Did anti-war activists seem indifferent on Saddam's atrocities?

[2004Donkeys]

Let me state first off I don't believe for a second that Bush committed troops to fight in Iraq to stop Uday, Qusay, and Saddam from torturing people.

But it seemed as if some were dismissive of the atrocities that took place. There should have been a middle ground available to oppose the war but still wish that the Hussein three would come to justice (via diplomacy, internal revolt, a real coalition, stating this as the reason for action in Iraq but I'm not so sure about this last one). Instead, we had apologists for Uday and Qusay which I believe bolstered Bush's approval during the war.

If you had to ask me which politician's views on Iraq did I most agree with, I would say it would have to be President Clinton's. Clinton stated right off the bat that Saddam Hussein was a terrible person, but he urged Bush to develop a coalition to fight the war and work with diplomacy first. In fact, he tried to help Bush out (in a good way) by talking to Chirac and Schroeder.

Dismissing claims of atrocities as untrue or minor only helped the Repukes in pushing the case for war last year.

[htuttle]

1. Who the heck are you talking about?

I think I've read something like two out of nearly 40,000 registered members at DU say anything like what you suggest.

At worst, once can easily point out that the US still supports a whole number of regimes just as cruel as Hussein ever was. In addition, I've heard some point out (correctly) that Hussein was just as cruel back when he had US support.

In other words, I've read a fair amount of pointing out the hypocrisy of it. But I've RARELY read any apologizing for the Hussein regime.

Are you talking about what you've actually read and heard from 'anti-war leftists' or what you are TOLD they've said?

Here's a plum: Back when Hussein was being supported by the Reagan and Bush administrations, I demonstrated against our support of Hussein in Milwaukee (along with some ex-pat Iranian friends angry about the war we talked Hussein into starting). I was told by angry Reaganites that I was un-American, since Hussein was 'on our side'.

So I call BULLCRAP on this argument. BULLCRAP. It's always situational with the US. These 'moral arguments' are merely cover for corporate interest.

BULLCRAP.

[LeahMira]

22. Htuttle, help me out with this please.

At worst, once can easily point out that the US still supports a whole number of regimes just as cruel as Hussein ever was.

I'm sure that's true, but it doesn't make it right.

Here's a plum: Back when Hussein was being supported by the Reagan and Bush administrations, I demonstrated against our support of Hussein in Milwaukee (along with some ex-pat Iranian friends angry about the war we talked Hussein into starting).

I commend you for doing that. Sometimes I wonder where I was when all this was going on... raising three kids I suppose.

Anyhow, you are right and were right. This country has no business arming, aiding and abetting dictators simply because it is expedient for our own corporate or military interests to use those dictators. I don't agree with the idea that we have to deal with the devil sometimes, and I think that if we can't come up with a better way to do things we are stupid.

But this country also did nothing to stop Hitler, for instance, until Germany declared war on us. I don't know that the U.S. put Hitler into power but once we were aware of the genocide that was going on we still refused to be involved.

I guess that is a real stumbling point for me. Once the U.S. is aware that there is a rogue nation out there violating the human rights of citizens, whether or not we had anything to do with the situation at its inception, don't we have some responsibility to use our power and influence (such as it is nowadays!) to try to oust that ruler and that government and to end the oppression?

Regardless of what nuclear weapons might be developed, for instance, don't we have some responsibility to the people in North Korea?

I support the United Nations, but I also get frustrated because it seems to do so little to stop the oppression of so many human beings. I agree that the U.S. operates "situationally" as you put it, but sometimes it seems that nobody in the rest of the world really cares.

What do you think?

[htuttle]

23. That's one of the issues humanity needs to confront this century

We have no common agreement on what sort of conduct is permissible on Earth, and what is not.

Where is 'the line' that a nation or a leader can cross that will bring an intervention from the rest of the world? How many people does a leader have to kill before we do something? 6,000,000? 3,000,000? 1,000,000? 100,000? 10,000 There's no agreement on this. We can't be too sanctimonious at this stage, either, since with our capital punishment, we are much higher on 'the list' than many other governments.

The UN agrees on intervention in cases like Liberia, where tens of thousands are displaced and thousands killed due to a civil war, yet does not intervene in cases like Rwanda or Cambodia where millions were killed in cold blood. And then there's the Middle East...

