Thirty Bodies Found in Southern Iraq Mass Grave

[LostInTheMaise]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20040207_99.html

Feb. 7 — KIFAL, Iraq (Reuters) - At least 30 bodies have been found in a mass grave outside the southern Iraqi city of Najaf, local people said on Saturday.

Residents of the village of Kifal, about 25 km (18 miles) north of the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf, said the grave was discovered by locals quarrying sand.

------------------

Could these be bodies that our soldiers tried to hide or is it the work of Saddam the illeagally disposed leader?

[ithacan]

1. killed when Bush I called for uprising then watched as Saddam

cut down those who listened to the US.

Those policies of Reagan and Bush I are major reasons Iraqis, especially Shi'ites in the south, do not trust the US.

By the way, check this out, excellent flash animation on the love fest between the US and Saddam:

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

[LostInTheMaise]

3. I knew it was the fault of the US

Why did the US force these thirty people to die and be buried in a mass grave? People need to understand that the US MADE Saddam kill all his people.

[UpInArms]

6. here's some background for you

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer

Just 12 years ago, the Shiite Muslims who constitute a majority in Iraq and in the city of Baghdad were betrayed by the United States -- an act that may have cost them as many as 100,000 lives. That recent history -- of which the Shiites are understandably a good deal less forgetful than we -- explains why the Shiites in the south initially greeted invading American and British forces with a good deal more reserve than expected. And as the continuing turmoil in southern towns and cities makes clear, building a democratic state in Iraq over the long term will depend to a large degree on how strong and lasting a trust we can build among these people.

The spontaneous Shiite uprising of 1991 consumed the southern part of Iraq right up to the approaches to Baghdad. Rebels came to U.S. troops, who were then deployed in the Euphrates Valley, begging for U.S. intervention. The Shiite political parties sent emissaries to the few Americans who would see them. To this day, I am haunted by the desperation in the appeals made to me by one group, as they realized time was running out for their countrymen.

Many of the problems we face now and in the future with Shiites likely have to do with the way the first Bush administration responded to those appeals. On Feb. 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi military and people to overthrow Saddam Hussein. On March 3, an Iraqi tank commander returning from Kuwait fired a shell through one of the portraits of Hussein in Basra's main square, igniting the southern uprising. A week later, Kurdish rebels ended Hussein's control over much of the north.

But although Bush had called for the rebellion, his administration was caught unprepared when it happened. The administration knew little about those in the Iraqi opposition because, as a matter of policy, it refused to talk to them. Policymakers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in caricature: The Shiites were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of the rebellion. As one National Security Council official told me at the time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime."

[anarchy1999]

11. I remember hearing Bush on TV encouraging the uprising

I also remember the horror I felt when I realized those we had encouraged to rise up we left high and dry to be slaughtered. A very disturbing moment in time.

Why didn't we help them if we encouraged them.

Same reason we let Saddam believe we would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait (see April Glaspie).

The Bush family needs to be removed and finally prosecuted along with all their cronies for all their crimes. They truly are criminals, thugs and thieves, to say nothing of just plain damn treasonous.

[Judi Lynn]

13. Thanks for the article. n/t

[Just Me]

15. Yes, UpInArms, which is precisely why any suggestion of humanitarian,...

,...concerns is complete and utter nonsense. The key members of this administration have been around a long time. History dictates that their every warring pursuit was self-serving, to advance their own power and economic influence. They were making deals with Saddam for an oil pipe (Bechtel-Rummy-Schwatz-et al neocons) when Saddam was gassing up North. They "saved" Kuwait to protect their tied interests with Saudis and knowingly allowed another humanitarian crush. So, everytime they throw out mass graves or "liberation" or any other form of humanitarian propaganda, I gag knowing it is simply an emotional button they are pushing such that they can continue with their greedy, arrogant PNAC endeavors. They are monsters!!!!

[einniv]

7. Made him kill people?

I beg to differ.
No one made Hussein kill anyone.
Enabling someone to kill is much different than forcing them to. It is the former that the former Reagan and Bush administrations are guilty of.
We might say well the past is the past but in this case many, in fact most, of the major players are the same ones from the past! They have much more than Hussein "under their belts". There was that whole disgusting murderous mess in Central America. It should be noted that those murderers that Rumsfeld , Cheney and crew loved so much have never ended up on the 'bad guys list' like Hussein and their crimes are at least equal to Hussein's. In some ways much worse. Well dead is dead so not really worse I guess but more frightening. At least Hussein's killing for power is something one can comprehend but the slaughters down there. Sheesh. Some serious evil shit. But dead is dead so I guess that doesn't matter.
Still. It is important to keep in mind... Yes, Hussein was a monster but.... Is that why George Bush and his advisors invaded his country? Because their past histories would suggest that is an unlikely reason.

[Just Me]

16. The neocon cabal invaded Iraq for its resources,...*eom*

[Jack Rabbit]

17. No, the US did not make Saddam kill them

However, Bush the Preppy signaled that the US would support an uprising against Saddam following the 1991 war and then didn't deliver. Were it not for Bush's false assurances, these people probably would not have risen, giving Saddam no pretext to kill them.

Bush's culpability in this tragedy is not nearly as great as Saddam's, but neither can he claim innocence.

[DoctorMyEyes]

19. nice bait

Sorry I couldn't find just the right emoticon to express my reaction. Will this one do?

:eyes:

[Robbien]

2. The rabid right loves stories such as these

All their other reasons for the invasion were proven to be lies so they rely on dead bodies of Iraqis to save them. Forgetting that Bush has maimed or killed thousands of Iraqis with this awful use of our troops.

[bowens43]

4. or perhaps

it is the grave of a few of the over 1.25 million killed in the Iran/Iraq war as are most of the mass graves found so far.

[pacifictiger]

5. multiples of dead people is sad

but 30 sound more like a group than MASS. Didn't the US kill more than that with errant bomb OOPS sorry! More spin on facts sad to say.

Edit: does anyone have any forensic dating info on the mass graves/bodies found so far? Were there actually any after the implementation of the no-fly zones?

[Night]

8. Maybe... just maybe...

Saddam killed them because he was a brutal dictator

[Cooley Hurd]

9. Read post #6...

We let Saddam kill those in the uprising.

But, of course, we came back 12 years later and "liberated" them...

[alittlelark]

10. And Maybe, Just maybe, we gave him the weapons and the support to do it

them cried FOUL when he did something we did'nt like

Just the facts, mam.

[UpInArms]

12. that's a tidy simplistic way of wording the situation.

could you elaborate a bit more?

Who supplied Saddam in the 80's with weapons?

Was he less of a "brutal dictator" then?

[Just Me]

18. Saddam was the neocons' "buddy", until he wouldn't deal with their,...

,...companies and help them empower themselves. How come the neocons supported a brutal dicator? How come they have always and still do support (or turn a blind eye to) brutal dictators so long as they help them make profits and accumulate more control over the energy industry? It sure as hell isn't 'cause they have any special concern about human rights or "installing democracy" *LOL*.

[Aidoneus]

14. if it's an old site, probably from the '91 intifada

Najaf was, naturally, one of the centres of that and greatly affected in the suppression of it.

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~irdp/ref/ref04.html