the whole report is available as a pdf here and includes some sobering photos. it's worth remembering that while bush's primary justification for the war was the nexus of terrorism and WMD, he also made a compelling human rights case. in time, this may come to be appreciated as one justification for the war everyone can agree on, except, perhaps glynch. http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html -- Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves Since the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown in May, 270 mass graves have been reported. By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed sites climbed to fifty-three. Some graves hold a few dozen bodies—their arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies. "We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London. The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. "Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades," said the group in a statement in May. "Many of these 'disappeared' are those whose remains are now being unearthed in mass graves all over Iraq." If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II. Please note: This report contains some graphic images and descriptions, including first-hand accounts from three Iraqis who survived the mass murders.
I know we're not supposed to question these things, and I'm sure Saddam is a horrific murderer. That said, how many of the victims were Kurds and Shiites who rose up against Saddam at Bush the Elder's behest----and then were left to dangle and die because we didn't back them up? And Tony Blair's word is not exactly gold. It's not like I'm a holocaust denier, that sort of thing, not at all. I would like a reasonably accurate number. Bush and Blair Inc can spin whatever number they want. Now, any number is bad. But in light of no WMD, quagmire, etc etc....
from the article: A HISTORY OF DENIAL The reports of mass murder under Saddam Hussein had been made for years by the United Nations, the U.S. Government, HRW, independent journalists, and the families of people who were arrested and then vanished. But the Iraqi regime denied the reports, refused to allow U.N. investigations, and stonewalled human rights groups. “As in previous years, the regime continued to deny the widespread killings of Kurds in the north of the country during the ‘Anfal’ campaign of 1988,” said the U.S. State Department’s 2002 human rights report. “Both the [U.N.] Special Rapporteur and HRW concluded that the regime’s policies against the Kurds raised questions of crimes against humanity and violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention.” Finally, the regime was swept away by U.S., British, and other allied forces in May, 2003, and the truth emerged. It came as no surprise that once the country was thrown open to the world press and international organizations, they might find evidence of these crimes against humanity. But few imagined the full extent of the slaughter that came to light. sure, go ahead, rationalize all you need to to fit your preconception of bush and his motives. also from the report:
This is truly tragic. It's ashamed that the U.S. blocked UN action back when that stuff was going on, and it's a great thing that Saddam is gone now. There is at least the possibility that Iraqis can really benefit from this opportunity.
one of my issues with bush was that he never emphasized the human rights issue until his primary reasons became suspect. would i have approved attacking iraq for human rights reasons? gladly, as long as the UN agreed with it. but unfortunetly that wasnt our case until we really needed it. however, if we do make it our case to invade countries that have such human rights abuses, iraq isnt the worse one by a long shot, as our estimates were 100,000 before these new figures. If we are going to invade countries with similar records, why arent we going into Angola, Rwanda, East Timor or Liberia, where many more people were killed, many of whom were more recent than the ones from Saddam? We would all love Bush to be the president who actually does things in the name of human rights, but we all know he isn't that kind of guy. pulling up these new figures and saying it was for human rights is like stealing a car and finding a kidnapped person in there, and then claiming that you were trying to save the person all along. I'm glad that we did something for human rights, but it only makes it meaningful if it was our intention to do that in the first place.
from SOTU 1/28/2003: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."
I believe that human rights should be a central pillar of our foriegn policy and that we should act consistently on this principle. Do you agree with this position Basso?
... and overall far more of the SOTU 2003 (a much-anticipated public statement on the plight of world terrorism) dealt with the inhumanity of Saddam than it did with the WMD issues. It is my opinion that the topic of conversation about all this was effectively changed by the media and the opposition in a Michael Moore-ish rush to sensationalism/paint Bus into a corner play.
Despite this, GWB only listed one way for Saddam to avoid war. That was to get rid of WMD's. If Human Rights was the main focus why wasn't that given as a condition for avoiding war? And if the purposes for war were terrorism, WMD's, and Human rights, isn't war a case where 3 out of 3 should be required to enter it pre-emptively? If they only had 1 out of 3 or 2 out of 3, it seems like that doesn't cut it in the case of attacking a sovereign nation which hasn't attacked us.
