Iraq's Aziz says Saddam issued orders to quash Shiite uprising

[maddezmom]

BAGHDAD (AFP) - Iraq's Tareq Aziz said ousted president Saddam Hussein personally ordered the suppression of a Shiite uprising in 1991 without reference to top aides.

Aziz, who rose to the post of deputy prime minister in Saddam's regime and was one of its best-known faces abroad, said the president had absolute power in such matters, unbridled even by the 10-member Revolutionary Command Council in new interrogation footage released Monday.

"Sometime in the 1980s -- I do not remember when -- an order came out that the president has the right to issue decrees that would have the force of law without having to consult or discuss these decisions with members of the Revolutionary Command Council," Aziz told the judge during the interrogation six days ago.

"Who issued this order?" asked the judge of the Iraqi Special Tribunal created to try Saddam and senior aides.

"The president himself," answered Aziz.

~snip~
more: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050627/wl_afp/iraqjusticesaddamaziz_050627162637

Thought I read somewhere last week Aziz was refusing to testify against Saddam. :shrug:

[daleo]

1. The president of a country would "quash" an uprising?

What a remarkable idea. I thought leaders were just supposed to ignore uprisings and civil wars.

[bribri16]

21. I'm astounded. Must be a major war crime to put down an uprising

against your government. Remember that when we take to the streets.
I remember the US government putting down peace demonstrations. Can anyone say "Kent State?"

[daleo]

55. Let's not forget a certain mid 19th century U.S. president

Who put down a secessionist movement quite forcefully. I don't wish to equate Saddam Hussein's character with Abraham Lincoln's character; I am sure we would all agree are they are as different as night and day. I am just suggesting that putting down uprisings or secessionist movements can get quite bloody, even when the leadership of the state in question is an acknowledged great humanitarian, as Lincoln was.

[rayofreason]

59. Lincoln

Lincoln banned habeus corpus, suspended press freedom, and jailed known secessionists without trial. But he did not slaughter tens of thousands, or even torture and execute the known secessionists he had under lock and key.

Big difference.

[daleo]

72. But the U.S. civil war killed hundreds of thousands.

In fact, the death toll was so high that I believe the term "total war" was coined about this time. Undoubtedly tens of thousands of those were civilians. The toll due to disease and food shortages alone must have been staggering.

The point is that hundreds of thousands were slaughtered, even though Lincoln himself was not the sort to prefer this outcome. Prosecuting any leader of any state for the results of suppressing an insurrection is bound to be dicey at best, given the nature of such conflicts and the historical examples that abound.

And of course we should note that Bush himself (and the current Iraqi government) have shown themselves willing to put down insurrection with very brutal means, and have accepted extraordinary civilian casualties in the bargain. Consider the destruction of Fallujah, among many others.

[rayofreason]

87. U.S. civil war casualties

Yes, hundreds of thousands died during the U.S. civil war - and almost all were military casualties (battlefield loss, disease). A quick google will turn up the generally accepted figure of 630,000 dead. Yet there are no incidents of mass slaughter of civilians during, say, the conquest of Atlanta or Vicksburg (though civilians did suffer during the siege).

After Atlanta, when Sherman spread his army into a 60-mile wide swath of destruction and marched to the sea, only property was deliberately targeted, not people. Contrast that with the policy of the Bathists, or even with Stalin and the Ukraine in the 30's.

What is more, the War of the Rebellion (to use the official name) occurred when the southern section refused to abide by the result of a free and fair election that brought Lincoln to the Presidency. Yes, as a minority candidate without an absolute majority, but legally elected none the less. To quote Lincoln -

"On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. .... Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."

A putting down of an insurrection against the rule of law, freely and fairly established, is what Lincoln was talking about. The question of whether any democratic polity could survive by ensuring acceptance of the rule of law was the question that would be decided by force of arms. As Lincoln said-

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. ....

...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

So, yes, it took a war to do it, but it really was waged "With malice toward none; with charity for all", at least as much as war can be so waged. And in distinction to the topic at hand, there were no massive executions of civilians or even enemy leaders as a matter of policy. Jefferson Davis lived out his retirement in comfort and public goodwill, and did not meet his end at the end of a rope. Talk about forebearance! And this, even after Lincoln's assasination, when radical Republicans ruled (any many did want Davis dead). But the general politcal culture would not allow such revenge. Is there any other example like this in the annals of history? I don't know of any.

Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam, the Hutu leaders in Rwanda, in recent or not so recent past and the Sudanese Janjaweed and Robert Mugabe to this day have not proceeded to ensure their power from such a principled position, or have been so gentle with their enemies, real or percieved.

[endarkenment]

2. What limits would we place

on quashing an uprising right here at home? Any? What limits are we putting on quashing the uprising that is going on right now in Iraq? Any? How many have we killed?

Saddam sucked and what he did to the Shiites is inexcusable, but we are bloody hypocrites.

[LynnTheDem]

6. If armed US citizens were massacring Americans in the streets on their way

to overthrowing the bush regime by armed force, bush wouldn't order the insurgency be "quashed".

If there were an armed uprising in the US of armed citizens slaughtering tens of thousands of Americans, bush would try to talk to the insurgency, understand them and offer therapy, and hand out indictments.

[endarkenment]

7. I'm not sure I get your point

but the Iraqi insurgency has not slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqis, we have in our efforts to put down their insurgency.

The point I was making was quite simply that we are hypocrites when we deplore the tactics used by Saddam to put down the shiite rebellion after gulf farce I. We are using similar tactics. We are detaining thousands, perhaps tens of thousands in Iraq. We have tortured and killed detainees. We have levelled cities and used illegal weapons in doing so. We have brutally suppressed uprisings by Iraqis, killing tens of thousands in the process. Estimates are that up to 100,000 Iraqis have been killed by our military forces.

If there were a domestic uprising in this country, even one that was peaceful and killed nobody, I can assure you that it would be brutally suppressed. Our rulers will not even allow the peaceful constitutional exercise of free speech, they will not hesitate to use any means neccessary to suppress outright rebellion.

[LynnTheDem]

8. The Iraqi insurgency in 1991 did slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqis.

bush gave the putting down of the 1991 insurgency as part of his "rationale" to invade Iraq and regime-change Hussein.

Guess who's putting down the insurgents now; as you posted.

My point was, if Americans did in America what the 1991 insurgents did in Iraq, bushCo, and any other government, would do what Hussein did; quash the insurgents. And not by offering them "therapy" and "handing out indictments" etc (Cheney's words last week on how "liberals" wanna deal with "terrorists".)

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[geek tragedy]

12. True or false: Saddam slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqis

The uprising in Southern Iraq killed thousands of Iraqi troops and other Baathist officials. They did not go door to door killing innocent Iraqis.

Curious, though, that you characterize an armed uprising against a brutal fascist state as a "slaughter" but go to great lengths as to deny that there's proof that the same brutal fascist state ever committed mass atrocities.

Btw, were you criticizing Bush for not being more like Saddam, or were you praising Saddam for not being more like Bush?

[LynnTheDem]

13. LOL!

You crack me up, you really do!

:D

[geek tragedy]

15. Indeed. So much so that you can't answer a simple true/false question

or back up your claim that there are credible human rights organizations that share your belief that the evidence that Saddam committed mass atrocities is inconclusive.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[geek tragedy]

17. No, I'd rather hear why you state as a matter of fact that the Shiites

"slaughtered tens of thousands" in their uprising but decline to state the same about Saddam.

No insults, just a question that you're refusing to answer.

[LynnTheDem]

18. I didn't state that.

I said the Iraqi rebels did.

Go read your HRW reports.

See, I don't HAVE to answer you when I don't want to. And I simply don't want to, because I'm tired of your nasty little insults you've been hurling at me since Day 1.

:)

[geek tragedy]

19. The rebels in Southern Iraq were Shiites.

That's okay. I already KNOW why you state as a matter of fact that the people who rebelled against Saddam slaughtered "tens of thousands" but argue vociferously that the evidence regarding whether Saddam committed such crimes is inconclusive.

No insults coming from this end anymore. I'm just going to debunk the Baathist propaganda you post.

[LynnTheDem]

20. The 1991 Intifada included Shia, AND Kurds, AND Sunnis

And what I "argue(d) vociferously" about was the fact that there is no proof of Anfal or that Hussein's government "mass-graved" hundreds of thousands.

No more insults, just debunking the "Ba'athist propaganda" I post...rotflmao!!!

:rofl:

[geek tragedy]

24. So you agree that Saddam has slaughtered tens of thousands

of Iraqis! Splendid. I can assume that you can hardly wait for this blood-soaked tyrant to be held accountable for his numerous depravities.

[LynnTheDem]

27. Too bad you never bothered to actually

READ the posts I've posted. Such as this one, June 3, 2005;

-What did the rebels do in their 1991 uprising?