The reason for this, of course, is that the UN is also being used situationally -- most of the time by the US. It speaks to Bush's diplomatic failures for the UN to have said NO to immediately invading Iraq. Generally, the Security Council has been in our pocket (because we designed it that way), save for vetos from the Chinese and/or 'Soviets'.

But perhaps it's also because, at least in the US, we have not taken up the discussion on what is an 'internal matter' to a country, and what sorts of things should be considered 'everybody's business'. The planet is lacking a universal Declaration of Human Rights -- or rather, a declaration of rights that everyone can agree on. At what level are we all our brothers' keepers, to mangle a parable?

I thought the world was getting closer to some common agreements by the end of Clinton's presidency. I was getting the feeling that we, as a planet, were about to decide that wars of acquisition were finally considered 'bad', and as long as the major powers kept to this decision, they could keep the smaller powers in line. Presto -- almost world peace! Baby steps, but at least in the right direction.

Then Bush came along and f*cked it all up. When the most powerful member of an organization breaks it's rules, it sort of opens up the door to everyone breaking the rules, since there will be no penalty. Other than a situational one (ie., a deal).

So the way I see it, humanity is on a growth track. The world was on it, then Bush drove the whole damn thing right into the freaking ditch. I have no idea whether the world will ultimately be able to get the thing (which I guess is the UN in this metaphor) back on the road, or whether it's totaled.

I imagine that the issue of restitution for illegally invading Iraq on the part of the US might have a bearing on the matter.

Regarding Korea: I don't honestly know. The ethical questions involved in thinking about whether North Korea 'crosses the line' for UN intervention keep me awake at night, and I have to doubt much of the information I hear, given that it comes from the Bush administration and their henchmen. However, I have no faith in the Bush administration to make the right decisions about North Korea, or any other part of the world.

[LeahMira]

31. Thank you!

I think that the U.S. is in a unique position to lead the world's nations to consider these kinds of issues. Unfortunately, with the current administration, that isn't going to happen. I can hope a Democratic president would do things differently, but I really don't see that happening. Not one candidate is talking about it. It's pretty discouraging.

[maggrwaggr]

37. The USSR had nukes. They had WMD's. They were a threat.

so by neocon logic we should have started a pre-emptive war with the Soviet Union.

I'll say one thing:

containment works.

[Snow]

2. No!

You're building a straw-man. I'm a Quaker, so I know a lot of anti-war activists, consider myself one. None I know of were dismissive of Saddam's penchant for nastiness. Having said that, I think a number of us suspect a lot of claims about Sadam were manufactured - shocking though that may be. Futhermore, there are tons of people out there just as atrocious, or more so, than Saddam & friends, but who get a fee pass from the US. But you knew this already, eh? The best way to not have Saddam acting badly would've been not to put him in power,or having done that, support him. But since we did that, IMHO the preferred route would be to leave Iraq be - the man posed no threat.

Finally, I dispute your claim that Dismissing claims of atrocities as untrue or minor only helped the Repukes in pushing the case for war last year.". Bushco didn't give a flying fart about anybody's opinion - they were gonna have their war however they could.

[theoceansnerves]

3. no

Dismissing claims of atrocities as untrue or minor only helped the Repukes in pushing the case for war last year.

who did this? i don't know ANY anti-war activists that did this.

[Shoedogg]

4. Hmmm...

I don't recall anyone dismissing or being indifferent to the Husseins. I certainly don't recall any apologists. If my memory serves, all parties on both sides of the war issue agreed that the Husseins were bad for and to the Iraqi people.

Can you give an example?

[damnraddem]

5. No, the general line was to acknowledge them, ...

note the U.S. support for them until 1991, and argue that the invasion was wrong.

Some of us could and did note that we had opposed U.S. support for Saddam back in the 1980s, when he was using U.S.-supplied weapons to kill hundreds of thousands.

And by the way, I have for decades been very pro-Kurdish, and I argued back when opposing the invasion of Iraq that the no-fly zones were important, especially the northern one because it allowed unprecedented Kurdish autonomy.

[proud patriot]

6. Not the ones I know and talk to

We were upset about it in the 80s when they happened .

