Why do lefties swallow this "Saddam was a madman" shit???

[LynnTheDem]

Geeeez! You'd think lefties would KNOW BY NOW...BUSH LIES like a bleedin' SIDEWALK, people! FEAR FEAR be VERY AFRAID says bush.

bush HAD to portray SH as mad, JUST LIKE HIS DADDY DID BEFORE HIM, otherwise the US public was not going to support any invasion; as it was, the US was 52% OPPOSED when the invasion actually started.

Americans still use the "madman" to assure themselves that even with the total FUBAR, even knowing he had no means of attacking us, invading Iraq was the right thing to do, because "MADMAN" SCARES THEM.

Analyst says Iraqi president 'dangerous' but 'no madman'
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/globe_stories/010591_hussein.htm

Saddam Hussein may be a dangerous and brutal dictator, but don't make the mistake of thinking he's insane

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/World/saddam_profiler_030225.html

[movonne]

Personally I think he and bush are cut from the same cloth...

[jumpstart33]

92. No, Bush is really a madman.

And Bush really does control a nation with WMDs. That makes him not must a madman but a very dangerous madman.

[qazplm]

1. anyone

who does the heinous things he has done is either insane or evil, i think i prefer that he were insane, heck look at how twisted his sons are.

I dont think he was a threat to the US and thus we shouldnt be in Iraq now, but I have no problem viewing him as a madman.

[Lucky Luciano]

2. Well, he is a madman,

but of course, he was no threat to us. Imagine if b*sh decided to gas Berkeley residents for their political views. Then you would think b*sh was quite a madman, right (not that he isn't a madman already)?

[LynnTheDem]

12. You still believe that huh?

The "he gassed his own people" shit?

The FIRST to gas the Kurds (who are NOT "Saddam's own people" and are alied with IRAN, not Iraq)...were the BRITISH.

The man bush loves to compare himself to, Winston Churchill, thought gassing "recalcitrant tribes" was a good thing to do.

And how about them US government and CIA and US Marines reports that all say BOTH Iran and Iraq were using gas weapons, and it was more likely IRANIAN gas had killed the Kurds?

It was during a war; dropping 10,000 pound bombs on a city versus dropping gas. Dead is dead. Either way, those Kurds are what America calls "collateral damage".

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

20. A virtually unarmed madman, is still a madman.

[Lucky Luciano]

23. Yes I believe that,

we gave him the gas afterall. Dead is dead - you are right about that, but if you bomb people living in your country it is different from bombing outside of your country. Also, it seems that Saddam started the war against Iran (with our help of course). It is all a big mess.

[EST]

24. Our vaunted government

right here in the good 'ol USA has been bombing our own people with impunity since the 1940s. Nothing new here.

[LynnTheDem]

25. Like in the

American civil war?

Pulleeeese. The Kurds were allied with Iran and always have been; they're not "Saddam's own people" and never have been.

No, Saddam DID NOT start the war against Iran. IRAN started it.

And again, I ask, how about all those US government, US Marine Corps etc reports that say BOTH sides were using chemicals and it was likely IRAN that gassed the Kurds?

But YOU seem to prefer bush's version of history. Why?

And fact is, he was not a "madman".


Need links to all these facts?

[geek tragedy]

29. Why do you prefer Reagan's version of Iraq?

A better question is why some lefties feel compelled to rehabilitate Saddam's image and make excuses for his monstrous behavior.

If the Kurds were such staunch allies of the Iranians, why would they gas them?

Virtually every progressive organization, pre-W. Bush, firmly rejected that Reaganite crap.

And Saddam invaded Iran, not the other way around. Most people figure that constitutes starting a war.

[LynnTheDem]

39. WHY

does Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister, bush's ally & poodle, say ONLY 5000 REMAINS in the mass graves?

WHY does bush's own forensic scientist say the remains are from a WAR in the 1980s???

WHY does the ICRC say the humanitarian intervention IS NOT a justification because there were NO ATROCITIES being committed and HADN'T BEEN since the WAR int he 1980s???

Are THEY all Reaganites???

And IRAN STARTED THE WAR dear, and THAT is just FACT.

Iran publicly announced their intentions of overthrowing Saddam's regime for months before the start of the Iran-Iraq war.

Iran bombed an Iraqi university, killing and wounding many students; Iran carried out some 25 assassination attempts (some successful) on various of Saddam's government members.

Iran gave the Kurds money & equipment to use to overthrow Saddam's regime. Iran then bombed several of Iraq's border towns, killing hundreds of civilians. The US Pentagon's own report talks about the many attempts Saddam made for a diplomatic solution with Iran; each of which Iran refused. Saddam was secular, Iran wanted Iraq to be fundamental Islamist. The Iranian bombing of the Iraqi border towns was the actual start of the war, although the USA calls the start the day Iraq attacked Iran back.

If Canada publicly announced intentions to overthrow the Bush regime, tried to assassinate members of Bush & the Bush regime, and bombed US border towns, you can be sure the USA would attack Canada and equally sure America would NOT be calling their attack "unprovoked".

http://www.ndu.edu/library/n2/n015602L.pdf

RESEARCH; it's a GOOD THING TO DO.

