Iraqi Mass Graves

[JohnRich 4]

In the news (bolding is mine):

Iraqis Find Graves Thought to Hold Hussein's Victims

Investigators have discovered several mass graves in southern Iraq that are believed to contain the bodies of people killed by Saddam Hussein's government, including one estimated to hold 5,000 bodies, Iraqi officials say.

The graves, discovered over the past three months, have not yet been dug up because of the risks posed by the continuing insurgency and the lack of qualified forensic workers, said Bakhtiar Amin, Iraq's interim human rights minister. But initial excavations have substantiated the accounts of witnesses to a number of massacres. If the estimated body counts prove correct, the new graves would be among the largest in the grim tally of mass killings that have gradually come to light since the fall of Mr. Hussein's government two years ago. At least 290 grave sites containing the remains of some 300,000 people have been found since the American invasion two years ago, Iraqi officials say.

One of the graves, near Basra, in the south, appears to contain about 5,000 bodies of Iraqi soldiers who joined a failed uprising against Mr. Hussein's government after the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Another, near Samawa, is believed to contain the bodies of 2,000 members of the Kurdish clad led by Massoud Barzani.

As many as 8,000 men and boys from the clan disappeared in 1983 after being rounded up in northern Iraq by security forces at the command of Ali Hassan al-Majid, widely known as Chemical Ali. It remains unclear, however, how the victims ended up in the south.

Investigators have also discovered the remains of 58 Kuwaitis spread across several sites, including what appears to be a family of two adults and five children who were crushed by a tank, Mr. Amin said. At least 605 Kuwaitis disappeared at the time of the first gulf war, and before the latest graves were discovered, fewer than 200 had been accounted for, he added...

Source: New York Times

[rhino 0]

But the "Invasion" wasn't justified...

My ass..

[christelsabine 1]

Wow

For a moment I thought, GWB was invading because of WMD. Now, I know better as I always felt sure, there's a little untruth he's telling to the world
Naughty boy, your Georgie

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[kelel01 1]

Since nobody answered me the other day: where is Saddam now? What are we doing with him?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Since nobody answered me the other day: where is Saddam now? What are we doing with him?

We have turned Saddam over to the Iraqi Govt. He should be put on trial later this year. The govt. needs to be stabilized a little more first.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

But the "Invasion" wasn't justified...

we cant really use that excuse... afterall we care enough to invade when he was killing them.....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kelel01 1]

Thank you. I completely forgot that we had given him back. That feels like forever ago.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

But the "Invasion" wasn't justified...

we cant really use that excuse... afterall we care enough to invade when he was killing them.....

"You" can, every excuse is a good one.

LMAO: "We care enough...." You're in a funny mood, isn't it?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

But the "Invasion" wasn't justified...

My ass..

So a massacre justifies an invasion? Rwanda 1994 we with the rest of the world did jack to stop it. We just sat on the sideline discussing the sematics of what is genocide. What's worse with this example is that we were buds with Saddam when this was going on.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

But the "Invasion" wasn't justified...

My ass..

...........and GWB is the evil one

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Ron 7]

Quote

So a massacre justifies an invasion? Rwanda 1994 we with the rest of the world did jack to stop it. We just sat on the sideline discussing the sematics of what is genocide. What's worse with this example is that we were buds with Saddam when this was going on.

I love how the UN did nothing in both cases

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Skyrad 0]

Sadam was crap, only 300.000 in what? Three decades? We've killed something in the region of 100,000 in just two years! Imagine what we can accomplish in a decade!

http://musicweaver.users.btopenworld.com/bmj_counting.dead.in.iraq.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1B-4DV11P2-13&_coverDate=11%2F26%2F2004&_alid=267570374&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=4886&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000040619&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=727634&md5=2d3deb53823117292007aea627ce0f1e

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Zenister 0]

Quote

I love how the UN did nothing in both cases

the UN isnt trying to justify killing 100k more...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[KevinMcGuire 0]

Quote

Quote

But the "Invasion" wasn't justified...

My ass..

So a massacre justifies an invasion? Rwanda 1994 we with the rest of the world did jack to stop it. We just sat on the sideline discussing the sematics of what is genocide. What's worse with this example is that we were buds with Saddam when this was going on.

You may notice that at the time the mass killings were taking place in Rawanda and Iraq, Clinton was the boss. Yes he did argue the semantics of what genocide was but then again he also argued the semantics of the word "is". Thank him for our inaction. And actually we were not buds with sadam when he executed those who rose up to over throw him after the first gulf war.

[Ron 7]

Quote

the UN isnt trying to justify killing 100k more...

Your little quips do not change the fact that the UN did nothing in both cases.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Casurf1978 0]

Saddam was killing people en masse all throughout his 30 years in power. We were buds with him in the 1980s and knew about it. With Rwanda if Clinton had done anything most Americans would've wanted his head on a stick. Like the Rwandan leader at that time stated "We have nothing you want." I just believe that we with the rest of the world turn a blind eye when things like this go on. But once our or someone elses interest are involved its a whole different ball game.

[KevinMcGuire 0]

I just believe that we with the rest of the world turn a blind eye when things like this go on. But once our or someone elses interest are involved its a whole different ball game.

[Skyrad 0]

I guess thats the sound of silence. No comment on the 100,000 Iraqi's men women and children we've killed in the last TWO YEARS!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Your little quips do not change the fact that the UN did nothing in both cases.

You cannt really discuss the UN like it's a completely seperate entity... WE - are the UN ... so we still did nothing.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Ron 7]

Quote

You cannt really discuss the UN like it's a completely seperate entity... WE - are the UN ... so we still did nothing.

sure ya can. WE wanted to handle IRAQ...The UN did not.

See how easy that is?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyDekker 1,123]

actually the UN was handling it, You just wanted to invade......

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

actually the UN was handling it, You just wanted to invade......

Standing idly by and saying "Bad boy!" != "handling it"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mr2mk1g 10]

by that logic there can't really be much criticism of the UN's handling of Rwanda etc as WE obviously didn't want to handle the situation either.

If WE had, perhaps WE could have done something seeing as WE are the one’s that control the troops not the UN and if we had wanted the UN to do something WE could have voted for action seeing as WE ARE the UN.

And apparently the UN had handled Iraq's WMD's quite well as when we went in it turned out there weren’t any. And it would appear they did it without killing people at a rate 10 times faster than Sadam ever managed to.

At the end of the day though - I'm not quite sure what this thread is trying to prove. We're all quite clear that taking out Sadam was exceptionally meritorious... even if it was done on premise that turned out to be wrong... and also turned out to have significant down sides as well.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Standing idly by and saying "Bad boy!" != "handling it"

We didn't invade because he was killing his people.

We invaded because we thought he had WMD and hadn't given them all Hans Blix.

Turns out we were wrong - he didn't have any - the UN had already handled the situation.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

They were making sure they had no WMD....and guess what...no WMD found.

Treating your people bad is not something western cultures really concern themselves with, or there would be many more wars with US and EU involvement.