Slaughtered thousands of Iraqis.

-What did the Hussein government do about the rebel uprising?

Slaughtered thousands of Iraqis.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3780745

Or this one, June 19, 2005;

Hussein "mass-graved thousands" (5100 remains found to date);

So does bush.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3898051

Or this one, May 31, 2005;

There were no ongoing & no imminent atrocities in Iraq and hadn't been since the Iraqi rebels slaughtered Iraqis, and the Iraqis in turn slaughtered the Iraqi rebels over a decade ago, in 1991.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3759167#3759240

Or this one, March 6, 2005

What government in the world would refrain from using all necessary means to quell a violent uprising of this kind? No one denies that the regimes response was swift and merciless, or that many innocents were caught up in the retaliation and destruction. But if blame is assigned, shouldn't it start with the instigators of the carnage along with the foreign government who misled them about the forces they were going up against and yet egged them on?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3230394

At the end of the 1991 Gulf War legions of Shia radicals - the kind we've seen clamoring for an Islamic state - attacked and killed anyone connected to Iraq's secular government. Urged to "take matters into their own hands" by the first Bush administration and mistakenly believing that Iraq's army had been destroyed, armed militants went from city to city in southern Iraq mercilessly butchering scores of innocents.

All told, several thousand military personnel, policemen, clerks, and employees of the government were slain, according to Omar Ali, another regional authority.

Accepting Washington's pronouncements about a vanquished Iraqi military, up to 400,000 Kurds undertook a ferocious spree of mayhem that rivaled that of the Shia. According to Mackay, in the city of Kirkuk "no one bothered to count how many servants of Baghdad were shot, beheaded, or cut to shreds with the traditional dagger stuck in the cummerbund of every Kurdish man. By the time Kurdish rage had exhausted itself, piles of corpses lay in the streets awaiting removal by bulldozers."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/09/12_graves.html

"It was a revolution," says one Basrawi rebel named Mohamad, who deserted his army unit after the intifada began and eventually made it to the United States. "It was glorious. There were demonstrations and shooting. There were bodies all over the place."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2001/11/iraq.html

Unlike you, I am able to look at ALL sides of issues. ;)

[The Magistrate]

31. The Question Here, Ma'am

Is whether the rebels butchered tens of thousands of innocents. On the figures you yourself provide, tens of thousands seems an unlikely total, and on the characterizations you yourself provide, the innocence of a great proportion of them is questionable, to put it mildly.

Nor does it seem wise to put blame for this completely on the statements of foreign leaders at the time. Thousands of armed men do not spring into existence on a moment's whim: clearly these bodies were organized and already in existence. The history of Hussein's regime is largely one of suppression of Shi'ite irridentism in the south, and Kurdish irridentism in the north. In this, he was simply following on the earlier practice of the modern rule of the region from Bahgdad instituted in the twenties of the last century. Both outbreaks were simply waiting to happen, and merely recent chapters in an old and long-lived enterprise, firmly rooted in native feelings and attachments.

[LynnTheDem]

32. According to news reports at the time, tens of thousands, yes.

That's including the Kurds who killed thousands of Kurds at the time.

BOTH sides slaughtered each other; I have always posted so.

There are also books on the subject, if you're interested in the subject.

:)

[geek tragedy]

35. You have proof of Iraqi rebels slaughtering tens of thousands of

innocent civilans?

Please provide it.

Of course, you have also stated that calling Saddam a murderous butcher is "bullshit."

[The Magistrate]

36. News Reports Of Such Events At The Time They Are Occuring, Ma'am

Are invariably inflated....

[LynnTheDem]

37. Very true. But most reports at the time gave equal bodycounts.

The latest I saw were 20,000 for the rebels, and 30,000-60,000 for the Iraqi government.

Either way, fact is BOTH sides slaughtered each other. Other fact is, the rebels started it, and there's not a government in the world that wouldn't have quashed an armed insurgency in their country.

:)

[geek tragedy]

38. The HRW document shows a ratio of 10:1. But, of course, you

have mystery sources saying otherwise. Sources you can't, or won't produce.


And you skip right over the glaring difference in the nature of the killings. The Baathist forces killed many, many more unarmed people than did the rebels. This is undisputed everywhere except your posts.

And you continue to advocate for a fascist state's right to use horrific violence to keep itself in power.

It is indeed disturbing to see such cheerleading for mass murder committed by a fascist regime on a progressive forum.

