Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the submitted-two-hundred-times dept.
MoonChild was the first of hundreds to submit that MSNBC, ABCNews and others are reporting that Saddam Hussein was arrested. This isn't normal Slashdot subject matter, but I figured it was worth mentioning.
Great - let's go and invade China then. They've been imprisoning, torturing, killing and generally oppressing their population for decades. Do you remember the troops turning on protestors in Tiananmen Square?
Or is it that Iraq is strategically useful and that even pressing China about human rights seems to cause problems with selling them goods and services?
Re:bin laden..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
a quotation from Saddam's Profile by BBC World: "The United States had quietly supported his war against Iran. They turned a blind eye to Iraq's human rights record and to atrocities like the gassing of the Kurdish villagers of Halabja" - looks like you woke up a bit late to save them. and please, don't be such an idiot and try to understand: US-forced UN sanctions during the last decade caused terrific damages to the Iraqi infrastructure, hospitals etc. - those millions I'm talking about!
Re:who cares?
by
Tony+Hoyle
·
· Score: 4, Informative
There were leaked photographs from a different angle that clearly showed:
(1) That there can't have been more than 50 people there. (2) There were clearly more press than Iraquis. (3) The troops had blocked off the surrounding streets which were deserted - presumably to stop anyone not part of the 'demonstration' from taking part.
Re:Iraqi, U.S., or international trial appropriate
by
Keebler71
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Flat-out wrong. The incidents you mention occurred on Feb 26 and Feb 27 of 1991. Cease-fire negotiations did not begin unitl March 1st and were not accepted until the 3rd of March. In doing this research, I did find some scant references to Iraq agreeing with a Russian plan to withdraw from Kuwait. This is irrelevant since it did not meet all of the US or UN demands, nevermind the fact that Iraq was at war with coalition forces, of which Russia was not a part. This would be somewhat like Nazi Germany agreeing with Italy to end WW2.
I can find no reference that details any proof what-so-ever that there were civilians in the convoy, again just scant claims that that was the case (no pictures of references of course).
As for the Geneva convention, being a military officer, I dare say that I am more educated than you in this matter but again, a simple web search clears things up.
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
The Geneva convention outlaws attacking civilians not engaged in hostilites and outlaws attacking surrendering combatants. Unfortunately, the Geneva Convention is poorly written on this point, as it refers to civilians and surrendering combatants in the same sentance. This leads to the misinterpretation that combatants not currently engaged in combat are somehow protected. There is a tremendous difference between retreat and surrender.
-- "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Only utter lack of diligence of study, or gross bias can explain your omission. I suspect the latter.
-- HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:bin laden..
by
canajin56
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Wrong. Please stop repeating that. The Kurds were killed in a fight between Iranian and Iraqi forces in their city. They were not the intentional targets of either sides chemical weapons. And the US Army sent in specialists after the battle, that concluded in a nice big official report that they were killed by Iranian chemical weapons, since Iraq was using Mustard Gas, but they were killed by a blood agent, which chlorine gas is not. So, IRAN accidentially killed Kurds with chemical weapons. Both sides were irresponsible for using their US weapons in a populated city, however. (That's right, both bought their chemical weapons from the US government)
While we are talking about that sort of thing, mass graves: In accordance with their religion, Muslims bury their dead as soon as possible. That is why there was such an outrage over displaying the corpses of Hussein's sons. Because it was desecrating their dead! Especially dressing them up and cleaning their wounds, which you are also not supposed to do! (To put it in a Sci-Fi context, the series Space: Above and Beyond. The aliens mutulated fallen human troops. Humans were outraged and disgusted. But it turns out that the aliens were honouring their fallen foes as they honoured their own dead. And they were outraged in turn, by humans daring to cover their fallen with dirt, or else burn them to nothing.)