[geek tragedy]

41. See my logic lesson regarding the mass graves. You'll learn something.

Please provide a cite saying that the ICRC saying that there had been no atrocities in Iraq since the Iran-Iraq war.

[LynnTheDem]

44. report;

The war in Iraq CANNOT be justified as an intervention in defense of human rights even though it ended a brutal regime, Human Rights Watch said Monday, dismissing one of the Bush administration's main arguments for the invasion.

While Saddam Hussein had an atrocious human rights record, his worst actions occurred LONG BEFORE THE WAR and there was NO ONGOING or imminent mass killing in Iraq when the conflict began, the advocacy group said in its annual report.

http://hrw.org/wr2k4/

ICRC;

In its annual report this week, Human Rights Watch, the independent New York-based human rights organisation, comprehensively dismissed the humanitarian argument. In particular, this was not an action to stop a mass killing or prevent imminent slaughter, it said. Mr Hussein had certainly been guilty of such atrocities before, notably in 1988 when he massacred 100,000 Kurds.** But the western world declined to act. No such evil was looming in 2003.

** The "100,000" is down from the previously spouted "300,000" and is currently down to 5000.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:eWAWrnuHCfMJ:www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5VWAZZ%3FOpenDocument%26style%3Dcusto_print+Red+Cross%3B+Iraq+invasion+not+a+humanitarian+intervention&hl=en

1988. Nothing since the Iran-Iraq war. I guess we're doing retro-emption.

[geek tragedy]

46. So now HRW is a valid source for you?

They don't say that there were no atrocities since 1988. Read more carefully.

[LynnTheDem]

53. You need glasses

No atrocities since 1988. No more of this crap; you'll believe whatever you want. In this case, you prefer to believe what bush41 said to get his Gulf War.

Fine. The Pentagon, State Department, US Marine Corps, Army War College, CIA etc are all just a bunch of liars anyways so their reports are all lies.

We'll just take Poppa bush's word instead. :)

[geek tragedy]

54. A leftie defending the Pentagon and Reagan's state department?

Ha!

As I said, I'm taking Human Rights Watch's and Amnesty International's word for it.

That beats choosing between Republicans, as you seem to be doing.

Please tell me where the ICRC says that there were no atrocities committed by Saddam after 1988.

You: I believe Reagan and Ramsey Clark.

Me: I believe HRW, AI, and the UN.

[LynnTheDem]

58. And I suppose you also believe

HRW's original report about them "incubator babies" huh? Or do you believe their adjusted report when they realized they'd been had?

And by the way, just how far back does your justification timeline go?

Should we invade the UK for having gassed the Kurds?

Just wondering.

[geek tragedy]

61. Who said I favored invading Iraq? You need to work on your

reading comprehension skills--they are very poor.

I'm just debunking this bullshit about Halabja that misguided and gullible Democrats parrot in an effort to discredit Bush.

We're not talking about incubator babies. We're talking about Halabja, which is accepted by all rational people as an Iraqi atrocity.

Why are you so convinced that Ronald Reagan was telling the truth and that HRW and AI are wrong?

[Heyo]

75. As I posted higher up in the thread...

... but I think it applies here too... read up on the Anfal campaign (Google is your friend) to better understand what happened at Halabja and the surrounding area at that time.

Heyo

[LynnTheDem]

82. Dear Heyo;

With my master's degree in mideast history, I do believe we were taught something or other about the Anfal campaign.

Of course there's the recent little adjustment from 100,000 to 5000 killed. But I'm sure HRW will have no problem adjusting their report; after all, they screwed up a wee bit over that "incubator babies" report and managed to adjust it.

By the way, why don't you do some google, it's your friend; compare Saudi, Kurdistan and Uzbekistan rights reports to Iraq's. Funny how they're as bad as, and in instances worse than, Iraq's.

Doubt we'll see any demonizing or forced regime changes there though, what with them being our "good buddies" and all. Then again, so was Saddam Hussein at one time, and gee wasn't it the US of A who installed the Ba'ath Party in Iraq??? I'm pretty sure we heard something or other about that too...

[Heyo]

95. Hmmm..

.. interesting.. I never herd the 100,000 figure mentioned....

I have always heard the 5,000 figure.. even from the websites of some of the Kurds... must've been before my time.

As for other countries in the region.. I agree with you there.. there are some baaad bad places over there.

Heyo

[geek tragedy]

102. You should sue your educational institution.

They obviously brainwashed you with pro-Saddam propaganda. Where was this program, the University of Baghdad?

And do you have a credible source stating that the US INSTALLED Saddam? Or that the Kurds have used poison gas and have committed abused worse than Saddam?

Again, see my logic lesson: Not every person murdered by Saddam's regime is going to be discovered in a mass grave.

[LynnTheDem]

42. They DIDN'T gas them on purpose

Read the CIA report from the time; it's online or I have the link. Or go to your library and read the news archives from the time; the Iranians didn't know the Kurds had taken over the village. So the Iranians gassed what they thought were the Iraqis.

America calls that "collateral damage".