[Mandate My Ass]

7. Atrocities was not the justification for war

It only became such because the WMD claim was trumped up garbage, just as the anti-war people knew. I don't know who are the apologists you're referring to but nobody here said that. Oh, and since we're on the subject of sound bites, he "gassed his own people" with the blessing and help of republican administrations.

[Solly Mack]

8. Huh?

No one is defending Saddam when they state the war is illegal...built on lies and motives of greed.

And no one is claiming Saddam is good when they say...."all war is evil."


To suggest being anti-war amounts to supporting Saddam is to forsake reason for pure emotional rhetoric. It's appealing to the people's prejudice when such is the time to appeal to reason and rational thought.

the end does not justify the means...

[BillZBubb]

9. Some were dismissive?

You can find a few people who'll say just about anything. Perhaps you go caught in the propaganda the right was pushing that claimed Democrats, and liberals in particular, didn't care about Saddam Husseins atrocities? It's a typical trick of the right. They find a kook that says something and then paint the entire opposition as believing it.

Maybe you can tell us the names of some of these indifferent anti-war activists?

The vast majority of Democrats had no doubts about Saddam Hussein's cruelties. But, the atrocities (most perpetrated a decade or more ago) didn't justify a unilateral attack on Iraq by the U.S. and the subsequent mess that would cause.

Is that what you mean by indifference?

[blondeatlast]

10. There were a few, but I think the big, vast, majority

of us were well aware the man was a sadistic, megalomaniac bastard.

Edit: I don't know of any protestors who ever were SH apolologists, though. A few flakes of "but the country is so well off socially" arguments, but there are flakes on both sides.

[tinnypriv]

11. "some"

Who? Name them.

[Minstrel Boy]

12. anti-war activists bent over backwards to acknowledge that Saddam

was no hero, and his regime a tyranny.

Saddam had been Rumsfeld's pal, not ours. And his greatest crimes were committed when he was closest to Washington.

[YNGW]

13. SF

This is sorta on subject.

I was in San Francisco visiting a friend in March last year and attended one of the protest marches. I did see signs that said Saddam should be left alone, that he wasn't a terrorist, that * was.

Even more interesting, I saw people selling T-shirts with a picture of * and underneath it said "Terrorist" right next to T-Shirts with pictures of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot that said "Power To The People". I would say things like that wouldn't play well with the public in general.

[KelleyKramer]

14. I was concerned when Rumsfeld met with Saddum

As for your comments, I havent seen or heard one single protestor say what you claim so wouldn’t be able to comment on it except to say ...

I knew Saddum was an evil bastard when Donald Rumsfeld met with him to sell him WMD's.

I knew Saddum was an evil bastard when Bush Sr gave him billions in US tax money loans.

I knew Saddum was an evil bastard in the 90's when Dick Cheney was doing millions of dollars in business with him.

So someone saying Saddum is a bad guy was nothing new, its just the people saying it were.

[blondeatlast]

17. You nailed it. Excellent post! nt

[Deja Q]

15. Context. Besides, George H W Bush was pretty indifferent too...

Remember after the Kuwait war of 1991, driving Iraq out of a country that stole their oil. Daddy Bush allowed Hussein to use helicopters and other military devices, WITH WEAPONS. Hussein promptly allowed his troops to slaughter many of his own subjects. (this was probably when the Iraqis realized the duplicity and phoniness of the United States, which is contributing to why they don't want us there whatsoever.)

Yes, Hussein et al were vermin.

Daddy Bush was a dimwit. His son being far less intelligent, too. I suspect inbreeding, but who knows?

Add in that Rumdrinker helped Hussein in the mid-80s against those "evil Commmies" (another sigh aimed at the twatbastards who have to conjure up enemies just so they can have a more satisfying orgasm at night)... If I were a citizen of a foreign country and had access to the information, I wouldn't be trusting the US right now either.

It's all a mess, we need to stay there until we get them to organize and help themselves and even mainstream media has shown Iraqi citizens openly saying, remarkably calmly, that Bush's* actions have made them hate the US. That's all I know. We can't leave them in a lurch. We did that in Afghanistan after those evil commies were defeated and look at who took over. Why by golly, it was the Taliban!!! It's fucking stupid to drop people we've pretended to support (I say pretend because we were there for only our interests, not theirs - that's obvious).