[The Magistrate]

43. That Is What Happens In A Revolution, Ma'am

They are, after all, a form of war. And certainly any sovereign has the right to attempt to crush a rebellion. But there are limits, and these were clearly transgressed by Hussein's government. The sovereign does not, today, anyway, have the right to kill even captured rebels in summary fashion without trial, and certainly does not have the right to kill young men of military age en masse in a troublesome district, or to bombard neighborhoods and towns indiscriminately where rebel sentiment is felt to prevail. These things are infamous crimes, and no good purpose is served by failing to denounce them. Rebels often commit crimes as well, but it is in the nature of things that rebels, and particularly when they fail of success in their rising, are unable to match the efficiency or scope of criminality indulged in by a ruthless sovereign. Competent rebel action, anyway, in a general rising, tends necessarily to focus first on the armed defenders of the regime, who must be eliminated for the thing to succeed, and even the rebels themselves to hope for survival; therefore the persons killed by the rebellion are apt to assay out to a higher proportion of legitimate targets than than is the sovereign's subsequent suppression, when carried out in the ruthless wise this one was.

[geek tragedy]

46. Brilliantly stated, sir. nt

[LynnTheDem]

48. I have never said Hussein's government didn't transgress limits.

Of course they did. Which is why my posts refer to Iraqi rebels having slaughtered Iraqis who then in turn slaughtered the rebels.

BOTH SIDES. Period.

:)

[geek tragedy]

49. There you go again, drawing a false equivalence between the two.

Most of those killed by the rebels: armed defenders of the regime.

Most of those killed by the regime: unarmed civilians.

That is not two sides "slaughtering" each other. To characterize the rebels actions as "slaughtering" tens of thousands is inaccurate--a willful distortion.

"Transgressing limits." What a cute way to characterize mass murder.

:puke:

[LynnTheDem]

51. You made a mistake, geek; you're mocking ME for what Magistrate said.

I'm sure you only meant to mock me. ;)

[geek tragedy]

52. When you refer to the uprising, you do two things:

1) Draw a false moral and factual equivalence between the actions of the rebels and those of the fascists; and

2) avoid trying to place blame on the fascists whenever possible.

The Magistrate also called what Saddam's regime did mass murder, something I have yet to hear you do.

[LynnTheDem]

53. I've yet to hear you blame the Iraqi rebels for their slaughter, or the

Kurds for killing more Kurds than Hussein ever did.

And I KNOW I've posted often about BOTH SIDES being to blame.

When will you do so?

:)

[geek tragedy]

54. I will not blame the Iraqi rebels for killing the armed forces of Saddam

Hussein. And I certainly won't distort the truth and call what they did as "slaughter."

They rebelled against an evil, horrible totalitarian state. Good for them.

You can choose to pretend that fascism and rebelling against fascism are morally neutral alternatives. I certainly won't. In fact, no progressive I know would draw such an equivalence.


Btw, here are reports of mass graves of Saddam's victims:

http://hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0503/

Where are the mass graves of those supposedly slaughtered by the rebels?

[LynnTheDem]

56. Hey speaking of HRW, did ya read their reports on the incubator babies?

End of our posts, geek. No sense in it, as you admit to only being willing to see one side of the entire issue of Hussein's Iraq, which is just too narrow a view for me to bother with.

Have a wonderful life. :)

[geek tragedy]

57. Yep, I'm prejudiced against brutal fascists. And proud of it.

However, I feel compelled to refute apologia for fascism.

So long as that kind of nonsense pollutes this progressive board, I'll be there loudly denouncing it.

[rayofreason]

60. I read it all...

Good for you.

I find it amazing what I see some people write. But then, there were similar folks in the 30's as well. Remember Lindbergh and Reed. Each covered and dissembled to shield atrocity, each for thier own reason.

[LynnTheDem]

65. it's not a matter of shielding atrocities.

It's a matter of looking at ALL sides of an issue. And that is something progressives claim to be, and should be, very good at.

Black-white mindset is for rightwingnut morans, not progressives.

[geek tragedy]

67. No, progressives don't look at all sides when the issue is fascism.

Opposition to fascism is a basic right. The Kurds had the right to resist their fascist government. The Shiites had the right to resist their fascist government.

Any and all Iraqis had the right to resist Saddam's dictatorship. Their side was the righteous side.

Anti-fascism is a core value of progressivism.

If you find yourself making excuses for fascist oppression and violence, you're not thinking and acting like a progressive--you're thinking and acting like a fascist.

Sympathy for fascists is an evil.