NO ONE has ever produced a single report that says Iraq had and used and killed the Kurds with a blood agent; Saddam has ALWAYS admitted he used mustard gas; the CIA agent that was on the scene STILL maintains the Kurds died from a blood agent, which is something IRAN had and Iraq has never had; and it suited poppa bush to blame Saddam and THAT is when "everyone" started saying it was Iraq and not Iran.

[geek tragedy]

45. Get ready for a spanking.

You said: "NO ONE has ever produced a single report that says Iraq had and used and killed the Kurds with a blood agent."

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFAL1.htm#P41_8395

And your theory that HRW and AI were tools of Poppy's propaganda campaign is beyond idiotic.

You need to get your information from people besides Reagan flunkies and the IAC/ANSWER crowd.

[LynnTheDem]

56. Whatever, dear.

I never said HRW and AI were poppy's propaganda tools. You are a rightwingnut, aren't you, coz you sure do spin other people's words around just like a rightwingnut.

But anyways, we'll just take poppa bush's word and ignore all those nasty reports from 1989-1990, and we won't bother to point out that HRW changed their "Iraq did it all alone" report later...just like HRW reported on the incubator babies lie as fact, and then later admitted they'd been had, and changed their report.

And we won't point out that OF COURSE the Kurds would say IRAQ did it; the Kurds are allied with Iran.

And for sure let's not point out the HRW error in saying the news "leaked out"; the IRANIANS FLEW REPORTERS IN and said look what the Iraqis did!

Iraq never had blood agents and only blood agents cause blue extremities; Iran was known to use blood agents. We'll forget that too. Not important.

Mideast history is what I do, dear, so I wouldn't say I get my info from "Reagan flunkies".

And I myself don't call the US Army War College, the US State Department, or the US Marine Corps "Reagan flunkies". The CIA and Pentagon I'll give you.

IAC/Answer I've never even heard of, sorry to disappoint. :)

[geek tragedy]

59. Check out DU rules about calling people rightwingers.

1. When did HRW say that Iran also gassed the people of Halabja? I'm guessing you're just making that up.

2. Do you know what a blood agent is? Do you know what Sarin is? My guess is that the answers are no and no.

[LynnTheDem]

60. OOOH WRONG!

I know exactly what blood agents are and I know exactly what sarin is. What would you like to know about them? :)

[geek tragedy]

62. Please inform me.

Edited to add:

Please inform me also of the proof that the people at Halabja were not killed by Sarin.

Also, did you know that Iraq had hydrogen cyanide gas?

[LynnTheDem]

63. What is it you want to know?

I'm not going to sit here wasting time to prove shit to you. If you really want to know something sepcific, ask.

By the way, do you know what an ABC specialist is? Coz that's why I know what sarin & blood agents are. :)

Ok basic course:

Blood agents; esp cyanogen chemicals, absorbed through breathing. Blue extremities indicates blood agents, particularly cyanogen chloride (CK) or hydrogen cyanide (AC).

Sarin; GB agent. Organo-phosphorus. Colorless, odorless. Affects transmission of nerve impulses in nervous system. Easy to make; very deadly. Absorbtion is thru skin & respiration.

Want symptoms? Detection kit numbers?

I went thru this shit with rightwingnuts, the "PROVE IT" crap; funny having a supposedly progressive do the same.

[geek tragedy]

99. Progressives don't apologize for mass murderers.

1. Pelletiere's main reason for saying that it couldn't have been Saddam was that the victims had blue lips. Death by mustard gas doesn't cause blue lips, but the gas that the Iranians did have does cause blue lips. Therefore, he reasoned, it must have been the Iranians.

2. However, Iraq had in its arsenal hydrogen cyanide gas, which is a blood agent.

3. Iraq also had Sarin gas, whose symptoms also include blue lips.

4. Another Iraqi village gassed by Saddam had traces of Sarin in the soil.

Do you need me to connect the dots for you?

So, please take you "real progressives don't believe Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja" theory and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. That kind of shitty logic, uninformed argument, general ignorance, and McCarthyite argumentation belongs at the Free Republic.

Christ. Let me spell it out for you one final time:

The consensus among progressives before George W. Bush invaded Iraq was that Saddam did gas the Kurds at Halabja. The "Iranians gassed the Kurds" theory is a goddamn myth that has been debunked over and over again.

[LynnTheDem]

65. Proof I already said

The bodies had blue extremities; that is BLOOD AGENTS.

No actually, Iraq DID NOT have any blood agents. Hydrogen cyanide is a bleed-off of petrolium production; Iraq DID NOT have any weaponized.

[geek tragedy]

100. Guess what else causes blue lips?

That's right--nerve gas!

Guess what Sarin (which Saddam had and used) was?

That's right--nerve gas!

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFAL1.htm

Guess what that means for the LynnTheDem/Reagan Administration hypothesis?

That's right--it's shit!

[Heyo]

74. Read up on the Anfal campaign....

...that'll help you understand.

Heyo

[LynnTheDem]

83. Thanks, dear.

Such a kind soul you are. Now some people would think you're a condescending little twit, but of course I realize you're just concerned that I slept through a large portion of my classes.

