How often does Saddam go about brutally slaughtering innocent Iraqis

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Tony Blair tells the anti-war lobby they'll have blood on their hands if Saddam is not deposed. We consistently get the line about the gassing of the Kurds trotted out by the pro-war side. I've said before that I will support a war if I can be convinced that Iraq will be better off afterwards... at the moment I am not. How often are innocent Iraqis being killed by Saddam's regime (deaths arising from bombing raids or UN sanctions notwithstanding)? Actual concrete examples would be nice.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 17 February 2003 12:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd like to know whether he had his sons-in-law (a couple of them, anyway) killed or not.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Monday, 17 February 2003 12:52 (twenty-two years ago)

The gassing of Kurds was all pre-Gulf War (i.e. very old news). Right now the Kurds have a virtually autonimous region in northern Iraq and are proteced by the US-enforced no fly zones. I am not so sure about situation of the Shi'tes in the south, but they have a no-fly zone over them as well.

I do not think Saddam has done any mass killings for a while, but like any brutal dictatorship, his secret police murder many people, just one at a time.

― fletrejet, Monday, 17 February 2003 13:02 (twenty-two years ago)

As far as I know, 'the world' is not allowed to 'intervene' just because nasty things are happening internally - so Saddam's crimes are possibly, arguably, a red herring.

I could be mistaken about this.

(The question is good.)

― the pinefox, Monday, 17 February 2003 13:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Obv. there are pro-invasion Iraqis too, but I was v.interested in a little post-C4 News slot with a Kurdish woman who said that things were pretty good for them now, they were building their lives in the autonomous region fletrejet mentions, and really the last thing they wanted was the mad throw of the dice that an invasion would bring.

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:17 (twenty-two years ago)

especially if the US go along with the plan i read in the paper yesterday, which is basically kick out half of saddam's people, and install US military in their place but effectively keeping the baathist system, rather than any messy democracy or anything. not to mention various people in turkey saying, "ooh, those bits of northern iraq, don't they belong to us? we can't let those kurds actually have a proper real state now, can we?"

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:30 (twenty-two years ago)

The problem with Blair's rhetoric is that we will have blood on our hands if we do or if we don't intervene. We have blood on our hands already.

Nik Cohen's article in the Observer yesterday on the failings of the anti-war movement is the most convincing thing I've read on the subject for a while.

― alext (alext), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Agreed. We pretty much had Nik Choen's arg on the march amongst ourselves. Me and Tom and Isable in particular were really ambilvalent.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:37 (twenty-two years ago)

It's Nick, not Nik, on a point of order.

(there is a Nik Cohn who is stoately different)

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah - good work Nick Cohen. He put the essential argument that's been bugging me i.e. (highly simplified) "Saddam is a fascist. It is the job of progressives to work to get rid of fascists.". It then comes down to means, costs and consequences. (See also the rather good evil dictator removal thread elsewhere).

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Steve I don't buy that plan for one second. The Baathists are toast. 'the paper yesterday" Where exactly? also "various people in Turkey" = "shopkeepers"?

I would think the real question is qualitative not quantitative, anyway - Saddam may not gas people anymore but he does have them assassinated - the sons-in-law in question he had killed by his own Uday or Qusay, I forget which one (poss. both). Saddam's IIS has its own protocol for carrying out contract kills and uses any number of proxies to do so to make it harder to prove the government's involvement. At least when the US blows up a jeep full of Al Qaeda personnel we take credit for it.

(See also the rather good evil dictator removal thread elsewhere)

rather good evil dictator removal = poss. reference to cats playing rawk music?

― Millar (Millar), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Tom, I think you are talking rubbish. To see you, of all people, saying this stuff, makes me rub my eyes. I don't see you arguing for the US and UK to bomb every other dictator's country around the world. And I've never heard you make arguments against Saddam H et al before the US Right decided to do it. I can't believe you're getting dragged towards the edge of the stinking Bushco toilet.

― the pinefox, Monday, 17 February 2003 13:45 (twenty-two years ago)

PF you didn't know me in 1991 - I was all for the Coalition going as far as Baghdad and removing him (in fact the fact that they didn't is what makes me distrust the US' ability to handle a war aftermath this time).