[The Magistrate]

71. Again, Sir

The matter is not quite so simple as it appears on paper. Certainly people have the right to resist a tyrannical government. But in the instance of the Shia in the south, the active resistance was not in the name of liberty, but in the name of instituting a theocratic tyranny based locally, as opposed to a secular tyranny based centrally, while among the Kurds in the north, the active resistance was as much a question of clearing the ground of strangers so the local business of fighting out who would be dictator could proceed without interference as it was anything else. Thus, it is difficult to view the matter as anything other than a contest between various sorts of "fascist", without a progressive element in sight. It can be necessary, even wise, at times, to prefer one particular rogue over another, but it ought to be done with open eyes, and without ascribing to the preferred rogue any trappings of virtue....

"Liberty don't work as well in practice as it does in speeches."

[geek tragedy]

74. Of course, there was no unitary consciousness behind the breakout

of violence.

From all accounts I have read, the reaction was spontaneous and based largely on hatred of Saddam's regime.

Now, were there Islamists in the mix in the South and political intrigue in the North? Of course.

But spontaneous revolts lack the conscious purpose of more ideologically-driven revolutions.

[The Magistrate]

75. Those Were The Men With The Guns, Sir, And Some Organization

In such circumstances, their desires are the only ones that matter....

[geek tragedy]

76. Not when judging the purpose of the entire movement and populace

in terms of their justification of the revolution.

The Leninists were no friends of democracy, but that does not invalidate the righteousness of the Russian revolution.


In any event, the fascists crushed the rebellion not to preserve secularism, but rather to preserve their hold on power.

Good evening, sir.

[The Magistrate]

77. Fair Enough, Mr. Tragedy

My view, as you may have noticed, is often damned bleak....

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[LynnTheDem]

42. LOL!

You are amazing. :D

[geek tragedy]

45. Whom do you blame for these atrocities?

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iraq0205/

The Shiites demonstrating in the streets?

Let me guess: Saddam only killed those Shiites that had it coming.

[The Magistrate]

22. Here Is A Useful Report On the Matter, Sir

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/WR92/MEW1-02.htm

Here are the introductory paragraphs to the section on events in southern Iraq....

In the immediate wake of Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait, a new human rights crisis unfolded, this time in war-ravaged Iraq itself. Residents of at least two dozen southern Iraqi cities, joined in many cases by disaffected returning soldiers, rose up against the government in early March, ousting government forces from nearly all of those cities. Similar rebellions broke out within days throughout the predominantly Kurdish north of the country.

In their counterattack and when consolidating their recapture of these cities, government troops killed thousands of unarmed civilians by firing indiscriminately into residential areas; executing people on the streets and in homes and hospitals; rounding up persons, especially young men, during house-to-house searches, and arresting them without charge or shooting them en masse; and targeting fire from attack helicopters on unarmed civilians as they fled the cities.

For their part, rebels and their sympathizers in both northern and southern cities killed hundreds, if not thousands, of members of the security forces and others allegedly working for the Baath Party or the government. While many were killed in battle, others were summarily executed after they had surrendered and were taken into custody, sometimes after summary people's "trials."


It seems to me most members of this forum would consider the actions described in the second paragraph particularly to be criminal and atrocious. The difference in scale is obvious as well: "hundreds if not thousands" for the rebels, and a flat "thousands of un-armed civilians" for the government, which suggests the latter was playing at the old and well established ratio of ten for one in these matters....

[geek tragedy]

23. Also note that the majority of those killed by the rebels were armed

soldiers defending the fascist regime, as well as agents of that same fascist regime.

[The Magistrate]

25. In Actual Practice, Sir

That gets a bit more dicey than it appears on paper. Membership in the Ba'athist Party was a necessity for advancement in many professions, or simply a wise way to keep one's head down in troubled times: mere membership in the organization did not always mean much, but rebel shootists enquire no more closely into actual motivations than government ones. Soldiers, also, do tend to obey orders, and have good reason to fear their offciers if they do not: it puts many a conscript in the way of a bullet it is hard to argue he really deserved....

[geek tragedy]

26. Of course. But, the soldier with the gun and the shopkeeper are not

equal opportunity victims.

Soldiers using force to defend a fascist regime, regardless of their inner motives, can be dealt with in only one way.

Subjectively, they may be nice guys. Objectively, they were an instrument of violence used by the totalitarian state to preserve its hold on power.

