. help in their revolt. Some have expressed bitterness, saying the United States under former President Bush had not intervened to save them from Saddam's wrath.

Sukna al-Jbouri, who stood beside the barbed wire, said she had come to find her son Hilal, who was 19 when he was arrested by soldiers in 1991.

"I was walking with my son in the street and the army came and picked him up," she said. "I tried to stop them but they took him, I don't know why."

U.S. Marines, who arrived earlier Wednesday to secure the site, said they would be bringing water and camouflage netting to protect onlookers from the blistering sun.

"We are to help facilitate the reunion of victims and families," said Capt. David Romley from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, who added his unit had only heard about the site two days earlier. "They want to excavate the site themselves."

"We can take this evidence and present it to a future Iraqi judiciary," he said.

But Peter Bouckaert, a researcher with Human Rights Watch, criticized the U.S.-led administration in Iraq for not sending any forensic experts to Hillah and for allowing local people to excavate the graves.

"The way they're doing it is, they are destroying evidence," Bouckaert said at the scene Wednesday. "It's an absolutely shameful failure on the part of the U.S. government."

He said at least 200,000 people had disappeared in Iraq during the past decade, and that human rights groups knew the locations of many other mass grave sites throughout the country.

Many Iraqis say the United States also needs to act more quickly to impose order, provide jobs and restore water and electricity in the country it now occupies.

On Wednesday, the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research used coalition-run radio to call on people to return equipment that was looted from universities in the wake of the U.S. invasion.

"You can return the equipment or the furniture to the university where they belong or to any mosque," the ministry said.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that the new U.S. administration for Iraq will now allow U.S. forces to shoot looters on sight to discourage the rampant lawlessness that has persisted for weeks.

President Mohammed Khatami of neighboring Iran, meanwhile, repeated calls for the United States to leave Iraq "as soon as possible to allow it to be run by the Iraqis."

But Khatami, who had criticized the U.S. invasion, also called Saddam's toppling "a valuable opportunity for the oppressed Iraqi people and also for the regional states."

Iran fought a 1980-88 war with Iraq that left at least a million people dead.
post #2 of 49
Actually, dude, hate to break it to ya, but, since these bodies are from the failed post-Gulf War uprising that we encourage but failed to support, the truth is that we did leave Saddam alone while this was happening.

Just like we left him alone while he was gassing all those poor Kurds.
post #3 of 49
Quote:
Englebert:
Actually, dude, hate to break it to ya, but, since these bodies are from the failed post-Gulf War uprising that we encourage but failed to support, the truth is that we did leave Saddam alone while this was happening.

Just like we left him alone while he was gassing all those poor Kurds.
Well, that's not exactly true. We did increase our participation in the Oil-for-Food program. But beyond that bold and chastening step, we did let him be.
post #4 of 49
It is partly our fault that these people are dead. If we weren't going to help them back in 91, we shouldn't have said we were going to. Of course, it doesn't change the fact that it was Saddam that killed them.
post #5 of 49
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
Of course, it doesn't change the fact that it was Saddam that killed them.
That is like giving a madman a gun and when he kills someone saying, "Well, he is the one that pulled the trigger." Oh wait, the US government does that all the time.

We are all ultimately responsible for our actions, however directly related they are to the consequences. Just because the US did not gas the Iraqi's, standing by and letting it happen still makes us partly responsible. Wasn't it in "Spiderman" that Peter Parker let the robber go out of indifference only to have the consequences of those actions result in Uncle Ben's death? Does that not have some correlation here?
post #6 of 49
Quote:
Englebert:
Actually, dude, hate to break it to ya, but, since these bodies are from the failed post-Gulf War uprising that we encourage but failed to support, the truth is that we did leave Saddam alone while this was happening.

Just like we left him alone while he was gassing all those poor Kurds.
Yup, if we'd done the moral thing last time round we wouldn't even have this mass grave to try and post-justify our war on Iraq.
post #7 of 49
Quote:
killbotfactory:
If we are going to start going after every country with corrupt governments who have done something bad to it's people within the past fifteen years, we are going to be occupying a lot of countries.
Not "occupying", but "liberating".
post #8 of 49
Quote:
Beer Die:
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
Of course, it doesn't change the fact that it was Saddam that killed them.
That is like giving a madman a gun and when he kills someone saying, "Well, he is the one that pulled the trigger." Oh wait, the US government does that all the time.