But anyways, the result is that if thousands of people are killed, mass graves are really the only option. So what killed all of these people. Well, after Gulf War I, the US told the Shi'ite and the Kurds that they had completely destroyed the Iraqi army. Both peoples revolted, slaughtering entire cities. Now, the Republican Guard was not so decimated as the US told them, and they regrouped after the war, and put down the rebellions with deadly force. That is where the mass graves came from. Because it would dishonor the dead to fix them up, and put them in their best clothes, and ship them off to their family, and THEN bury them. They needed to be burried as soon as possible.
Now, perhaps they used too much force...let's imagine this: Say some group in the US somewhere, it doesn't really matter who, realizes that most of the National Guard and army Reserves are already off in Iraq. So they rise up in a few cities, and kill all of the police, and the mayor, and basically anybody who works for any sort of government. City sanitation, DMV, everybody. Now, that done, they move on to the next city. People who fight back at them are killed, too. Now, what would the National Guard be justified in doing to them? Should they bust out the tear gas and rubber bullets? Or the mortars and the gunships?
Now, on to Kuwait. In 1990, Hussein in person flew to the White House, and asked G. H. W. Bush's permission to invade. And George said to go for it, it was none of his business what Iraq did to protect itself from oil thieves. And I think everybody knows what follows after that. Either way, Kuwait is run by a dictatorship with death squards, too. But the dictator is pro-US, so it is a good brutal regeim. But that sort of thing completely negates any "We had to get rid of a brutah dictator!" argument, since they are propping up another right next door!
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I like Saddam, or think he was a particularly good leader. But many of the justifications given are pure lies, plain and simple. They said he had WMD, and he didn't. People have been saying "Well he shouldn't have made us think he did!" but he spend a year professing his innocence, saying he had none. He gave the inspectors free reign (He didn't want them in his palaces, but eventually gave in. Understandable, they ARE his houses, after all) People say his commits genocide. But many of the supporting evidence for that statement is false. (Unless there are others I have missed, of course. But the US reports clearly state that it wasn't Iraq that did it. So the only way to prove the US right is by first proving the US
The War is illegal because it was never declared. In a legal sence, the United States of America has only been at war with Iraq one time. 1991. Since then we've bombed a soverign state for shits and giggles, but haven't really declared war. War has fairly cristiline properties in international law.
You're wrong. Yes, the war was illegal but not because of the reason you give. International law is complicated but as far as war is concerned it's very simple:
1. War is illegal except in two cases:
2. It's legal as defense against an immediate attack.
3. It's legal if it has a UN mandate.
Thus the war was illegal but declaring or not declaring it has nothing to do with that.
-- Karma. Moderation. Is my.sig good now?
Your facts are wrong
by
Sinbit
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You're facts are wrong. Firstly, it's was not the UN food program, but the Oil for Food program which was paid with Iraqi oil.
Secondly, a large part of the money from the "food" program was used to compensate foreign firms which had lost out through the war and sanctions.
Thirdly, a lot of essential medicines and other essential medical supplies such as oxygen could not be imported because of "dual use" considerations.
Fourthly, the UN money was kept in an escrow account in New York City. All purchases were done by UN officials.
See Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility interview with Hans Von Sponeck, and Stephen Kinzer, NY Times, Jan 3rd 1999
You know better than you president?
by
Zan+Zu+from+Eridu
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Now go and convince your own president you're right.
Fresh Perspectives
by
knautilus316
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I have no military service, and I'm too involved in school to sign up now, but I feel I wouldn't be doing my part if I didn't add my two cents in here.
I don't like President Bush. I think he is a short-sighted, uneducated, intolerant redneck, and it frightens me that he has the ability to launch nuclear missiles. But saying that this war is wrong or that it is illegal simply does not make sense. If there is an intelligent argument against this, I have yet to read it.
Your argument does not make sense.
To accuse President Bush of war crimes and not accuse Saddam Hussein at the same time is as massive MASSIVE hypocrisy. Look at the mass graves. Look at the soldiers dressed in civilian clothing, firing on coalition troops. Look at the countless incidents of Iraqi soldiers feigning surrender only to fire on coalition troops who were willing to show them mercy. Look at the thousands of Shiite Muslims who were killed by nerve gas on Saddam's orders after the first Gulf War. Look at the torture chambers that have been found. Look at the incidents of Iraqi troops firing on unarmed civilians, fleeing the horror of the war. Look at the stockpiles of humanitarian aid that were gathered up and never distributed to the people of Iraq. Look at the squads of professional rapists Saddam used to torture women and children. The list goes on and on. There are too many to name.