[The Magistrate]

28. That Is True Enough, Sir

And soldiers and police are legitimate objects of attack in such circumstances. Nonetheless, my sympathies are engaged by persons who have had their lives shaped under the loom of a totalitarian regime, even the pawns of it, for they might well have turned out otherwise absent that stunting shade....

"Misanthropy is how the Devil falls in love."

[geek tragedy]

29. I agree about the sympathies. All the more tragic

because their deaths are often necessary.

[LynnTheDem]

30. Carry on with that very same HRW report;

No reliable figures are available concerning the number of persons killed or wounded by either side during the uprising.

Then go on down to your local library, and read the news reports from the 1991 uprisings, particularly the interviews from many of the Iraqi rebels.

WaPo carried several.

[The Magistrate]

34. Followed Them At The Time, Ma'am

There really seems to be nothing to go on but the analysis of the various human rights organizations, and a sense of history and the scale of events it typically contains.

Twenty thousand to the rebels, mostly functionaries, soldiers and party members, and two hundred thousands to the government, only a small proportion of them armed participants, would seem about the largest possible estimates, and either estimate could be cut in half without protest from me....

[LynnTheDem]

41. So did I.

Mandatory for degrees in MidEast Studies. Not pleasant reading, that's for sure.

Start an armed rebellion, a country's government is gonna put you down as hard as they can. What I object to is the insurgents getting no blame, and the Iraqi government getting all the blame. There are always 2 sides.

The "200,000" figure was downgraded to "30,000-60,000". The largest number of killings by rebels was up North, not in the south.

But of course we mustn't mention the 30 years' war of the Kurds slaughtering each other, especially now that the leader of one of the 2 main Kurdish parties responsible for the slaughter is Iraq's new president.

[The Magistrate]

44. If Kurds Did Not Fight One Another Incessantly, Ma'am

There would be a state of Kurdistan today....

[LynnTheDem]

50. So it's ok that more Kurds slaughtered Kurds than any other groups

combined, in Iraq, because otherwise they'd officially have a Kurdistan state...but we'll go ahead and blame only the Iraqi government under Hussein for killing less Kurds than Kurds killed?

I'll stick with looking at BOTH sides.

[The Magistrate]

62. My Point, Ma'am

Was simply that there is a deeply rooted history of tribal warfare within that people, with groups willing to side with outsiders against local enemies, to the detriment of the whole. In most instances in the modern period, this has been very useful to authorities in various countries that seek to maintain their own grip on various portions of what most all acknowledge to be the Kurdish homeland. Hussein is only one of those who found his interests served by this.

[LynnTheDem]

63. Ahhh, gotcha.

And your point put this way I entirely agree with.

Especially with "Mr. Everyman" Talabani, who is (in)famous for his changing hats at the drop of a pin, depending what's in it for him.

[The Magistrate]

69. If You May Forgive An Impish Reply, Ma'am

It is precisely that quality of Mr. Talibani which makes him the great leader among his people. That quality is essential for a man's emergence at the summit of a polity that is a congerie of war lords. It brings genuine and widespread popularity, for the more minor fighting men within such a polity are all used to setting their courses in the same manner, and recognize and applaud the skill displayed, and wish to associate themselves with it, and certainly are not eager to stake themselves against it. The only danger it carries is that of leaving alive any sizeable number who are emotionally committed to vengeance for harm done by shifts during the rise, but he seems to have been fairly careful in that regard. Should he reach the final stage of success, achieving an independent Kurdistan, or perhaps even better, a sort of Kurdish imperium over the Arabs of the plains, he will go down in Kurdish history as a great figure indeed, and those he buried in his rise be villified as traitors and renegades to the great work. We have crossed words on statecraft before, Ma'am, and my view remains it is no trade for the upright and the stalwart....

"A Spanish General, asked on his deathbed if he would not forgive his enemies for his soul's sake, replied: 'I have none to forgive. I had them all shot.'"

[LynnTheDem]

70. Mr. Talabani is a warlord and responsible for the deaths of more Kurds

than Hussein, Turkey & Iran combined.

That may make him a "great leader among HIS people", as in the PUK Kurds. It also still makes him a mass-murdering criminal and a warlord.

That doesn't mean "the man with many orifices", as his own people call him, is any better than the ally he hugged and kissed and now replaces.

[The Magistrate]

73. By The Only Real Standard In That League, Ma'am, It Certainly Does

He is free and in power, supported by thousands of men in arms; the ally he kissed is in a cell, and doomed to be hanged. There is no other criterion in operation. The title of "mass-murdering criminal and a warlord" is something like a pair of jacks in draw poker: it is what lets you get into the game, and put some stake out on the table....

[LynnTheDem]

78. And the entire ME is destablizing, Iraqis hate us more than ever, Iraq is

now a "terrorist training ground" where it was not before, the entire world detests us, and terrorism around the globe has and is escalating.

Iraqis weren't being mass-murdered before bush's invasion, but have been ever since and will continue to be for a long time to come, and Iraqis are suffering under worse conditions than ever and especially women will have LESS freedoms than they did before bush's invasion.

Talabani, Allawi, et al; same donkey, different blankets.

[The Magistrate]

79. Those Things, Ma'am

Are obviously of no concern to Mr. Talibani, who is profiting somewhat by them....

[LynnTheDem]

80. He claimed it was a concern, when he opposed bush's invasion.

But that was then; there's a good reason for the nicknames the Kurds gave Talabani.

[The Magistrate]

81. Again, Ma'am

All you are saying amounts to praise for the fellow's skill at his trade....

[LynnTheDem]

83. Not exactly.

What I'm saying is he's nothing but another Saddam and possibly worse, as he doesn't give a damn about the Sunni or Shia and a homogenous Iraq.

And I must say good night, as my newsfeeds are suddenly a'whirl. That's never a good sign.

TTFN. :)

[The Magistrate]

84. There Is No Homogenous Iraq, Ma'am

That is a great portion of the problem....

[LynnTheDem]

85. Only got a sec here...we gotta agree to disagree again, my dear.

Gotta go! Busy bloody night in Iraq tonight.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[DoYouEverWonder]

39. There is no evidence to date

that Saddam killed tens of thousands of people.

I look at lots of picture libraries, news pics and I read a bunch of news sites. I have looked for evidence of Iraqi mass graves and have seen very little.

Yes, there was one mass grave in southern Iraq that was associated with the 1991 Uprising. This was probably the biggest site found so far and from what I remember there certainly weren't more than 3000 people there.

There are also some smaller graves found in the north and a couple of other places but nothing major.

They did find a warehouse full of bodies in coffins at one point. It turned out they were all Iranian soldiers that were killed in the Iraq/Iran War. The bodies were well kept and their possessions were kept with them. When we found the warehouse in 2003(?) all of the bodies were repatriated back to Iran. It turned out that the Iraqi's did a very good job of honoring another countries war dead.

The mass graves mantra is pure Bu$hCo bs. Just like the WMD's. They are figments of W's imagination.

[geek tragedy]

40. Have you read the HRW reports?

There is ample, ample evidence that Saddam killed tens of thousands.

Just because you have not acquainted yourself with such sources does not mean they exist.


You do know that there are other forms of evidence besides mass graves, right?

[DoYouEverWonder]

58. Are you referring to the attacks in the Kurdish region in 1988?

Yes, 1000's died. But not 10,000's and certainly not 100,000's like Bu$h claims.

[geek tragedy]

61. And the HRW reports on Southern Iraq, where Saddam unleashed

his killing machine on multiple occasions.

[LynnTheDem]

47. Murdoch's Daily Telegram bullshit; never has been retracted to date.

Nice large typeface, of course;



Why bother retracting such lurid headlines when the truth is so mundane and boring. :eyes:

As I posted on March 2005;

If "hundreds of thousands" of remains are uncovered in those "mass graves", and if it's proven by forensics they were not killed by US forces during the Gulf War, or the current invasion & occupation, then I will believe the "Hussein mass-graved hundreds of thousands" rhetoric.

Until then, the facts say otherwise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3230394

And that's still my opinion.

[MidwestTransplant]

3. The very uprising that papa Bush encouraged then abandoned

the people on.

[Roland99]

4. Ba-da-bing

[geek tragedy]

5. Ah, Aziz uses the old Sergeant Schultz defense.

"I know nu-think. Nu-think."

[Say_What]

10. Patriot Act and Evasion of International Criminal Court, Iraq version....

"...an order came out that the president has the right to issue decrees that would have the force of law without having to consult or discuss these decisions with members of the Revolutionary Command Council,"

...He was then asked about a 1991 decree giving regional commanders of the ruling Baath party "amnesty and punishment powers," and whether, as a member of the RCC, he was notified of the decree.


Sound like Bush in the USSA...

[VegasWolf]

14. Bush is following in his footsteps. Bush is ordering the suppression

of Shites too.