Dunno. Saddam may have ultimately been a threat, but a threat that was comparable to a mosquito on crack. That's not much of a threat, all Saddam did was squash opposition and threaten everybody else (sound familiar?) Bush's* actions have clearly created a lot more potential terrorists, especially if we start seeing more people entering this country from abroad. (It's no wonder Rumdrinker and Asscrack want to fingerprint all immigrants from the Middle East. Given their own past history, the US has been no legitimate friend over there.)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. No, back in the days when Rummy had his picture taken

with Saddam Hussein, many of us were upset that the Reagan admin was siding with such a thug, simply because Iran was on the other side.

Sad to say, Saddam Hussein was hardly the only dictator in the world, and not even one of the worst in my lifetime.

Although Saddam Hussein was extremely brutal to his opponents and some ethnic and religious groups, he appears to have been one of those dictators (unlike the North Koreans, say) who allowed normal life to continue for the majority of non-politicized people. In fact, his secularism meant that Iraqi women had more rights than in most Arab countries and that the educational system was at a higher level.

This is far from being a Saddam apologist. It's just pointing out that on a dictatorship scale, where 10 would be Pol Pot, Saddam was probably about a 6.

[ComerPerro]

18. I think you have fallen for the right wing lies

If you are against the war, you are a Saddam apologist.

That is not the case at all.

[ithacan]

19. Saddam committed his worst atrocities when the GOP supported him

he was only dangerous to Iraqis when the US Republicans were backing him...
\
And if that was the real reason for going in, why didn't they just say so instead of going through all the WMD bullsh--?

[loudnclear]

20. No more "indifferent" than the Reagan/Bush administration.

How's sending WMDs and bio-weapons materials to the regime for indifference? Are anti-war protestors to blame for Saddam atoscities or are the people who helped him to blame?

[rustydog]

21. Your question should be...

IF we removed Saddam because of how he treated his people...
Shouldn't we remove the dictator in uzbeckistan (I believe) who watches his detractors being boiled alive?

Pakistan still supports terrorists and it is our ally...WHY?
Saddam did commit atrocities..when in hell did America become the world's GOD determining punishment and reward?

Our invasion killed tens of thousands...the invasion violated international law..that makes Bush a war criminal on the level of Milosevich, who will punish him for his atrocities?

[Oilwellian]

24. So, 2004Donkeys

Why haven't you replied to any of the good posts on this thread? Is it just part of your nature to hit and run?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leesa]

25. I doubt this is true. Saddam was no doubt a bad guy, but I highly doubt

he was as bad as US propaganda made him out to be.
I DO know that the last few years or so there were fewer executions in Iraq than in the US, I do know that the "gassing of his own people" episode was during a battle and the town gassed was accidental (collateral damage, as we would say) and that the gas was presumably Iranian based on a distinctive smell, and that the "mass graves" were from the time we encouraged an uprising of Iraqis against Saddam and then we abandoned those Iraqis and they were slaughtered.
So, yes he was a bad guy. So is Bush. So was Kissenger. So was Nixon, etc., etc. What's your point?

[dpibel]

26. I Confess

Damn my black and evil heart.

Here's what happened: Reprobate that I am, I had the temerity to question this round of "Saddam is the earthly incarnation of Old Ned hissownself." My bad, but I remembered BushWar I, with such hits as the amazing disappearing incubator babies, and the army of billions massed along the Saudi border. (For the irony or history challenged, both those were major selling points for whacking Iraq v.1991; both were, ummmm, what's that word? oh yeah! Lies.)

Now I know this was bad, but I'm in a confessional mood. I went to the Amnesty International website, and looked at their annual reports on Iraq for the five years leading up to Iraq v.BabyBoosh. Now, Amnesty International doesn't, so far as I've ever heard, have a rep for downplaying the evil of anyone. They don't even give a pass to God's Own Country, having a perfectly vicious habit of reporting capital punishment as violations of human rights. So you wouldn't expect to find Amnesty doing anything but reporting to the max these millions and millions of people that Saddam 'n his boys were killing every year. Right?

Here's what I found: In the years 1998-2001, Amnesty reported the number of politically-motivated murders as. . . (ready?)

Hundreds.

But that all changed in 2002, as The Country of God's Own Justice prepared to invade Iraq. Indeed, in that year, Amnesty allowed as how the number of such killings had changed drastically, and they reported the number as. . .

Dozens.

Now you can, as you wish, call me a Saddam apologist for telling you this. It escapes me how having a look at whether I am being lied to, and reporting my findings, constitutes doing anything but just that.

I do have a little bit of a problem with the righteousness of saying we had to invade right away to save all those Iraqi lives when, according to Amnesty International, the maximum number of political killings in the five years before the invasion was 4,095. By any account I'm aware of, the US invasion of Iraq has resulted in about twice that many deaths of civilians and, of course, we don't even bother with how many Iraqi soldiers died (regardless of whether they were volunteers or conscripts and regardless, in either case, of the fact that they were human beings).

Perhaps someone can sort this out for me, how killing more saved lots of lives.

I suspect that, in order to get to the vast numbers bruited about as the victims of S. Hussein's personal actions, you have to count the people who died in the Iran/Iraq war (which the US fomented, and in which the US supported Hussein) and the people who died in GulfWar v.Daddy, and the people who died when DaddyBush forgot to make good on his promise to support a popular uprising (the most likely source of the storied mass graves), and the people who died as a result of the sanctions program (which was mostly US instigated and which, it increasingly appears, should have been lifted before it was imposed, since the regime had done what it said it had, and got rid of its designated nastyweapons). If you include all those, you get some big numbers.

But if you count the war dead, then you have to equally hold any country's leader personally and satanically responsible for the people he sends off to fight in wars. If you count the people who died in the insurgency, you should probably count Abe Lincoln as a major evil for killing lots of people putting down an insurgency in his country (of course the difference is that the Confederates were wrong and the Shiites were right) Please try to note: I am not arguing that Hussein was right to kill people putting down the insurgency. I am simply pointing out the fallacy of including the people killed in that civil war as the particular victims of the personal evil of Hussein. There's a difference.

So what does this make me? A Saddam apologist? I'm just a person who wants to know if there's anything to back up the story that's coming to me from a singularly untrustworthy administration.

I find it eternally amazing that there are people who will tell you that you can't trust our Fierce Warrior Chieftain as far as you can throw an SUV, but on that Saddam Hussein guy every story they told is the unvarnished truth.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Flame away, but before you resort to mere name calling, go to the Amnesty International website, read their reports, and come back to tell me where I missed the part that makes the guy waaaaay worse than the many killers that the US supports.

[beanball]

28. "The butcher of Baghdad" VS "The butcher of the Palestine"

when are the American people going to hold the media and this administration accountable for the lies that have been and continue to be told about the middle east conflict?Sharon is a terrorist, a butcher and he is an evil man,but we call all Arabs terrorists,its racist and we all know thats a fact,our troops are dying for lies that the pro Sharon thugs are telling the American people,one of these days the facts will reveal that we are putty in the hands of the money men of this planet,WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.Evict the lying,greedy bastards that started this war or we will never know peace again.

[bobbyboucher]

29. Oh pshaw.

Why did the Reagan and Bush Admins. get in bed with Saddam? Without their help, he probably wouldn't have killed nearly as many as he "allegedly" killed. Why did they help him?

Don't waste time asking ridiculous questions about why people protested a rush to war which they knew was only for one reason, OIL. The protesters knew what would happen, and it is happeneing, an enormous and growing disaster. It could have been done differently, but we wouldn't be able to control the oil. Instead, ask why Reagan/Bush/Rummy/Cheney got on their knees in front of Saddam and sucked his cock? I'll tell you why, cause they would fuck a snake if you held its head, if it meant another penny of wealth, ounce of oil, or the promise of power. THEY ARE WHORES.

Get your priorities straight buster.

[Kinkistyle]

30. One end of scale: Weakened Saddam, on other end: all-out civil war

The balance falls decidedly on living with a Saddam for the time being and using diplomacy and prudent international economic and military pressure to keep a leash on Saddam's actions, hopefully bringing about peaceful change in the region.

Now that we are in Iraq, not only have many many more Iraqi's died and will die as a result of that, so will many Americans. Not too mention the inevitable increase of Islamists who resent our occupation and might now consider participating in "terror-related activites".

[Brian Sweat]

32. No, we were not indifferent.

We just noted that there are dozens of regimes around the world equally as brutal Hussein that the Bush administration supports, that we did not believe that invasion would end the suffering and that there was a good chance that it would make things worse.

