UK/US use moral mandate in Iraq, yet support dictator who boils dissidents

[dutchdemocrat]

Tony Blair's new friend

Britain and the US claim a moral mandate - and back a dictator who boils victims to death

George Monbiot
Tuesday October 28, 2003
The Guardian

The British and US governments gave three reasons for going to war with Iraq. The first was to extend the war on terrorism. The second was to destroy its weapons of mass destruction before they could be deployed. The third was to remove a brutal regime, which had tortured and murdered its people.

If the purpose of the war was to defeat terrorism, it has failed. Before the invasion, there was no demonstrable link between al-Qaida and Iraq. Today, al-Qaida appears to have moved into that country, to exploit a new range of accessible western targets. If the purpose of the war was to destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before he deployed them, then, as no such weapons appear to have existed, it was a war without moral or strategic justification.

So just one excuse remains, and it is a powerful one. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. While there was no legal argument for forcibly deposing him on the grounds of his abuse of human rights, there was a moral argument. It is one which our prime minister made repeatedly and forcefully. "The moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam," Tony Blair told the Labour party's spring conference in February. "Ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity. It is leaving him there that is in truth inhumane."

<SNIP>

There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death.

<SNIP>


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1072313,00.html

[bryant69]

1. Fun discussion to have with your conservative friends

Liberal: "Look, we were led to invade Iraq for false reasons; Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11 and he apparently didn't have those weapons of mass destruction. President Bush decieved us.

Conservative: "Look, if you want me to apologize for liberating the Iraqi people, you'll have a long wait. What is it with you? Don't you think the Iraqi people are better off out from under the thumb of a brutal dictator?"

Liberal: "Look, then why don't we pressure Uzbekistan into giving up their viscious ways? They are torturers and murders to rival Saddam Hussein."

Conservative. "Look, the United States Military should only be sent in when it is vital to American national Security. Saddam posed a threat to the US, Uzbekistan does not. End of story."

Go back to the top and start over.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[dutchdemocrat]

2. Pretty obvious....

Bump

[sistersofmercy]

3. Yes but see there's an existing natural gas pipeline for the

Caspian Sea in Uzbekistan which will be expanded through Afghanistan, across Pakistan and terminating in India. I wonder how construction is going? Poor I assume, those pesky Taliban just won't let us finish the gas pipeline and oil pipeline that Unocal has had on their books for, Oh, about decade. But the truth is it sure would be a whole lot easier to get the oil and gas of the Caspian Sea if we could take Northern Iran. Then it could be pumped straight to Northern Iraq via pipeline to the Persian Gulf. Forget about trying to get the Pakistanis and Indians to agree and clearly, Afghanistan was not planned very well. So there, invade Iraq, take just the Northern tip of Iran or perhaps there could be a trade, you know the sacred Shia mosque in Najaf, Oh and almost everyone gets what they want. Well...you get the picture.

[Selwynn]

4. Yeah and also Sudi Arabia, Latin America, many African countries....

... these are also examples of countries, contients or locations where the U.S supports brutal regiems without batting an eye.

Noam Chomsky made an interesting point once. He said we're always talking about bring Democracy and a pro-US-friendly democratic ruler to the middle east and eastern hemisphere in general. But the best example of how well this "vision" works is the Western Hemisphere. The US has pretty much put its vision into effect in latin america. How's it lookin down there? It's it a beautiful place full of freedom and hope and prosperity and democracy?

Just checkin.... :eyes: