Saddam Hussein-era mass grave unearthed
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Whitney Houston dead at 48
( 26 )
-
Romney's presidential bid gets boost with Maine win
( 4 )
-
Iran to present nuclear projects in days; lashes out at Israel
( 16 )
-
Syrian army general assassinated in Damascus
( 5 )
-
8 arrested in bribery probe at Murdoch's Sun
( 2 )
-
- Full-time English Teacher at Praivate JHS/SHS in & around Tokyo (April 2012)
- Wing （株）ウィング, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥280,000 ~ ¥310,000 / Month
-
- Full-time English Teacher for Children
- 7ACT Inc. (７アクト), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥200,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month Negotiable
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
56 Comments
Login to comment
0
Sarge
Finally a thread where I can comment on good ol' Saddam Hussein.
Iraq and the the world is better off without Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons and goons in power, thanks mainly to President-elect Obama's predecessor and the United States of America.
0
adaydream
Okay, well Saddam's dead.
They were murdered. That's a bad thing.
Damn Saddam for his murders.
Those 150 murders are bad, very bad. < :-)
0
SuperLib
More about mass graves from Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massgravesin_Iraq
..The 1983 attack against Kurdish citizens belonging to the Barzani tribe, 8,000 of whom were rounded up by the regime in northern Iraq and executed in deserts at great distances from their homes.
...The 1988 Anfal campaign, during which as many as 182,000 people disappeared. Most of the men were separated from their families and were executed in deserts in the west and southwest of Iraq. The remains of some of their wives and children have also been found in mass graves.
...Chemical attacks against Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988, including the Halabja attack, when the Iraqi Air Force dropped sarin, VX and tabun chemical agents on the civilian population, killing 5,000 people immediately and causing long-term medical problems, related deaths, and birth defects among the progeny of thousands more.
...The 1991 massacre of Iraqi Shia Muslims after the Shia uprising at the end of the Gulf war, in which tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians in such regions as Basra and Al-Hillah were killed.
...A massacre of Kurds in 1991, which targeted civilians and soldiers who fought for autonomy in northern Iraq after the Gulf war, also resulted in mass graves.
That's not even counting the 1 to 2 million killed when Saddam decided to start a war with Iran. Or those killed when he invaded Kuwait. Or those killed by his missiles in Saudi Arabia. Or those killed by his missiles into Israel. Or those killed by his support of global terrorism.
But let's not forget that Saddam brought "relative stability" to Iraq, ne? It's the famous position from Reagan/Europe in the 80s and global liberals/Europe in 2003. They mask their support of Saddam by sanitizing it into "anti-war" but let's just say they're willing to watch the bodies stack up pretty high while they do their best to pretend they aren't there.
0
SuperLib
I overstated the casualties from the Iran-Iraq war. Most sources are reporting 600,000 now, including wikipedia. Since I used wikipedia above for the mass graves I'll use the same source for the Iran-Iraq war.
0
Madverts
At the peak of the unrest caused by this demented invasion, this many people were dying a day.
That said, it's nice to see the invasion's "humanitarian" supporters of the invasion crowing that they finally are "vindicated", despite the on-going slaughter.
Mission Accompli
0
Madverts
Whoops! Heh, there's clearly so much "vindication" I clearly had to mention it twice...
0
smithinjapan
sarge: "Finally a thread where I can comment on good ol' Saddam Hussein."
You said it! And it only took about 10,000 more graves this size since the US illegally invaded to find this relic! Phew! If it went on much longer the US may have directly/indirectly caused 20,000 times that many! (if not already)
superlib: "I overstated the casualties from the Iran-Iraq war."
Was that the one where the US gave weapons and money to Iraq to fight Iran and therefore supported whatever Hussein did (including said mass-murder) or was it when they were giving money and weapons to Iran to fight Iraq? Or did they switch somewhere in between? All the flip-flopping and supporting them at one point, attacking directly or indirectly in the next... gets confusing!
Anyway, good that they found these souls and can properly put them to rest.
0
smithinjapan
"Finally a thread where I can comment on good ol' Saddam Hussein."
Hahaha... sorry... I just can't let this drop. It's hilarious coming on the heels of you TRYING to defend the debacle in Iraq; first on the WMDs (which I think you still believe exist!), the ties to Bin Laden, then just the fact that Hussein was not a good man and therefore regime change is necessary. Nice you can admit that you finally have something valid to comment on. Sadly, as I've said, it follows too many years of hollow defense in support of a cause that was unjust to begin with.
0
romulus3
Saddam opposed the Kurds who were trying to form their own country on Iraqi soil. So there was war. If Montana suddenly decided to become an independent country and each man had a desire to fight to the death, like the Kurds, Would the result be any different?