The result of this invasion will probably be decades of ethnic fighting that could make the Hussein regime seem like a picnic.

[West Coast Democrat]

33. It's disingenuous to bring up Saddam's "Atrocities"....

in regards to this war. The atrocities of 12 or more years ago were only mentioned when WMDs failed to materialize.

[2004Donkeys]

40. Since when did mass murder and torture have a statute of limitations

Second, the rapes and murders were going on as recently as 2000.

Granted war was not the right solution, but the mere passage of time (even if it was a valid argument, which its not) for such atrocious acts does not absolve Saddam Hussein.

[DinahMoeHum]

34. We were shedding light on Saddam's atrocities in the 1980's

long before the wingnuts suddenly "got religion" about him. Those same wingnuts in the Reagan/Bush I administrations were all too glad to prop up the scumbag then.

Yeah, thanks a lot. What a bunch of f**king humanitarians.

:grr:

[markus]

35. This was such a transparent attempt to change the subject

that yes, we may have seen dismissive of it. But I would usually ask (such as local right-wing talk host when he would "interview" people at the anti-war demo) why Bush wasn't prepared to act on attrocities in other parts of the world? Because there was no oil.

[IrateCitizen]

36. This post is pure flame-bait

And undeserving of the number of well-intentioned people who have responded to it.

Is the originator basing his opinions on actual anti-war activists he knows, or is he simply believing the lies told about anti-war activists? Or is he trying to start something?

Given the way in which he has cut and run without further posting, I'm left to assume the third choice. Of course, I'd welcome the chance to be proven wrong on that account.

[Bridget Burke]

38. Not the first flame-bait post by this originator.....

The "Search" function is a wonderful thing.

[2004Donkeys]

39. Check out this poll and then tell me again that my analysis was false

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1131531&mesg_id=1131531

If this is not blatantly apologizing for Saddam Hussein, I don't know what is.

[blondeatlast]

41. Where's the apology?

Since the war was illegal to begin with, and no WMD's were found, should the democrat that takes office in January of 2005, release Sadaam and return him back to Iraq. Although he is a murderous dictator, we illegally removed him from his country. Although I think he should face judgment for his crimes to humanity, I believe that it should be done within the framework of the U.N.


Let's see, the post calls him a "brutal dictator." Yeah, that's really being soft on the man. The post also states he thinks SH committed crimes against humanity. Another wonderful warm and fuzzy statement.

The poster is saying that it is up to the Democratic President to deal with the illegal actions taken in the US's name because the BFEE won't do it.

Nothing in it suggests being soft on Saddam.

BTW, drive by postings are bad form; you haven't responded to one of the posts in this thread until now; when you replied to your OWN post.

Edit: a kinder, gentler post.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[2004Donkeys]

44. Read my PM blondeatlast

allright?

[LeahMira]

45. Ah! Another poll...

Don't trust polls. You have no idea who is voting, and those who do vote are not always interested in promoting the interests of Democrats.

In addition, in that poll you had 12 votes for absolving Saddam versus 56 for putting him on trial or just doing away with him. The "other" response... who knows? That's roughly five times as many people who think Saddam needs to be punished in some way.

At the same time, I can see your point, I think. Containment might have worked better in terms of U.S. national interest and in terms of keeping the peace in the Middle East and in the world. But even while contained, Saddam murdered hundreds of people. We in the U.S. have capital punishment, so we have no legs to stand on in opposing capital punishment in another nation, but at least we make a serious attempt to prove guilt and we don't shred our criminals. For all those people that Saddam murdered arbitrarily and in horrible ways, the policy of containment must have seemed a cruel joke.

For example: why was the story of Rachel Corrie's death considered newsworthy in the U.S. and especially in progressive circles while at the same time hundreds of Iraqi men and women were dying and their deaths weren't even a blip on our radar?

[2004Donkeys]

46. It was actually the Democrats in the 1980s who put these atrocities ...

in the public eye.

I don't believe that war was our best option. In fact more women are now being raped per capita than before, just by different people. War with a (real) coalition might have worked out and I do believe there would have been less casualties with this option. But the best option would have been to make our reason for dealing (in the diplomatic sense) with Iraq the allegations of atrocities and force the government to cease these atrocities or have a large coalition take over Iraq. Again, the caveat here is that a large coalition would have been in support of the US.