Your argument does not make sense.
It saddens me that people can be so blind to how simple this is. You disgust me. UN Resolution 1441 states very clearly that the point was never to "find" biological or chemical weapons in Iraq; the point was to prove whether or not they are there. And it states in no uncertain terms that absolute and unquestioned cooperation was demanded of Saddam's regime. Resolution 1441 can be found here.
Resolution 1441 also notes many previous Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, of which I've counted four that explicitly declare Iraq in violation of the cease-fire of the first Gulf War. There are others that deal with humanitarian problems caused by Saddam's regime, and property stolen from Kuwait (which I might add was never returned or repaid).
Look further at the reports from UN weapons inspection teams, complaining of Iraq's failure to cooperate in the terms set out by Resolution 1441. Unconditional, unrestricted, unquestioned cooperation was demanded, and it was not received. I should probably mention that Iraq *eventually* cooperated with most of the things demanded in Resolution 1441, but the very fact that they cooperated "eventually" constitutes a material breach of the resolution.
Your argument does not make sense.
For every point you try to make to prove your case against the war, twelve can be brought up to prove otherwise.
Today is a great day for the world. Saddam Hussein is not worth the bullet it would take to shoot him. He is an evil, violent man who would eagerly put every man, woman, and child in the world under the control of his equally evil and violent regime, if only he could get his hands on weapons powerful enough to allow it. But you accuse President Bush of war crimes?
It doesn't make sense. It is untrue, and unfair. It is a lie, and it is hypocritical.
Read the facts people. I've tried very hard to understand the opposing viewpoint, but the only explanation I can come up with is either the silent support of terrorism and atrocity, or gross GROSS ignorance to the facts of the matter.
I'm sorry for making this post so long, but I have a lot to say on this matter. Don't believe protest groups, don't believe presidents or politicians, and don't believe France. Read the UN resolutions and reports from expert committees appointed by the UN. After you've read those, see if you can come up with a reasonable argument using facts, not slander.
God bless America! God bless Iraq! May freedom ring so much farther than from sea to shining sea. May it reach so far and ring so loud that even the most ravaged and brutalized nations of the world hear it as clearly as we do in America.
Slashdot Mirror
Great - let's go and invade China then. They've been imprisoning, torturing, killing and generally oppressing their population for decades.
Do you remember the troops turning on protestors in Tiananmen Square?
Or is it that Iraq is strategically useful and that even pressing China about human rights seems to cause problems with selling them goods and services?
a quotation from Saddam's Profile by BBC World: "The United States had quietly supported his war against Iran. They turned a blind eye to Iraq's human rights record and to atrocities like the gassing of the Kurdish villagers of Halabja" - looks like you woke up a bit late to save them. and please, don't be such an idiot and try to understand: US-forced UN sanctions during the last decade caused terrific damages to the Iraqi infrastructure, hospitals etc. - those millions I'm talking about!
There were leaked photographs from a different angle that clearly showed:
(1) That there can't have been more than 50 people there.
(2) There were clearly more press than Iraquis.
(3) The troops had blocked off the surrounding streets which were deserted - presumably to stop anyone not part of the 'demonstration' from taking part.
There were six deaths and 1400 injuries in the original WTC bombing in 1993...
But don't take my word for it... here's the Wikipedia entry for the incident
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Photo from a different angle.
I can find no reference that details any proof what-so-ever that there were civilians in the convoy, again just scant claims that that was the case (no pictures of references of course).
As for the Geneva convention, being a military officer, I dare say that I am more educated than you in this matter but again, a simple web search clears things up.