[Vladimir]

68. In other news, July is due to have 31 days this year... n/t

[Chicago Democrat]

82. Testimony under duress is Bullshit folks....

EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF "EVIDENCE" THEY PRESENT IS ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.



Fuck this bullshit. Get real people....

[geek tragedy]

86. Let me guess--you don't have a law degree.

Every defendant testifies under duress.

And on which pieces of evidence have you conducted a legal analysis? The eyewitness testimony? Documentary and forensic evidence?

Inquiring legal minds want to know!

[Chicago Democrat]

88. Oh yes, testimony while being rendered to who knows where is

gospel truth.


Just what is your point? You believe this?

[geek tragedy]

89. What is your legal theory for stating that "every single piece of evidence

is illegal under international law?" I'd love to hear it.

And, "Saddam's lawyers said so" doesn't count.

[Chicago Democrat]

90. Ok, Number One: The Invasion is Illegal

Just as was the Invasion of Poland in 1939
Just as was the Invasion of Kuwait was in 1991

All subsequent actions of any so-called legal authority is null and void! All our "prisoners" are illegally being held. Every death is accountable to the War Criminals that began this crime. Anyone who assists them is assisting War Criminals.


DUH!


Besides that. I believe Bush stole the election in 2000 and 2004. Therefore they were illegimate from the beginning.


LASTLY


Aziz has not been brought before any tribunal that has any legimacy or legality that is recognised internationally. He was the head diplomat of a country we illegally invaded and deserves a real trial and the Intl Criminal Court in the Haugue. After they do him, they can indict Bush, Cheney and Rumsfelt and Wolfowitz.



Anyone who defends the administration is suspect and ignoring all of the above. I refuse to settle for anything less than full justice and will pursue until I breath my last breath like Simon Wisenthal. I will dog them and millions others like me and we will not rest until the blood of over one hundred thousands of innocents killed by them is avenged and the rule of law restored.

[geek tragedy]

91. Aziz can't be tried at the ICC, which lacks retroactive jurisdiction.

Therefore, a body composed of Iraqis is the exact way to go in his case.

The idea that all consequences of an illegal invasion are legally null and void is false. Saddam is not the President of Iraq. Aziz is not a government official anymore. They are members of a former regime that has been replaced by the current Iraqi interim government and the US as occupying power.

[Chicago Democrat]

92. Oh a Kangaroo Court?

Give me a break... Noone believes Aziz is getting a fair trial. The Iraqi government lacks legitimacy and moral authority for anything but victor's justice.


USA = A rougue regime

Iraq Govt = Its lacky

[geek tragedy]

93. There were elections in Iraq, you know. Bush's stooge was rejected

by 86% of the voters. To describe the folks that Iraqis voted for as puppets is extraordinarily simplistic.

Why would a trial held in Holland be more legitimate than one held in Iraq?

[Chicago Democrat]

94. a Show Trial is a Show Trial

Perhaps Iraq is the proper venue. There are few examples from history. At least at Nurenburg there was widespread international agreement that a crime has even taken place. What is Aziz being accused of? Does anyone even know? And of course Iraqis should have trial, etc. Whose running this one? Not chalabi's son still? What new scummy lacky? This all based on that bogus enabling act that Bremmer invented does not confer international legitimacy.

Maybe its okay for a US Govt that kidnaps people and tortures them, but its not OK for me. Its not OK for millions of others who see it for what it is.

First of all War Crimes are international crimes like Milosovich is facing in The Hague. But these trials in Iraq are "SHOW TRIALS". Like they had in Stalin's time. Like they had in the 3rd Riech.

I seriously question these trials' validity. What are the charges? Who'se defending the prisoners? What about all the collusion of the Reagan Bush Administration in these so called war crimes? Why isnt the Iran Iraq war part of the war crimes? Gee was there any Iraqi 'war crime' that the US didn't completely support at the time?Will we ever know the truth? but what I do know is that the so-called Iraqi government was set up by "Viceroy" Bremmer and that makes me suspect everything that comes out of it.


History demands a full accounting and a real full war crimes trial of Iraq atrocities along with the US officials that approved them.

[geek tragedy]

95. Aziz was one of Saddam's inner circle of advisers for decades before

becoming foreign minister. The equivalent of a Politburo member or member of the German High Command.

We'll have to see what processes and procedures wing up being used.

This COULD become a show trial and a farce. However, we shouldn't automatically dismiss a war crimes trial as inherenly unfair.

To put it another way--would you have greater confidence in the process had Shiite or Kurdish parties been the ones to try him?