http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html March 18, 2003 See men shredded, then say you don't back war By Ann Clwyd “There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.” This is one of the many witness statements that were taken by researchers from Indict — the organisation I chair — to provide evidence for legal cases against specific Iraqi individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. This account was taken in the past two weeks. Another witness told us about practices of the security services towards women: “Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched; men were forced to watch as their wives were raped . . . women were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation.” The accounts Indict has heard over the past six years are disgusting and horrifying. Our task is not merely passively to record what we are told but to challenge it as well, so that the evidence we produce is of the highest quality. All witnesses swear that their statements are true and sign them. For these humanitarian reasons alone, it is essential to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam. The 17 UN resolutions passed since 1991 on Iraq include Resolution 688, which calls for an end to repression of Iraqi civilians. It has been ignored. Torture, execution and ethnic-cleansing are everyday life in Saddam’s Iraq. Were it not for the no-fly zones in the south and north of Iraq — which some people still claim are illegal — the Kurds and the Shia would no doubt still be attacked by Iraqi helicopter gunships. For more than 20 years, senior Iraqi officials have committed genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This list includes far more than the gassing of 5,000 in Halabja and other villages in 1988. It includes serial war crimes during the Iran-Iraq war; the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds in 1987-88; the invasion of Kuwait and the killing of more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians; the violent suppression, which I witnessed, of the 1991 Kurdish uprising that led to 30,000 or more civilian deaths; the draining of the Southern Marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed thousands of Shias; and the summary executions of thousands of political opponents. Many Iraqis wonder why the world applauded the military intervention that eventually rescued the Cambodians from Pol Pot and the Ugandans from Idi Amin when these took place without UN help. They ask why the world has ignored the crimes against them? All these crimes have been recorded in detail by the UN, the US, Kuwaiti, British, Iranian and other Governments and groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Indict. Yet the Security Council has failed to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq because of opposition from France, China and Russia. As a result, no Iraqi official has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century. I have said incessantly that I would have preferred such a tribunal to war. But the time for offering Saddam incentives and more time is over. I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight. The author is Labour MP for Cynon Valley.
Glynch, others on the left, I would love to read your opinions on this. I know you think it's disgusting and I know you think it's terrible but let's assume this is a true article. So we are in hypothetical land here...what do you do as President knowing this?
The problem with this argument is that if you believe it is a moral requirement to invade because of human atrocities going on there, then you have to support probably 30-50 other wars and the taking over of countries like Rwanda and North Korea. You can't use this argument as a reason to only invade Iraq.
i don't think this reason is being used ALONE, major. but it is a reason nonetheless. Yes, the US has interests in making sure Iraq doesn't have WMD...but the liberation of Iraqis is also in everyone's interests as well. Also...it's not like this is the only humanitarian type war we've ever waged, assuming you believe this is a motive. While the UN tripped over Kosovo, Americans went in and ended the reign of Milosevic. the argument back has been, "yeah..but what about this country...what about that country?" so does inactivity in those other countries justify letting iraqis live under a tyrant?
I saw men shredded, burned, etc. they were dead Iraqis along the "Highway of Death". My friend was a Ranger during the first Gulf War and took pictures that you have to see to comprehend. Its a strange feeling that someone you have known for years may have killed dozens of people. Nothing he did was wrong he fought the war as he was told and the results speak for themselves. My point is war is evil, but all is fair in battle. American solders will commit gruesome acts of violence over there, but that is the way it must be done. People who have this image of precision guided bombs with zero collateral damage and cheering Iraqi citizens welcoming our military need to reevalute their positions. My friend handled what he saw over there better than most, but he will be the first to tell you that he is changed in ways he can't put into words.
Yet the Security Council has failed to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq because of opposition from France, China and Russia. As a result, no Iraqi official has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century. Of course, it's Bush's fault that these countries weren't 'convinced' that removing Hussein was a good idea.
but these iraqi citizens were NOT at war...these aren't soldiers being tortured...these were women and civilians who were tortured...this has gone on for 20 years according to this group. i don't think you can equate the two.
Many of the "soldiers" Saddam placed in WWI era trenches were just boys or men (civilians) forced into a situation they didn't want either (not to mention the human shields). I just hope we handle the outcome of this war correctly so we're not over there again in a decade. There is no doubt that Saddam is ruthless when it comes to holding power, but he has been kept in check for the past decade. I'm curious if we will be so aggressive with North Korea if the situation continues to get out of hand. Another war with North Korea is one that we could lose, 50 years in the region and we have a draw and a defeat.
1. i understand the soldiers were compelled to fight..i do..but that is question of survival for our troops to fire back. this is not like that cheetah. are you seriously equating the two situations? are you seriously equating legitimate human rights crimes with the effects of combat? these were women who were tortured...these were civilians literally thrown into a shredder. 2. north korea is what iraq will become given more time. a confrontation with a power ready and willing to use nuclear power. 3. there is no cookie-cutter approach to the world...containment works for some...it doesn't work as well for others. containment is not a viable policy in dealing with terrorism. it just doesn't work that way.
It never ceases to amaze me the depths to which the left-wing intelligentsia will stoop in order to take the side opposite our President. To make an alliance with a man who shreds other humans in some crude substitute for a meat grinder is disgusting. The extreme liberal fringe has been blinded by its own hatred. Their opinions are simply not objective. It is little wonder that their protests have yielded nothing.
Cheetah's not equating, in my view. He's making excellent, thoughtful posts, and he's not taking the bait to fall into a simple black-and-white yes-no binary view of a very tragic and complicated situation. I pray that this goes as smoothly as possible. I pray that the Iraqis just drop their weapons. I believe Saddam is ruthless and can believe that he has shredded people like so many Cheney energy documents, (sorry!), but agree with Major on using that for justification.
You mean like get rid him in one of the most prosperous periods in this country's history becasue he had sex with a grown woman. Yeah, I hate stuff like that to.
This post assumes that by not favoring war at this time, is making an alliance with Saddam. I've heard nobody from the anti-war camp suggest an alliance with Saddam. On the contrary most have strongly spoken against Saddam and and his WMD, and his authoritarian rule.
If he would have just admitted then it would have blown over pretty quickly (assuming he wasn't getting pleasured while on Presidential calls with other world leaders which has been rumored), but he went under oath and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" That is why it is still a topic not because he did it. Also it's interesting that sexual harrasment was not brought up more. At most larger companies there are policies on relations with subordinates, consentual or not, just due to the possible threat of litigation afterwards.
Wow, this left wing/right wing game really turns alot of you on! The bottom line is still that W is an idiot. If he would've used all this info/ crimes against humanity + the he hurt my daddy stuff from the beginning , the divide in American thinking may not be as great as it currently is. This being said, from me, Cson, standing firmly to "the left" of most---FREE IRAQ!
so you don't think using a shredder on his people is worthy of military response? or you do, but would like to see us be more consistent on it?
Dude, please don't quote him; the ignore algorithm is not sophisticated enough to blank out such quotes. This alliance-with-evil-Saddam bullcrap is so tired, and it has been blown out of the water repeatedly. Don't even rise to it. I've said repeatedly I don't "hate" Bush; I'm rooting for him, and have been. I'm saddened with what he's doing to our international standing. This is going to be a bumper crop recruiting year for Al Qaeda. By the way, the tired and mentally incompetant claim that those in disagreement with Bush are allied with Saddam is sort of like saying that those who had problems with Clinton's behavior are against oral sex in all circumstances. I don't think you'd get many people on that bandwagon!