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
The Geneva convention outlaws attacking civilians not engaged in hostilites and outlaws attacking surrendering combatants. Unfortunately, the Geneva Convention is poorly written on this point, as it refers to civilians and surrendering combatants in the same sentance. This leads to the misinterpretation that combatants not currently engaged in combat are somehow protected. There is a tremendous difference between retreat and surrender."It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
No US citizens have died from foreign terrorism on U.S. soil EVER... until GWB.
You are wrong.
Only utter lack of diligence of study, or gross bias can explain your omission. I suspect the latter.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Wrong. Please stop repeating that. The Kurds were killed in a fight between Iranian and Iraqi forces in their city. They were not the intentional targets of either sides chemical weapons. And the US Army sent in specialists after the battle, that concluded in a nice big official report that they were killed by Iranian chemical weapons, since Iraq was using Mustard Gas, but they were killed by a blood agent, which chlorine gas is not. So, IRAN accidentially killed Kurds with chemical weapons. Both sides were irresponsible for using their US weapons in a populated city, however. (That's right, both bought their chemical weapons from the US government)
While we are talking about that sort of thing, mass graves: In accordance with their religion, Muslims bury their dead as soon as possible. That is why there was such an outrage over displaying the corpses of Hussein's sons. Because it was desecrating their dead! Especially dressing them up and cleaning their wounds, which you are also not supposed to do! (To put it in a Sci-Fi context, the series Space: Above and Beyond. The aliens mutulated fallen human troops. Humans were outraged and disgusted. But it turns out that the aliens were honouring their fallen foes as they honoured their own dead. And they were outraged in turn, by humans daring to cover their fallen with dirt, or else burn them to nothing.)
But anyways, the result is that if thousands of people are killed, mass graves are really the only option. So what killed all of these people. Well, after Gulf War I, the US told the Shi'ite and the Kurds that they had completely destroyed the Iraqi army. Both peoples revolted, slaughtering entire cities. Now, the Republican Guard was not so decimated as the US told them, and they regrouped after the war, and put down the rebellions with deadly force. That is where the mass graves came from. Because it would dishonor the dead to fix them up, and put them in their best clothes, and ship them off to their family, and THEN bury them. They needed to be burried as soon as possible.
Now, perhaps they used too much force...let's imagine this: Say some group in the US somewhere, it doesn't really matter who, realizes that most of the National Guard and army Reserves are already off in Iraq. So they rise up in a few cities, and kill all of the police, and the mayor, and basically anybody who works for any sort of government. City sanitation, DMV, everybody. Now, that done, they move on to the next city. People who fight back at them are killed, too. Now, what would the National Guard be justified in doing to them? Should they bust out the tear gas and rubber bullets? Or the mortars and the gunships?
Now, on to Kuwait. In 1990, Hussein in person flew to the White House, and asked G. H. W. Bush's permission to invade. And George said to go for it, it was none of his business what Iraq did to protect itself from oil thieves. And I think everybody knows what follows after that. Either way, Kuwait is run by a dictatorship with death squards, too. But the dictator is pro-US, so it is a good brutal regeim. But that sort of thing completely negates any "We had to get rid of a brutah dictator!" argument, since they are propping up another right next door!
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I like Saddam, or think he was a particularly good leader. But many of the justifications given are pure lies, plain and simple. They said he had WMD, and he didn't. People have been saying "Well he shouldn't have made us think he did!" but he spend a year professing his innocence, saying he had none. He gave the inspectors free reign (He didn't want them in his palaces, but eventually gave in. Understandable, they ARE his houses, after all) People say his commits genocide. But many of the supporting evidence for that statement is false. (Unless there are others I have missed, of course. But the US reports clearly state that it wasn't Iraq that did it. So the only way to prove the US right is by first proving the US
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
The War is illegal because it was never declared. In a legal sence, the United States of America has only been at war with Iraq one time. 1991. Since then we've bombed a soverign state for shits and giggles, but haven't really declared war. War has fairly cristiline properties in international law.
You're wrong. Yes, the war was illegal but not because of the reason you give. International law is complicated but as far as war is concerned it's very simple:
1. War is illegal except in two cases:
2. It's legal as defense against an immediate attack.
3. It's legal if it has a UN mandate.
Thus the war was illegal but declaring or not declaring it has nothing to do with that.