We are all ultimately responsible for our actions, however directly related they are to the consequences. Just because the US did not gas the Iraqi's, standing by and letting it happen still makes us partly responsible. Wasn't it in "Spiderman" that Peter Parker let the robber go out of indifference only to have the consequences of those actions result in Uncle Ben's death? Does that not have some correlation here?
I suppose that nothing short of "we killed those people" will be good enough for you. Yes, we abandoned them. Yes, we stopped short of Baghdad and left him in power. Yes, the UN agreed that that was what we were supposed to do. Nevertheless, we still didn't pull the trigger. Saying we gave him the gun is foolish, that was the Soviets. We just gave him the opportunity to use it (not that that's something to be proud of).
post #9 of 49
Quote:
Englebert:
Actually, dude, hate to break it to ya, but, since these bodies are from the failed post-Gulf War uprising that we encourage but failed to support, the truth is that we did leave Saddam alone while this was happening.

Just like we left him alone while he was gassing all those poor Kurds.
And that's really the way it should be. Eventually one of two things happen: The leadership of a country are overthrown from within or they kill all of their own people. Usually the former happens before the latter.

And before our invasion I was all for leaving Saddam alone because I could give a flying fuck about Iraq. If they won't rise up against their evil dictator they certainly don't deserve to be handed freedom from us.

This was a big expensive nightmare and it's now shown that the real threat is Pakistan anyway...
post #10 of 49
Quote:
League of Extraordinary Kronos':
And that's really the way it should be. Eventually one of two things happen: The leadership of a country are overthrown from within or they kill all of their own people. Usually the former happens before the latter.

And before our invasion I was all for leaving Saddam alone because I could give a flying fuck about Iraq. If they won't rise up against their evil dictator they certainly don't deserve to be handed freedom from us.

This was a big expensive nightmare and it's now shown that the real threat is Pakistan anyway...
Funny thing is, they'r enot free and they never will be. With what resources they have and what they could mean to the rest of the Middle East and the world, dozens of governments are making their play for influencing how the "new" Iraq comes out including the US, France, Iran, Russia, Britain, etc.

And because they have these resources but not the means to harvest them fully, they'll always be pawns under someone who could give a rat's ass about them. It was Saddam. Now it's the US. At some point, it'll be someone else.
post #11 of 49
This seems to be the history of most of those Middle-Eastern countries. They get chopped up and subdivided every several decades or so...
post #12 of 49
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
I suppose that nothing short of "we killed those people" will be good enough for you. Yes, we abandoned them. Yes, we stopped short of Baghdad and left him in power. Yes, the UN agreed that that was what we were supposed to do. Nevertheless, we still didn't pull the trigger. Saying we gave him the gun is foolish, that was the Soviets. We just gave him the opportunity to use it (not that that's something to be proud of).
I really was just trying to make the point that the US meddles in the affairs of other countries too much. When things go sour, we simply step back and say, "Not my problem". Well, in a way it is our problem because we stuck our hand in the cookie jar, so to speak.

Honestly, I have few problems with the US going in an finally ousting Saddam. I just wish we would own up to our own faults a little more often.
post #13 of 49
To obviously say nothing of the meddling other countries do here...oh no...that doesn't happen...

Blame America First!
post #14 of 49
Quote:
League of Extraordinary Kronos':
This seems to be the history of most of those Middle-Eastern countries. They get chopped up and subdivided every several decades or so...
And look how well it worked out the first time around. I agree that if somebody was going to get rid of Saddam, it should have been the Iraqis themselves, and afterwards they should have been allowed to achieve full and complete autonomy, not the fake "self-determination" and the reconstruction that are currently being imposed upon them with their own oil revenues. The post-Gulf War uprising was the best opportunity for this, and all those who died as a result died completely in vain.
post #15 of 49
Back to Grifter's original point, the fact that we did not help these people we encouraged to revolt against Saddam's tyranny actually invalidates Bush Jrs new-found compassion for the Iraqi people. I can't buy this "liberation" angle as a justification for the aggression against Iraq, not now, years after all these major crimes of his first came to light.

After all, if we're going after Saddam because he killed X of his own people, how many of his people are we allowed to kill in the process of removing him? If we truly value Iraqi lives, then war on Iraq would be no more palatable as an option than allowing Saddam to stay in power.

As it stands, this war certainly killed many many more Iraqi people--civilians & conscipted fighters alike--than the roughly 3,000 dead cited in Grifter's article.
post #16 of 49
This thread shows how Bush sort of turned around the justification for war.

I thought we went after Saddam because of the weapons? Why don't we hear about those anymore? Before, liberation was a side issue, now that's all he talks about.
post #17 of 49
Thread Starter 
This was also ONE isolated incident, involving at least 3000. How many more "isolated incidents" will we discover? Not including the documented extermination of Kurds, etc...