And you of course have kept yourself updated on Anfal and the current "oops we overguesstimated" situ. :)

[Heyo]

96. Seeing as I didn't go to college...

... I really don't know whether or not the Anfal campaign was taught in history classes... and I haven't heard anything about it.. not even a mention.. on other stuff I've seen about Iraq, like Discovery Channel specials and PBS cable news specials, etc... even when they're talking about the Iran-Iraq war... so I don't really know how much people know about Anfal.. just that I never hear it mentioned...pretty much anywhere... I have always understood the casualty figure of Halabja to be 5,000... never heard it expressed as anything higher....

A condescending twit?...

:toast:

rock on, girl...

Heyo

[hlthe2b]

3. He was a ruthless dictator, malicious in his efforts to control dissent...

not so very different than the scores of other heinous dictators we've seen in the 20th and into the 21st century....


I agree that he was not insane--brutal and ruthless, but not insane. But, one picks their battles, I suppose.....

[LittleClarkie]

And, sadly

not too different from some of the dictators we've supported at one time or another... like, well... Hussein for example.

Hm.

[MrBenchley]

4. He was happy to see Rumsfeld and shook hands with Don

strikes me as a "madman"

[SoCalDemocrat]

5. Saddam was a 2nd rate dictator

Take a look at the scorecard on big bad dictators. Saddam's nowhere near the top of the list.

Here's the unofficial record of genocides:

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1934-39) comes in 1st place with 13 million, Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 2nd at 12 million, and my favorite Mao Tze Dong (China, 1966-69) a close 3rd with 11 million dead in the cultural revolution.

That doesn't take into account the longer period of history, such as the millions of Tibetans China wiped out.

Between 1983 and 1991 Saddam had 300,000 people buried in mass graves. He was definitely not a nice person. However, during that period up to the Gulf War, we were his #1 supporter, providing him with logistics support on the battlefield to help guide his chemical weapons, etc.

Reagan and Bush Sr. had no problem with him. This whole madman business is nothing but political SPIN to cover the NeoCons invasion of the middle-east.

[LynnTheDem]

11. 300,000? Change that to 5000.

Tony the bLiar already admitted that was a wee bit of a porkie with the "300,000"; 5000 buried in mass graves.

We sure have him beat there; America has FAR MORE than 5000...hell we have WAY MORE than 300,000 buried in mass graves.

Oh and let's not leave out one of THE biggest massacres in human history; US massacre of Native Americans.

But yep the "madman" crap is just political spin. Demonize the enemy.

[iwantmycountryback]

6. He is certainly an evil madman

Saying that isn't the same thing as saying he was a threat, but he clearly was an extremely vile and evil person.

[knowbody0]

7. saddam and bush

crimes against humanity? hope trial gets media coverage. saddam will surely shed some light on bush's lies.

[Catt03]

8. He and his son's are and were psychopaths

I guess you could say they were madmen.

[LynnTheDem]

9. Swallowing the kool aide

Cherry-picking which glass to swallow.

NO HE WAS NOT A MADMAN.

He was brutal and oppressive to RADICAL MUSLIMS. Gee. Like us. Now.

Read the actual NGO reports; AI, HRW, ICRC.

Compare those reports to their reports on the USA, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kurdistan.

There were NO ONGOING ATROCITIES.

The ICRC has made it very clear the invasion CAN NOT be called a "humanitarian intervention" because there was NOTHING TO INTERVENE.

But hey, continue spouting a bush dynasty lie.

I really do hate lies.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

21. Are you insane?

I'll say it again. We can debate whether he was a threat. But this murderous thug committed wholesale slaughter of his own people. Period.

[LynnTheDem]

27. No he didn't.

Tony Blair has ADMITTED it already; they've uncovered 5000 FIVE THOUSAND remains in those "mass graves", and BUSH'S own forensic scientist says MOST of them are from WAR; the Iran-Iraq WAR.

SOME of the remains are from the rebel uprisings in 1991 that the USA helped Saddam put down and it's the SAME rebel uprisings that US troops are putting down NOW in Iraq.

You can SAY IT AGAIN all you like; but you are INCORRECT.

Get OVER it. FACT, TRUTH, REALITY aren't the enemies.

PERIOD.

[geek tragedy]

37. Simple logic lesson for you. Take careful notes.

Statement A: All people in mass graves are dead.

Statement B: All murder victims are dead.

Statement C: All murder victims are found in mass graves.

Does statement "C" logically follow from Statements "A" and "B?"

[LynnTheDem]

36. NO

HE DID NOT.

PERIOD

WHY do you HATE FACTS?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

78. I love facts.

Facts are the enemy of delusion. You should try looking at them sometimes. Tell me, are all the victims who survived Saddam's reign lying? Are the admitted agents of terror in Saddam's circle lying? How far gone ARE you?

[LynnTheDem]

86. Ok

Only YOUR "facts" are correct.

The ICRC and HRW are lying Saddam apologists. The US Army War College, the DIA, the State Dept, the US Marine Corps, the CIA and all the news media (who btw actually reported at the time 500 dead caught in cross-fire, not 5000) are lying Saddam apologists.

All the new information out is a pack of lies and Tony Blair is a Saddam apologist.