Karma. Moderation. Is my
You're facts are wrong. Firstly, it's was not the UN food program, but the Oil for Food program which was paid with Iraqi oil.
Secondly, a large part of the money from the "food" program was used to compensate foreign firms which had lost out through the war and sanctions.
Thirdly, a lot of essential medicines and other essential medical supplies such as oxygen could not be imported because of "dual use" considerations.
Fourthly, the UN money was kept in an escrow account in New York City. All purchases were done by UN officials.
See Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility interview with Hans Von Sponeck, and Stephen Kinzer, NY Times, Jan 3rd 1999
Now go and convince your own president you're right.
I have no military service, and I'm too involved in school to sign up now, but I feel I wouldn't be doing my part if I didn't add my two cents in here.
I don't like President Bush. I think he is a short-sighted, uneducated, intolerant redneck, and it frightens me that he has the ability to launch nuclear missiles. But saying that this war is wrong or that it is illegal simply does not make sense. If there is an intelligent argument against this, I have yet to read it.
Your argument does not make sense.
To accuse President Bush of war crimes and not accuse Saddam Hussein at the same time is as massive MASSIVE hypocrisy. Look at the mass graves. Look at the soldiers dressed in civilian clothing, firing on coalition troops. Look at the countless incidents of Iraqi soldiers feigning surrender only to fire on coalition troops who were willing to show them mercy. Look at the thousands of Shiite Muslims who were killed by nerve gas on Saddam's orders after the first Gulf War. Look at the torture chambers that have been found. Look at the incidents of Iraqi troops firing on unarmed civilians, fleeing the horror of the war. Look at the stockpiles of humanitarian aid that were gathered up and never distributed to the people of Iraq. Look at the squads of professional rapists Saddam used to torture women and children. The list goes on and on. There are too many to name.
Your argument does not make sense.
It saddens me that people can be so blind to how simple this is. You disgust me. UN Resolution 1441 states very clearly that the point was never to "find" biological or chemical weapons in Iraq; the point was to prove whether or not they are there. And it states in no uncertain terms that absolute and unquestioned cooperation was demanded of Saddam's regime. Resolution 1441 can be found here.
Resolution 1441 also notes many previous Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, of which I've counted four that explicitly declare Iraq in violation of the cease-fire of the first Gulf War. There are others that deal with humanitarian problems caused by Saddam's regime, and property stolen from Kuwait (which I might add was never returned or repaid).
Look further at the reports from UN weapons inspection teams, complaining of Iraq's failure to cooperate in the terms set out by Resolution 1441. Unconditional, unrestricted, unquestioned cooperation was demanded, and it was not received. I should probably mention that Iraq *eventually* cooperated with most of the things demanded in Resolution 1441, but the very fact that they cooperated "eventually" constitutes a material breach of the resolution.
Your argument does not make sense.
For every point you try to make to prove your case against the war, twelve can be brought up to prove otherwise.
Today is a great day for the world. Saddam Hussein is not worth the bullet it would take to shoot him. He is an evil, violent man who would eagerly put every man, woman, and child in the world under the control of his equally evil and violent regime, if only he could get his hands on weapons powerful enough to allow it. But you accuse President Bush of war crimes?
It doesn't make sense. It is untrue, and unfair. It is a lie, and it is hypocritical.
Read the facts people. I've tried very hard to understand the opposing viewpoint, but the only explanation I can come up with is either the silent support of terrorism and atrocity, or gross GROSS ignorance to the facts of the matter.
I'm sorry for making this post so long, but I have a lot to say on this matter. Don't believe protest groups, don't believe presidents or politicians, and don't believe France. Read the UN resolutions and reports from expert committees appointed by the UN. After you've read those, see if you can come up with a reasonable argument using facts, not slander.
God bless America! God bless Iraq! May freedom ring so much farther than from sea to shining sea. May it reach so far and ring so loud that even the most ravaged and brutalized nations of the world hear it as clearly as we do in America.
~Knautilus