Let's be generous and say we only find 3 more mass graves.

Again, NOT including the Kurds, we are already up to 9000 people.

That, alone, is more than we killed in the "liberation", (arguably).

So, just looking at the numbers game, they are better off, without him.
post #18 of 49
Thread Starter 
Edited, because I'm to damn stupid to not have a double post.

post #19 of 49
Quote:
Grifter:
This was also ONE isolated incident, involving at least 3000. How many more "isolated incidents" will we discover? Not including the documented extermination of Kurds, etc...

Let's be generous and say we only find 3 more mass graves.

Again, NOT including the Kurds, we are already up to 9000 people.

That, alone, is more than we killed in the "liberation", (arguably).

So, just looking at the numbers game, they are better off, without him.
How many isolated incidents occur elsewhere? Say, Africa for instance. We should go remove all those dictators and leaders who allow these kinds of mass murders... oh wait, I forgot. There is no oil in Africa. Too bad for them, their lives aren't as important to us.
post #20 of 49
Quote:
Grifter:
Let's be generous and say we only find 3 more mass graves.
How about we be realistic and see if we find any at all? Or do you just assume Saddam was in the weekly mass-grave-generating business for the sheer fun of it?
post #21 of 49
Well, you'd have to admit, Saddam probably wiped out a lot more people than this one mass grave. He has a history of that kind of thing. Doesn't justify a war, but it's perfectly feasible.
post #22 of 49
Of course it's feasible. But is it true? Or do we just not give a damn any more about being in the right?
post #23 of 49
What would put us in the right is finding some horrible weapons over there. While Saddam being a butcher isn't a good thing, that's not supposed to be what makes us right in going into this war.
post #24 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Jacob Singer:
Of course it's feasible. But is it true? Or do we just not give a damn any more about being in the right?
If you are sitting in the sun, and you stick your head in the sand so that you can't see it, is it still sunny?

If it's raining, and you are getting wet, and you step under a bridge, is it still raining?

The answer to both of these is YES.

That is the same principal here.

The man has a proven record of killing people. Anyone he wants. Any time he wants. For any reason, or none at all.

Just because you don't see it plasted all over the tv does not mean it did not happen.

Just because you are dry, does not mean it is not raining.
post #25 of 49
True, true. You know what will be funny though? Until we find WMD's the administration will keep tooting the 'Iraqi Freedom' horn, but IF we do find any it'll go back to what a huge threat Saddam was to the world...

What this administration has done is shameful, and the way America is clapping itself on the back is even worse.
post #26 of 49
Thread Starter 
It's all spin, my friend. All spin.
post #27 of 49
My response was to piranha, not the psychic above...
post #28 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Jacob Singer:
My response was to piranha, not the psychic above...
Damn Jacob, and I thought you and I were starting to play nice with each other.

Oh well.
post #29 of 49
Hey, you're cool with me, even if you are a gun-totin' right-wing loonie.

post #30 of 49
Quote:
Jacob Singer:
True, true. You know what will be funny though? Until we find WMD's the administration will keep tooting the 'Iraqi Freedom' horn, but IF we do find any it'll go back to what a huge threat Saddam was to the world...
That's EXACTLY what will happen, and it's pretty disgusting.
post #31 of 49
I've always thought it best that a country deals with it's own demons. America fought for it's freedom because the people of America did it, sure we got help from the French, but it was a truly American effort. Iraq will not learn anything from this. They didn't have the choice in this revolution. They didn't mature enough to take matters into their own hands. We are expecting them to be fine now. Countries have to earn their own freedom by the fuck-ups that they make along the way. We are trying to teach a country to write in cursive before they can even print. They were always a fucked nation. Time is the only thing that can unfuck things. We will leave them a fucked nation still. A fucked nation that is a source for oil for us.

Machiavellian ways do not work.
post #32 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Jacob Singer:
Hey, you're cool with me, even if you are a gun-totin' right-wing loonie.

Fair enough, tree hugging, druid boy.
post #33 of 49
In all honesty does it even matter why anymore? I wasn't for going in but it's now a done deal, does it make even the slightest bit of difference after the fact? Arguing about how we are handling things over there now is one thing, arguing about why we were there in the first place seems a little pointless.
post #34 of 49
I would disagree, because why we were over there would be about accountability, and whether we were justified in going in the first place. Of course there isn't going to be any accountability, but it would be nice.
post #35 of 49
Accountable for what exactly?
post #36 of 49
Blowing the crap out of a country for possibly no real justification.
post #37 of 49
They can just make up whatever justification they want. At the end of the day Iraq is at least a little better off now and that is all Bush needs to keep telling everyone regardless of any real motives he may have.