The Kurds never lie, Turkey never killed thousands of Kurds all through the last 10 years and aren't killing them now, the human rights reports against Kurdistan are all lies and the ICRC/HRW/AI are a bunch of Saddam apologists.

Saddam never did anything good for the Iraqi people whatsoever, the women were the most oppressed of all Arab nations, and all the human rights reports against Saudi, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan etc are nothing but lies from Saddam apologists trying to make Saddam's record look better.

Saddam started the Iran-Iraq war because after all what's a few hundred dead students after Iran bombed the Basra university, a few hundred dead civilians after Iran bombed Iraq's border towns, and a few assassination attempts (some successful) on various Iraqi government officials...certainly no good reason to invade Iran!

Saddam = worse than Hitler, worst dictator and mass murderer ever, period.

Happy? :)

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

87. No. I never once called anyone a Saddam apologist.

OK, how do you define madman?

[Guaranteed]

10. Saddam was the CEO of a billion dollar oil corporation called Iraq.

He was a mafioso, who would do anything to maintain his power.

Was Al Capone a "madman?" Is Fidel Castro a "madman?"

[VOX]

13. Well, he is/was a thuggish piece of shit, but his power was contained...

He basically was the mayor of Bhagdad, and obviously didn't have any WMD like BushCo claimed, and used as their **big** selling point.

No one is going to weep any tears over Saddam, but he was no longer the big fish that he was cracked up to be. Going into Iraq was a total diversion from going after those individuals actually responsible for 9/11. BushCo was set on going into Iraq to finish Poppy's 1991 efforts, regardless of what was going on. 9/11 just gave them the excuse and leverage to go on in.

Should the U.S. go after every "possible nutcase" leader in the world? Well, if we did, warfare would be in permanent session. Which, actually, would happily suit the signatories of PNAC.

[LynnTheDem]

14. Perfectly said!

And now the poor Iraqis are stuck with a man who is possibly far worse than SH; and that's bush's Allawi. Terrorist, brutal, and he doesn't have the statesmanship that SH had. IE Allawi is a pure thug all the way through and has no diplomatic skills at all. Only out for himself. The Iraqis hate the guy though, so dunno how long Allawi will be in the job.

Anyhoo the vast majority of Americans agree with your last sentance;

In the latest PIPA polls, only 27 percent of respondents said they think that countries have the right, without UN approval, to overthrow another government that is committing "substantial violations of its citizens' human rights,".

41 percent said that intervention could be justified if the violations were "large-scale, extreme and equivalent to genocide."

In the case of Iraq, however, only 32 percent of respondents believed both that human rights abuses equivalent to genocide justified intervention and that such extreme violations were occurring under Hussein's rule.

Asked, "Do you think that there are other governments existing today that have human rights records as bad as that of Iraq under Saddam Hussein?" an overwhelming 88 percent said there are.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1114-06.htm

If only the US STATE MEDIA had done their frigging jobs...

[jmowreader]

16. Thank you for pointing the "mayor of Baghdad" thing out

There are basically three Iraqs: Shia Iraq, Sunni Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan.

No one in Shia Iraq gave a shit about Saddam. No one in Iraqi Kurdistan gave a shit about Saddam. Oh, every once in a while Saddam would send two divisions to Iraqi Kurdistan to beat the shit out of the natives, and every once in a great while he might tend to business in Shia Iraq, but for the most part he stuck to Sunni Iraq.

Saddam was ruthless and brutal when you pissed him off. There are millions of Iraqis who never pissed him off. There are thousands who did, and they're buried in a ditch somewhere.

[geek tragedy]

18. Wtf?

He ruled the entire country outside of Fallujah with an iron fist--massacring and torturing to keep himself in power.

It's fair to say that the Kurds and Shia "gave a shit" about Saddam.

[LynnTheDem]

28. No he didn't.

TRY to face up to the FACTS.

TRY to stop believing the bushit.

Good grief.

[geek tragedy]

31. I am fully aware of the facts.

I haven't swallowed the pro-Saddam kool-aid that was handed out during the Reagan administration.

Sorry, but I'm not going to join "Democrats for Saddam" just because of Bush.

[LynnTheDem]

50. OBVIOUSLY

You DO NOT know the facts.

And that YOU just CAN'T get it thru your head that TRUTH and FACTS and REALITY DO NOT equal "Democrats for Saddam".

I am GLAD he's going to trial; he DESERVES to be tried for the crimes he committed TWENTY YEARS AGO. And the USA should be standing in the dock with him.

You don't believe all the reports, all the news articles etc that were produced in 1989-1990 because they're "Reagan"...but you DO believe the first bush administration who said those reports were all wrong...just as poppa bush decided to attack Iraq and needed to demonize Saddam Hussein.

Sure makes YOU a "bush lover".

[geek tragedy]

51. I believe HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH and AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

And every credible organization that has studied the issue.

The claim that Iran gassed the people at Halabja was INVENTED BY THE REAGAN administration.

So, I'll take pro-HRW/AI over pro-Saddam.

[LynnTheDem]

67. But you CHERRY PICK your HRW reports?

So WHICH HRW report do you believe when it's the "incubator babies" story; the HRW report that accused Iraq of the atrocitiry...or the HRW report that said no such atrocity happened?