0
Sarge
Amazing how some people still think Iraq and the world would be better with Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons and his goons still in power.
0
sailwind
Just change opposed to murder and then the first part makes sense. As to trying to form their country on Iraqi soil under Saddam.........You need to take a history lesson.
No Kurd or Shia in the South who ever tried that lived and that is why we have this mass grave in the first place.
0
romulus3
sailwind,
> Just change opposed to murder and then the first part makes sense
well what else should he have done with a mad bunch beyond negotiation? The Mid East is not the diplomatic scenario that you see between the convenience stores that you walk past on your way to work (if thats what you do). Its dog eat dog there. You cannot deny or disprove that the Kurds want there own sovereign territory. Its a pure fact. Saddam acted within the interests of his nation. Brutal as it was, that is the Mid East for you. In 10,000 years not much has changed there, and there is little to make us think that things ever will.
0
SuperLib
Don't worry, guys. I'll let you have this thread. I know there's absolutely no way in hell you're going to let a mass grave article about Saddam stand without beating it out of the spotlight with both fists. Over the years you've become quite good at it. Remember your talking points: relative stability, a picture with Rummy, George Bush.
You've gotten off to a good start but you can't slow down. Just remember that someone, somewhere might be talking about Saddam's crimes. It's up to you to stop it.
0
DerekTrotter
Jeremy Paxman says thsi is probably more American propaganda to justify invading Iraq and stealing their oil.
I agree, It it like them WMD things, they pretended they found them. I don't think Saddam was all that bad.
0
HaroldSteptoe
Very well said Mr Trotter. Whilst watching television with my aged father i also saw Jeremy paxman and his theories.
Oh yes, i believe , like most British, that this is an Amaerican ploy to try to prove the war was justified.
gawd , everyone knows Saddam was unconnected to terrorism. He allowed women to dress like in the west. oh yes, this is blatant US lies.
0
JohnBecker
Saddam was plenty bad, but he wasn't bothering us at the time of the invasion. We didn't have WMDs, and we knew it.
If Saddam were still in power, living in Iraq would suck for the Kurds and the Shia. That's a shame, but the U.S. don't have a dog in that fight. Saddam's value to the U.S. (if you can call it that) was to be an ever-present thorn in the side of Iran. All that's left locally to keep Iran in check is Israel. They'll fly their air strike on the Iranian nuclear facility when they feel it's time, but that may not be enough this time.
I know this is a cold and callous stance to take, and I do feel bad for the Kurds and Shia. But I think the U.S. would have been better served to just keep Saddam in his box, as we'd done from the end of the Gulf War.
0
Taka313
Superlib,
Conversely, you may want to remember these two simple words: Imminent threat.
Taka
0
SuperLib
Thanks, taka. I'll add "imminent threat" to your list of things to talk about when you don't want to acknowledge a million bodies that Saddam put into graves. Here's how the list is starting to look:
Person A: Saddam killed 182,000 Kurds.
The radical left: Saddam was no imminent threat to the West.
Person A: Saddam invaded Iran which resulted in over 600,000 deaths.
The radical left: George Bush lied about WMDs!
Person A: Saddam failed to comply with UN sanctions that ended the war.
The radical left:: Did you see that picture of Rumsfeld shaking his hand?
Person A: Saddam invaded Kuwait and attacked Saudi Arabia and Israel.
The radical left: No war for oil!
Person A: Saddam tortured his own people while making democracy a pipe dream.
The radical left: Relative stability is a position thing.
Person A: Saddam would have continued to brutalize his own people while passing the country to his sons who would have been even more brutal.
The radical left: Two words: yellow cake.
Person A: If Saddam were alive today we'd have a possible nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq.
The radical left: Bin Laden was in no way linked to Saddam.
If you do choose to mention his crimes only do it with a few words. And don't forget the "but." Usually it's used in this formula: (Insert sanitized Saddam description) then add "but". Saddam was a bad man, but... Saddam wasn't perfect, but... Sure Saddam did some bad things, but... I'm not saying Saddam was a good leader, but...
If you take enough time to plan things out you can have a discussion about whether removing Saddam was justified while never having to mention his crimes in any way. After you take all of his crimes off the table you can always end things with, "Our soldiers died for nothing." You have to ignore anything positive from the invasion like democracy, but when you're sweeping a million bodies under the carpet it's pretty easy to add democracy there as well.
You have to stay focused on the fact that your entire position depends on pretending that Saddam did nothing wrong at all. You guys are like his secret service. When a gun gets pulled you have to throw yourself in front of it and take one for the leader while the others push him into the limo to get him out of sight as quickly as possible.
And when the smoke clears be sure to remind everyone that you don't support him. You just...um...you know....will only discuss Saddam in a way doesn't include anything bad.