[blondeatlast]

47. On that, we can agree. But I still see the invasion as a simple

vendetta on *it*s part.

If it had to happen, it could have been managed so much better. But it didn't have to happen, period.

[BradCKY]

48. We shouldn't have gone to war.

But I don't have any regrets seeing Saddam gone.

[diamond14]

49. here's the WHOLE explanation in a nutshell....(video and photo)

watch flash video here...very short two minute history of saddam hussein and the USA, highlightling the CIA, which was headed by pappy bush* and donald rumsfeld, who served under reagun/bush...it's an eye-opener...

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html


relentlessly pursuing BLOOD FOR OIL....

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak
and Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah
being chauffeured by the shrub....

photo taken at the exotic expensive Egyptian resort
Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt
June 03, 2003....shortly after the aircraft stunt on May 01, 2003

[Zero Gravitas]

50. The was was never about "atrocities"

It was about an imminent threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction that we "knew" Saddam had and that he was going to give to his buddies in al Qaeda any minute now.

Now I was unsure whether or not he had WMDs, but I for one never believed that there was any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Saddam may have been an evil bastard but he was the opposite end of the spectrum from bin Laden. I also thought that if he really did have WMDs he would use them against an invading army. When they were never used I realized that he didn't have any WMDS.

The "Atrocity" argument is bogus. Bush keeps on saying "he gassed his own people". Well what did the good ol USA do when he "gassed his own people"? we doubled our military aid to him, thats what we did. The mass graves? well many of those are of Shiites who rebelled against Saddam at the end of the Gulf War after being encouraged to do so by the US. They did rise up and we abandoned them. We are partially responsible for those mass graves. So to suddenly pretend that the US cares deeply about the terrible things that Saddam's regime committed is simply delusional, hypocritical and basically disgusting.

But of course Saddam might allowed engineers and scientists to think about programs that might be(or might not) be related to potential future weapons of mass destruction production. SO its lucky we have spent 100s of American lives, 1,000s of Iraqi lives, 100s of billions of dollars to destabilize eerr... I mean "liberate" a country in the heart of the most volatile region on Earth and with no exit strategy.

Sure it would have been great if Bush had been able/willing to build a real coalition to oust Saddam instead of taking the reckless unilateral path that he did. But we are stuck with Bush and the PNAC loonies running the country, they are incapable of working with other countries to gain a common gaol. besides why should the international community take responsibility for ousting a dictator that US supported and pumped up in the first place?

[Selwynn]

51. No, but the Bush Administration certainly was/is

Seeing as how it can be clearly demonstrated that Saddam's atrocities were the last thing on Bush's mind, and seeing as how this nation frequently - frequently - supports regimes who commit brutal atrocities on a regular basis, and seeing as how this nation carries out its own atrocities all over the world in pursuit of its interests which are almost exclusively profit and power - your allegation would be laughable if it wasn't so tragically misguided.

No, anti-war people were not indifferent to Saddam's atrocities. But anti-war people also had their eyes wide open and knew that our motivation for invasion had nothing to do with Saddam's atrocities. We have a long and documented history of ignoring his atrocities and all other kinds of a atrocities. But at this time, the Bush administration saw the right opportunity for profit making and power grabbing, and that is the only thing behind the invasion of Iraq. And that's wrong - I'm sorry, but the means do not justify the ends. The means must be just for the ends to be just. Right now what we have in Iraq is a total disaster. Dreams of long term peace and freedom for Iraqis are not much more than dreams, with different factions vieing for power and waiting for their opportunity to take over rule.

Finally, I'd like to point out that a mission to Iraq which had no other goal but the removal of Saddam Hussein would have looked radically different than this invasion and illegal occupation does. It wouldn't have put more time and energy into securing oil fields than it does in protecting the people. It wouldn't have made sure companies like Haliburton were set up with sweetheart deals and able to skim off the top and roll in profit. It wouldn't have been based on lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie about the treat of weapons of mass destruction and the stockpiling of those weapons. And money designated to go to reconstruction and rebuilding in Iraq wouldn't be allocated by Congress and then DIVERTED by the Administration to everything else but helping the Iraqi people achieve a better life.