I'd like to know if you ONLY believe HRW reports that show Hussein in the worst light.

[geek tragedy]

98. Wow, you really are determined to act as his defense lawyer.

HRW did a very, very thorough report on his gassing of the Kurds. There is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that he used poison gas against the Kurds in incidents other than Halabja. NONE.

There has been no evidence since their reporting on Halabja to contradict it. All there is is the thoroughly discredited Pelletiere work, which was based on several false assumptions.

I'm not cherry picking HRW reports at all. Their reports all state that Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja.

All credible reports indicate that Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja. All of them.

[jmowreader]

73. There's too much of Iraq for Saddam's army to control

Saddam had three armies:

The Iraqi Army was full of conscripts. Desertion was common, mutiny wasn't unknown, and training was poor. The mission of the Iraqi Army was to encourage the other side to burn up all their ammunition on shooting them.

The Republican Guard was full of good soldiers. Their mission was to win the war.

The Special Republican Guard was Saddam's palace guard. These soldiers were exceptional. Their mission was to save Saddam's ass.

There weren't many troops in the Republican Guard--enough to keep order in the Sunni territory, but not many more.

[Bush was AWOL]

15. Saddam was a total thug and deserves to be tortured

but he was proped up by US government and no way was he a threat to us in 2003. However, he and his sons were total scum.

[LynnTheDem]

70. Thug absolutely

And scum I agree completely. And war criminals. And general all-around nasty.

But torture him, nope. If we torture ANYONE, it makes us criminals just like them, imo. Torture's wrong when they do it; it's wrong when we do it. Torture's just WRONG.

[complain jane]

17. And don't forget "addicted to weapons of mass destruction"

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

19. Well, maybe because he was a madman?

Look, we can debate the necessities of war all you wish, but if we're going to turn this into a pro-Saddam thread than I don't know what to tell you. Of course, I could have misunderstood what you're saying.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[geek tragedy]

33. No, you are being a pro-Saddam apologist

who pretends to deal in facts but instead cherry picks only those allegations and pieces of evidence that put him in a positive light.

[LynnTheDem]

66. Whatever.

I deal in FACTS and YOU don't like it. That's fine. Call me a "saddam loyalist" if that's what dealing in FACTS means. Sure as hell beats dealing in bullshit.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

79. Your facts are false. I'm saying you're deceived.

I'm sorry, but the idea that Saddam never massacred ANYONE (did you forget about the rape rooms, gas, etc) is absurd. Was Bill Clinton lying? The U.N? The French? WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM?

[LynnTheDem]

85. I have no problem, but thanks for asking.

And where in any of my posts did I say "Saddam never massacred anyone"? That's a rightwingnut technique, accusing people of saying what they in fact did not say, and it's even worse coming from the left.

I said he has not done so in the PAST DECADE.

Rape rooms. We don't REALLY want to go THERE now, do we??? We can, of course, forget about the US rape rooms in Iraq (and the wide-spread problems of rape in US prisons) and talk about the rape rooms in Turkey...Saudi...Uzbekistan...

But how are rape rooms "massacres"?

As for gas, I've posted already on that. Do some google (it's your friend, I'm told) as there are some reports now online that weren't previously available except on microfiche at libraries. Interesting stuff; like that Red Cross report in May 1990, where the RC decided Iran gassed the Kurds. Saddam apologists, they are.

I will restate what I've said in my previous posts; Saddam Hussein was not committing amassacres in the past decade, and as ICRC and HRW state, there were no on-going and no imminent atrocities and humanitarian intervention cannot be used by bushCartel as justification for their invasion.

Oh, and the majority of Americans agree. Bunch of Saddam apologists, all of em.

[AmerDem]

22. Anyone who would gas his own people is a madman but

he wasn't a grave and imminent threat to us. As everyone knows shrub used fear while our country felt very vulnerable. These actions by shrub also constitute him being a madman and I can't wait for the day he and his gang face the full weight of the law for what they have done!

[EST]

26. Not to make too sharp a point of this, but,

although SH may have considered the Kurds to be "his" property, the Kurds, themselves, primary recipient of Saddam's gassing, certainly did not consider themselves "his" people. They have held themselves as a semi autonomous, self governing people, fiercely independent. That was the whole problem.

[unslinkychild1]

32. Well, okay, then, he's nuts--therefore...

Cannot be held responsible for his actions if he was legally insane at the time he committed them. Bet THAT would shut * up if you sprung it on him.

:)

[LynnTheDem]

34. Oh good grief.

You guys sure did drink up bush's koolaid on this issue.

I take it you've never seen the reports from 1988-1990 that all say BOTH SIDES were using chemical weapons (which the first used on the Kurds) and that IRAN probably "gassed the Kurds".

I give up. Ya'll drunk far too deeply for FACTS to penetrate.

[geek tragedy]

38. You are swallowing Reagan administration Koolaid

I'll choose to believe HRW, AI, and the UN, who all reject your looney-tunes whitewashing of Saddam.

Thank you for playing.

P.S. Shouting something or typing it in bold letters doesn't make it a fact.