***edited for poor typing skills***

post #38 of 49
So it doesn't bother you if we killed a bunch of people for no reason? As long as some made up justifications come later?
post #39 of 49
Quote:
Do you know what Saddam would do to someone's family who rised up against him?
The great thing is that I don't have to.

And neither do the obstructionists -such as ELF/Fina/Total.
post #40 of 49
Quote:
Angelus:
This "I don't give a fuck about the rest of the world" attitude is exactly why so many countries hate America.
I always thought it was the, "Can I have all your resources, but I want them cheap. And, if you don't play by my rules, I will fuck with you until you do" attitude that has led to most of the hatred. Most complaints I have ever read or heard about the US is that we go into foriegn lands and expect everyone to cater to our needs just because we are the US.
post #41 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Beer Die:
Quote:
Angelus:
This "I don't give a fuck about the rest of the world" attitude is exactly why so many countries hate America.
I always thought it was the, "Can I have all your resources, but I want them cheap. And, if you don't play by my rules, I will fuck with you until you do" attitude that has led to most of the hatred. Most complaints I have ever read or heard about the US is that we go into foriegn lands and expect everyone to cater to our needs just because we are the US.
So, your saying we are the "International" version of Martha Stewart?

So?

Why is this the case?

Because we can.

We have what others need. Others have what we need. It's all about business.

We just happen to be better at it.
post #42 of 49
Quote:
Angelus:
Well, that's easy for YOU to say when you and your family aren't in danger. Do you know what Saddam would do to someone's family who rised up against him? Would you be prepared to die, and then have your family tortured/killed? This "I don't give a fuck about the rest of the world" attitude is exactly why so many countries hate America.
No offense, but this is pretty far from accurate. Superpowers meddling in the affairs of the Middle East played a major part in Saddam's rise to power in the first place. We've all known he was a vicious leader all along--and our gov'ts approved of it until he invaded Kuwait, our other oil-bearing buddy in the region. All this mock outrage over Saddam's ruthlessness just rings completely hollow now.

After all, an unexploded cluster bomb suddenly going off in the middle of your street is no more forgiving than a gov't thug hired to beat your ass in the street, no matter how "honorable" the intentions behind them may be.

post #43 of 49
Quote:
Grifter:
We have what others need. Others have what we need. It's all about business.

We just happen to be better at it.
Not "better" at it, just a lot more ruthless and wielding all the clout necessary to force our will on the world, whenever and wherever necessary, so we always get what we want.

That goes a bit closer to understanding why a lot of the world hates us, and to a lesser extent the crippled faded former global power players France and the UK.

Because, basically, we're manipulative, bullying bastards who believe our own lies.
post #44 of 49
Quote:
piranhapictures:
So it doesn't bother you if we killed a bunch of people for no reason? As long as some made up justifications come later?
Didn't say that at all. I just said what is obvious to anyone who watches the news. Bush is just going to continue using whatever story is convenient at the time to justify invading. Any little bit of good that came from this will be latched onto and called justification. It doesn't matter if you think he is lying. It doesn't matter if he is lying. The deal is done. The protests didn't work. The only thing I'm saying is that after the fact it just doesn't really matter. You can't change what has already happened and you can't deny that some good has been done.
post #45 of 49
The protests did work.

The protesters knew they weren't going to stop the war, the protesters just wanted to let people know that there are Americans out there that DON'T agree with whatever the government spoonfeeds them. It allowed other people to have a voice against it without being alienated.
post #46 of 49
Quote:
otisthecat:
Didn't say that at all. I just said what is obvious to anyone who watches the news. Bush is just going to continue using whatever story is convenient at the time to justify invading. Any little bit of good that came from this will be latched onto and called justification. It doesn't matter if you think he is lying. It doesn't matter if he is lying. The deal is done. The protests didn't work. The only thing I'm saying is that after the fact it just doesn't really matter. You can't change what has already happened and you can't deny that some good has been done.
If enough people see through the president's justifications today, maybe he won't be able to use them again tomorrow.
post #47 of 49
So true. Saying "it's done, let's let it be..." well, why don't we say that to criminals when they're at trial, and let them go? It's a done deal, why look into it? You won't change anything by putting him in jail.
post #48 of 49
[quote]LlamaRama:
Quote:
If enough people see through the president's justifications today, maybe he won't be able to use them again tomorrow.
This I completely agree with. I think piranha is missing my point.
post #49 of 49
I get your point, I just disagree with it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Yeah, we should have left the poor, innocent guy alone.