Saddam's human rights violations were not a threat to the US or to the other free nations of the world. The "demand" was to step forward and be forthcoming about WMDs, not to invite us in for a scavenger hunt-- which is all that he did after a dozen years of stalling and who knows what.... Even at the point of the warning in the SOTU, Saddam had 90 days to fix this problem.
You do realize that in 1988, we supported Saddam and provided him with the weapons used in those actions, right? This would have been a good reason to take Saddam out in '91 when we were there already, but bringing this up now is beyond silly. Everyone acknowleges that Saddam was a bad guy, but these mass graves were not given as the primary (or even a secondary) reason for the war. These pictures and stories are being dragged out now to provide after the fact justification for this (unjustified) action and THAT is the sickening part.
That is the part you keep avoiding. Saddam WAS forthcoming!!! He declared what he had and because of debunked "intelligence" that we paid for and acquired from people with a vested interest in seeing Saddam ousted, we chose not to believe him, going so far as to declare "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." (Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003) He had 90 days to do WHAT, exactly? Are you really arguing that we went to war as a result of paperwork that wasn't done by the people who disposed of the WMDs? Saddam offered to let 2000 FBI and CIA agents have free reign in his country in order to avoid war. We turned it down and then afterwards declared that we had tried every single diplomatic option. Someone is lying on our side of the pond. Wouldn't you like to open your eyes so that we can find out exactly WHO?
the people in these mass graves died because saddam killed them. and, btw, the sanction ended w/ the overthrow of saddam. and it was the UN and france who wanted to continue the sanctions instaed of invading. so, what was your point again?
Have you ever give one second's thought to the possibility that Rumsfeld really believed that? Or do you figure that he just planned all along to just explain it away? He knew there would be a day of reckoning when Saddam was ousted. Do you really think he and the other administrators were just out-and-out lying? BTW, you are one of the few people on earth who would have ever used the word "forthcoming" as a describer of Saddam Hussein-- the other two are dead.
No point really, just wondering how they can tell the difference between someone killed by Saddam and someone who starved to death.
I really don't know much about these mass graves and all, but in most Muslim countries graves are reused and many times one big one is dug up for many people, no matter who it is, how they were killed. I honestly don't know if these people were all a part of some Genocide, or were just a graveyard that was being used the "Islamic" way. I dunno, if someone could break it down to me and tell me if these bodies were all buried at the same time or are just bones of all the older bodies that coulda been there?
Well, when you pay for your "intelligence" and you know that the people you are buying it from stand to gain a LOT by giving you what you want, I guess you would believe it. The point is that they predetermined the outcome and massaged the data to come up with a justification. If nothing else, there was a pretty big lie told when they told us that "every diplomatic option was explored." I am sure that he believed that they would find SOMETHING because he obviously didn't even want to see the data that pointed to Iraq being devoid of WMDs. Again, the point is that they predetermined the outcome and only accepted data that fit that conclusion. They were obviously at the very least EXTREMELY mistaken. For Rumsfeld to come out and say, POSITIVELY, that they KNEW where the WMDs were shows an extreme lack of good judgement when it comes to evaluating intelligence. Either way (bad judgement or lies), I do not trust him (or the rest of this administration) to be a leader in our country any more. Please enlighten me on all of the WMDs that Saddam was hiding and did not declare. If there aren't any WMDs then by definition, Saddam WAS forthcoming. forth·com·ing ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôrth-kmng, frth-)adj. Candid and willing to cooperate. (I love dictionary.com) He was candid, as he declared all of the weapons systems he had, which was being (and has since been) verified by weapons inspectors until we kicked them out. He was obviously willing to cooperate as he invited us to send thousands of American spies over to further vet that Iraq had no WMDs. Remember, if you make the claim that he didn't account for all the weapons we "knew" he had way back in '91, then you are saying that we went to war over mishandled paperwork. That sure is one heck of a reason to start a war, huh?