I've debunked pro-Saddam propaganda in several previous threads.

I believe Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. You believe Saddam's ally, Ronald Reagan.

[AmerDem]

55. No, I don't think you understand it well enough!

ANYONE, I don't care who the fuck they are, willing to gas, poison, torture any living thing is a madman. This is all i'm saying and George W Bush having been the person directly responsible for the war against Iraq and the killing and torture of life over there is too a madman. This was my only point. Anything else you read into it is hysteria on your part.

BTW, There is no kool-aid drinker here Miss Ya'll, but I suggest you lay the stuff with all that extra alcohol content.

YEE HAW :puke:

[0rganism]

40. Please look at this picture.

Who is using Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people in this photograph?

Was President Truman a madman?

[0rganism]

35. What is a madman?

Is it "one who is crazy"? If we're talking about crazy people, the USA has its fair share of them -- hell, we have school nurses ready to feed zoloft and ritalin to our kids on a whim. A large percentage of our population qualifies as depressed. We'll have thousands of veterans returning from Iraq shortly with PTSD, I expect they'll be acting strangely too. We probably aren't talking about actual DSM-style insanity here.

More likely, "madman" describes a person who exhibits that particular sort of ruthlessness which allows for engaging in -- and perhaps enjoying -- the degredation of a human life. Is this where we want to go with it? Saddam ordered the suppression of insurrection with mass executions, therefore he is a madman. Well, dammit, that's our government too! And not just during the bush administration, either. Look back to the purging of the Native Americans, the "Trail of Tears", the wanton destruction of entire ways of life. Our leaders during the Western Expansion committed ethnic cleansing on a scale that would make Milosevich blush with envy. Madmen, all?

Wouldn't every president between Jefferson and Wilson qualify for this title, if we readily apply it to Saddam Hussein? Arguably not, because they were acting within the scope of "social norm" at the time.

Then we should ask, in all fairness, "Was Saddam's regime measurably more brutal than that of his neighbors?"

Look at Turkey's wholesale slaughter of Armenians and Kurds. Were their rulers less brutal than Saddam Hussein?

Maybe we base our description of "madman" on other criteria, as well. Perhaps respect for civil liberties, peaceful resolution of political differences, integrity within government, and a low level of militarization are factors to be considered. Well then. Would anyone seriously contend that Saudi Arabia is a bastion of civil rights? That Iran settles all its political disputes peacefully? That the Kuwaiti emirate is uncorrupt? That Syria is a dovish nation of peaceniks?

The hardest thing for a propagandized nation such as ours to grapple with will be that our great enemy, the "madman" Saddam Hussein, was not only typical of the region's leaders, but typical of a large segment of those who rise to power in every nation throughout history. His crimes may have been legion, but they were hardly unique.

[MoonRiver]

43. Because he was a madman.

I'm glad he's gone, but I don't think we made things safer for ourselves in the process of deposing the turd. The war was premature, to say the least, and mismanaged from the get go.

[Must_B_Free]

47. Saddam was the George Washington of his nation

the founding father of the secular form of his nation.

He implemented healthcare, education, western law and religious freedom.

[geek tragedy]

48. Lol!

Great post--if you're joking.

[LynnTheDem]

89. Yep just a joke...

But the facts are, Saddam Hussein did introduce healthcare, education, secularism, equal rights for women (at least more so than most other nations in the mideast) etc in Iraq.

I still want to know what happened to that Key to the City Detroit gave him.

Facts are just Saddam apologists, aren't they.

[QC]

49. Because the Left was condemning Saddam as a tyrant

more than 20 years ago, back when Reagan and George I were arming him.

The fact that Bush says bad things about Saddam doesn't mean that Saddam is actually a good guy. It's amazing how much kneejerk thinking we so on a forum made up of people who pride themselves on their intellectual abilities.

[geek tragedy]

52. There's the principled left, and then there's the Ramsey Clark left.

I adhere to the former, the latter are a disgrace.

[LynnTheDem]

69. Whatever.

What I despise are people who just can't see anything but black white up down, and are totally incapable of facing FACTS, even when they're not what we would like.

Hussein a war criminal? Of course.

Brutal? Dictator? Ruthless? Of course.

But was he going around over the past decade massacring Iraqis? No.

And HRW, the group YOU love, say very plainly that humanitarian intervention IS NOT a justification for bush's invasion. I agree with them.

[geek tragedy]

97. You know there were large scale massacres right after the first

Gulf War, right? The big reason they stopped were the no-fly zones.

I never said that intervention was a good idea, or that humanitarian reasons justified the intervention.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

91. I agree 100 percent.

Ramsey Clark is an embarassment.

[LynnTheDem]

72. He wasn't a good guy

And I've never said he was.

But there ARE these things called FACTS. And contrary to some people who think this is all "Reagan" crap, he wasn't in office at the time of the reports I referred to.

It was the US Army War College who first reported it was Iran who used Phosgene on the Kurds, and that was in February, 1990. If I recall, Reagan was not the president at that time.

But hey, fck the facts.

[QC]

77. Yes, I'm well aware of the Army War College's findings.

This might come as a terrible shock to you, but you are not the only person here acquainted with FACTS.