0
Betzee
Moralistically dividing posters into good guys, who supported the invasion of Iraq even if that support didn't extend beyond message posting, and bad guys, who opposed or questioned it, is obviously emotionally satisfying for you, but that illiterate gobbledygook exchange doesn't advance your case.
Instead of ridiculing the objections of others to avoid dealing with the inconvenient fact Washington looked the other way as the bodies piled up in Iraq cuz we needed Saddam, it might serve you better to acknowledge that in the real world all states, even the USA, are driven by a complex and shifting mixture of self-interest and ideological conviction.
0
JackBerstein
Didn't this crackdown follow a failed assassination attempt against Saddam? Why wasn't this mentioned?
0
Sarge
Jack - I believe you're referring to the 1982 assassination attempt by anti-Baath militants in the town of Dujail. Anyway, are you saying Saddam was justified in killing the Kurds?
0
Taka313
Nice rant there superlib.
Emotional, yet untrue.
Here's the long and short of it. O.K.? Just so you understand where I'm coming from.
saddam was a bad man who did many horrific things.
He is no longer in power.
That is a good thing.
FOR ME, it doesn't justify the cost of the war the U.S. has had to deal with and will continue to deal with for generations to come.
FOR ME, it doesn't justify the loss of life and the amount of injuries that the members of our Armed Forces have received.
FOR ME, it doesn't justify the way we entered the war, which, even the most ardent supporter of the war in Iraq can agree, was shaky at best.
FOR ME, it doesn't justify the damage to the U.S.'s reputation with other countries.
Now, perhaps your moral perch is SOOOOO lofty, that you couldn't see that I wasn't passing judgement on you or your opinion from down here.
Long story short: Taka's cost/benefit analysis for the U.S. in this war comes up decidedly in the red.
Taka
0
Betzee
The was the one he was tried and sentenced to death for. The anti-Baath militants, incidentally, was Shia, not Kurds. Saddam's response was not all than different than that of the US to the Sunni mob who murdered those private security guards in Fallujah in April 2004, but I'm sure a terrible tongue lashing awaits anyone who goes there....
0
Betzee
Hal My Pal, I think your a man who interprets the world through conspiracy theories. Why didn't we airbrush that photo of Rummy glad handing Saddam? That's the way the Commies do it.
0
adaydream
150 dead.
Is it alright to mention that a good quanity of the weapons and arms that Saddam used against his own people were purchased from the United States.
Can I mention that Saddam might not have been able to kill as many people as he is alledged to have if we hadn't sold him the munitions. Above is mentioned the meetings between Donald Rumpsfeld made some of these purchases possible. We were aware and aided Saddam to kill a lot more than 150 people.
Yeah, it's good that Saddam's not in power any longer. < :-)
0
Wolfpack
That was an awesome post SuperLib; you described the opponents of the war perfectly. No matter how bad Saddam was, there is always this large group of people that were willing to make excuses for him. Even when the reputation of the glorious UN itself was at stake, they were not willing to say that the UN's resolutions should be taken in the least bit seriously. For me, those who gave their lives to defeat that dictator did so for all of the right reasons and their sacrifice was not in vain. Let me add for those that say that the price was too high - those that 'volunteered' to join the service gave their lives for a just cause. It was their decision and theirs alone - no one forced them to join. Whether the price in dollars was too high can never be known.
0
Sarge
Taka313 - Nice rant there Taka.
"FOR ME"
"FOR ME"
"FOR ME"
"FOR ME"
It's all about you, isn't it?
"Taka's cost/benefit analysis for the U.S. in this war comes up decidedly in the red."
Thanks for the cost/benefit analysis. It must really grind your gears to read about yet another Saddam mass grave.
0
Taka313
sarge,
If you cannot understand that by saying, "for me," I was expressing it was my sole opinion, than I just don't know where your educational system failed you.
And yes, reading about any mass grave grinds my gears. Almost as much as people celebrating the finding of one to justify their beliefs.
FOR ME, those types of people have lost the message and are more concerned about being able to post, "I was right" on the internet.
Taka
0
JoeBigs
If we really cared about these murders we would have done something about them waaaaaaay back then. But we did not care.
When the media tried to paint Saddam as a real bad guy how many listened. No one cared, these graves were dug in the 1980s.
Back then who was he working for and who supported him? President Ronald Reagan`s administration did and we as a people thought he was okay.
Do not try say that our CIA or NSA did not know about this guy and what he was doing to his own people. As long as he was "our man" he could have used the Kurds as target practice and we would not have cared.
Do not try to say that the President of the United States was in the blind as to what was going on there. The President is briefed as to what is going on all the time.
Let us not be shocked at what this man did. Let us be shocked at what our countries leaders allowed to happen on their watch.
If we as a people were so concerned about what Saddam was doing in his regime then why did we not act earlier? The answer is we were not concerned. We wanted him in place to keep the region in line with our policies. We did not want the Soviets to change the direction of where the oil was heading.
Did we care that he used WMDs against the Iranians? No
Did we care that he used WMDs again his people that we supplied him with? No
Did we care that he killed his opponents? No
Did we care that he slaughters his own people? No
Did we care he was a dictator? No
As long as he was "our man" we were fine with what ever he did. There is no way around this fact.
Hell he was also openly against Israel and we did not care.
But when it came to light that he was no longer "our man" he was expendable. Then we began to expose all the dirty little secrets of his regime. But as we exposed what he did we were also exposing what our leaders allowed to happen.
In the so called name of Operation Iraqi Liberation we opened a very dark chapter in our countries history. A chapter that was hidden from the people of America.
For certain members here to try and use this as a political pro war football is sad.
Just to claim that we invaded Iraq to save the Kurds and Shia from that mad man is a joke. 23 years ago our leaders did not have a problem with him slaughtering his people. We knew what he was doing and we did nothing......
**We went into Iraq for no other reason than he was no longer "our man". **
Do not try and justify this war by using the graves of those that were slaughtered. To do that is just sad.......
0
wookwook2009
Taka313 The thread isn't about the US war.
You validated everything that Superlib said after this point in your post.
He is no longer in power. That is a good thing.
0
wookwook2009
He is no longer in power. That is a good thing.
0
Sarge
"He is no longer in power. That is a good thing."
But this good thing would never have happened if Obama and taka313 had their way.
0
sabiwabi
wookwook, Saddam was executed because he is allegedly responsible for the deaths of about 150 Kurds. To accomplish this, thousands of Americans and over one million Iraqis died, and who knows how many Iraqi and American babies will be born with terrible deformities and cancers from the depleted uranium. Shouldn't those responsible for these deaths be treated in the same way as Saddam was? That would be a good thing.
0
Nippon5
Sabiwabi your missing a few zeros in your post...
*Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. *
And if the rest of your statement was true all Japanes, Germans, Europeans, Americans, And all most every other countries people should all be hung because they had ties to wars that caused suffering and death..
as far as your other parts ..
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du-health.htm
And the body count that states a million if you count everyone who died in Iraq including those of old age, and other natural causes then you get a big number..... Most non anti war places count it no higher then 200k and most are much lower then that.. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/tollofwar/tollofwarmain.html
War isnt good, but to throw uneducated numbers and saying around to make a point is a waste of time... Research it from more then just your view and figure it out...
0
mcheeky
Killed or expelled? Are those two things similar enough to lump together? Seems like a desperate attempt to inflate some numbers without "really" lying. Could be just counting missing people however, and not (excuse the pun) bothering to dig deeper.
Anyway, Saddam made a big mistake in attacking the Kurds. He should have let the Turks do it.
But I do not honestly believe that any American would just expect him to do nothing after an assassination attempt on himself. A great many Americans lost that particular moral high ground when they supported lashing out at Iraq as vengeance for 9/11. I cannot say if Saddam went after the right people or not, but I am sure he was a lot closer to the right people. I suspect he was just making an example of them to ward off future attempts on his life. Some have accused the U.S. of much the same, only on a lot bigger scale.
Did I just support Saddam? No I did not. But in my opinion a near 20 year old mass grave is not near a good enough excuse to kill a bunch more people when that situation stabilized over a decade earlier. Anybody grabbing at this as a way to justify the attack on Iraq is in deep denial.
0
goodDonkey
Saddam Hussein was evil. Any attempt to slime this thread by claiming superior moral outrage is futile. No one can ever discount my moral outrage because I don't support their issues. I am able to stand up and condemn Hussein just as well as the rest.
0
RomeoRamenII
Heh, the global liberal Saddam apologists still believe he was just a harmless ol' coot.
RR
0
mcheeky
Its more like low level rightists have monochromitic vision to the point that even shades of grey are not visible. Add to that severe myopia when it comes to predicting the fallout that comes with violent action.
0
DerekTrotter
Saddam killed a few people who was trying to kill him and that. Wouldn't any leader do the same thing to make things cushty?
Americans told lies and blew up Iraq, murdered hundred of thousands of innocents and made millions homeless. My brother Rodney said Bush and Blair are war criminals, and i agree.
Saddam wasn't such a bad fella, he was good mates with Rumsfeld after all.
0
DerekTrotter
Saddam killed a few people who was trying to kill him and that. Wouldn't any leader do the same thing to make things cushty?
Saddam wasn't such a bad fella, he was good mates with Rumsfeld after all.
Back to top