My point was simply that attempting to rehabilitate Saddam as a humanitarian because Bush doesn't like him is pure foolishness. The left knew Saddam was a bastard back when the right was showering him with money and weapons.

[LynnTheDem]

80. And I agree with you

But my remarks weren't actually directed at you re the FACTS. I thought I'd made that clear in my post; obviously I hadn't. My apologies.

And we left know the House of Saud are bastards with as bad or worse a human rights record than Iraq had under Saddam Hussein. As do the Kurds in Kurdistan. And Turkey. And Uzbekistan. But they're all our "good buddies" so I don't think we'll be seeing any forced regime changes there any time soon.

[geek tragedy]

101. Oh horseshit!

The Turks and Kurds worse than Saddam?

No intelligent person believes that. Dear lord.

Saddam was unambiguously evil. A true monster. A psychopath who used poison gas against civilians. He wasn't out of control--many psychopaths like Ted Bundy are perfectly capable of controlling themselves when they have to.

Sorry, but your arguments have gone from irrational and inaccurate to indecent and immoral.

You should get in touch with the Ramsey Clark crowd--they're just your type.

[name not needed]

57. So I guess Saddam wasn't a bad guy?

And Hitler was just misunderstood. :eyes:

[LynnTheDem]

68. Of course he was a "bad guy"

But he was not insane, and he wasn't going around Iraq over the past decade and massacring Iraqis.

Ya know, we expect rightwingnuts to only be able to see the world in GOOD vs EVIL...BLACK...WHITE...UP...DOWN.

But aren't progressives supposed to be able to see the SHADES???

Not all progressives, obviously.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

81. It's one thing to see the shades with regards to a lot of complex issues,

but certain things are absolute. We ought not to live there in the gray.

[LynnTheDem]

88. I disagree

The entire Iraq and mideast history is very complex. And you look at it through western eyes that cannot comprehend their lifestyle or their laws or their traditions or their cultures.

And that lack of comprehension and understanding has a great deal to do with why our troops are being killed in Iraq.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

90. Listen, perhaps I've not been clear.

I've admitted the Iraq War and overall Mieast crisis is a complex issue. We can debate whether Saddam was an iminent threat. Believe it or not, I'm more than inclined to agree with you on that point. I just think the idea that Hussein was not at the very least a mass murderer rather suspect. I never meant to imply anyone was pro-Saddam. If it came out that way, I'm sorry.

As far as your cultural point goes, you're right to an extent, but at a certain point you have to draw the line and see things as right or wrong, and stand up for what's right. Saddam's threat may have not been eminent, but he does have a proven history of grievous human rights violations. Sure, the Saudis are probably worse, but Saddam is still an evil rat bastard.

And I'm done with this.

[LynnTheDem]

94. Unfortunately

What you and I see as clear-cut right & wrong IS NOT always what other nations see as right or wrong, and the sooner we accept this, the sooner we have a chance for some peace in this world.

The USA is the ONLY industrialized nation that has the death penalty. How many other nations view the US's death penalty is on a par as to how you & I view having a hand lopped off for stealing, or a head removed for adultery.

WE say THAT'S WRONG.

THEY say our death penalty is WRONG.

We CANNOT "draw a line". It is not our place to be drawing anyone else's lines but our own. And our refusing to see this, refusing to live by this, is exactly why we suffer blowback. WHEN we're asked to help, like Rwanda begged for help in 1994 (we ignored) and the Sudan last year (we ignored) THEN if we can do so, we should help.

But us deciding how other nations' laws should be??? Bullshit. There are as many people in this world who think a lot of what we do is the worst of any possible crimes; should we allow them to come here and force changes?

I don't think so.

[dennis4868]

64. IF THE USA IS GOING TO.......

takedown every madman there is in the world we would have a never ending war all over the globe and would have to cut every social program just to pay for half of the bill to do it....

[kyattaman]

71. Why do lefties swallow "saddam is a madman" crap?

I never believed it. I argued with people I knew that they were being mislead by the hype. Not everyone buys the line.

[question everything]

76. Because he was, is. And his sons were even worse

Their sadistic treatments of their "opponents" were well documented. From "returning" a husband cut to pieces to his worried wife who begged Saddam for his return, to the severe punishment of the Olympic soccer team by Uday.

I suppose one needs to define what a madman is. I consider Lybia's Khaddafi a madman, too, but seems like we are getting to be good buddies with him. North Korea's dictator is madman, too, Idi Amin was, Bukasa, and probably half the dictators - from right and left.

What you should ask is whether we are ready to cause "regime change" in every country ruled by a madman..

[JerseygirlCT]

84. Exactly. What determines which madmen we have -m

to attack? The question isn't really whether he's mad or dangerous. The question should have been imminent danger to us and whether the situation was controlled. Unfortunately, it now appears pretty clear that this war had little to nothing to do with SH -- mad or no -- and everything to do with a dangerous group of Americans' desire for war with Iraq. It wasn't too many years ago that some of the same characters were either doing business with him (Cheney) or doing the government's business with him (Rumsfeld).

[PVnRT]

93. Please do not feed the trolls

n/t