Where do I say I want any country bombed? I want - quite reasonably I think - to see dictators removed from power. I thought that about Saddam and Milosevic; I think that about any other dictator. I am on the other hand completely unconvinced that war is the best way to achieve that, hence my marching on Saturday.

For my part I'm disappointed that the slightest ambiguity on my part brings out the Pinterfox in you.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:51 (twenty-two years ago)

The Pinterfox would be the greatest thing ever.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:57 (twenty-two years ago)

"this is what i say to eminem: resign resign resign"

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 17 February 2003 13:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I just read the Cohen article and found it disappointing. To attribute an opinion - indifference to the Iraqi left - to over 1 million diverse individuals seems rather broad. I think Cohn illustrates my point last week about political hipsterism - he wants to remain the lonely voice of truth out on the margins. I think most of the people who marched have more concern for Iraqi dissidents than a postwar Bush state is likely to.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

it is a very hitchens-esque stance: he's projecting his purism onto bush-blair, which i think makes little political sense ultimately

1: if bush-blair haven't yet taken the opportunity to parade these pro-war iraqi dissidents, and include them in public discussions etc etc as an integral part of the pro-war argt, then that exactly reflects the deep-set lack of interest in actual iraqi well-being on bush-blair's part that many marchers are angrily against
2: does cohen-hitchens really think by cheerleading bush-blair now he will work himself up a bit of space of influence later, when they're riding the wave of a war won? i can see why iraqi dissidents might grab onto that tiny fragment of hope — some of them doubtless WILL be employed and useless in an aftermath situation (esp.the ones w.least "left" qualifications of course)

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)

whoops "useless" = "useful" (i think my political unconcious got a snarky word in edgeways there)

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Not one Iraqi I have met trusts the Foreign Office. However, they have had a grudging admiration for Tony Blair ever since he met the Kurdish leaders and gave them a fair hearing - a courteous gesture which hasn't been matched by the Pinters, Trotskyists, bishops, actresses and chorus girls on yesterday's march.

Even the Daily Mail wouldn't try to pass this off at the moment!

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:28 (twenty-two years ago)

ts: being a willing pawn on superpower geo-politics vs being one among many democratic pressure groups

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)

being a willing pawn on superpower geo-politics

Uh, that'd be me, then. TOTAL CLASSIXOR obv

― Millar (Millar), Monday, 17 February 2003 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I quite like JtN's definition of hipster. It basically means contrarian, no? Is Julie Burchill still a hipster? And did anyone read her pro-war piece last week (I didn't).

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 February 2003 15:31 (twenty-two years ago)

>>As far as I know, 'the world' is not allowed to 'intervene' just because nasty things are happening internally - so Saddam's crimes are possibly, arguably, a red herring.<<

Indeed it is. Iraq is certainly no more special a circumstance than, say, Burundi in that nature. I think its a very weak argument to use (unless you'd like to follow up Iraq by doing this same sort of thing all across sub-saharan Africa).

-
Alan

― Alan Conceicao, Monday, 17 February 2003 17:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Is this the thread where we try and convince ourselves that Saddam isn't really as bad as all that? Sure, we pay lip-service to what a brutal dictator he is, but let's leave him alone, eh? We don't want anything to get in the way of our AmeriKKKa bashing, now, do we?

"Tony Blair / CIA / how many children did you kill today?" - it's worth thinking about, innit?

Wake up, peaceniks!

― DavidM (DavidM), Monday, 17 February 2003 21:56 (twenty-two years ago)

CIA: That's a very good question, David. Tony, how many children did we kill today?
TONY: Um, it was seven, right?
CIA: Does that include the cute little girl on the pink bike?
TONY: Shite, I'd forgotten her. She was adorable, wasn't she?
CIA: Yes, she was.
TONY: So that's eight, then?
CIA: Sounds about right.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 17 February 2003 22:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Millar, what's with the "shopkeepers" line up there? Turkey has a Kurd population of its own, one that's contiguous with the Iraqi Kurd population. (This is another one of those "draw a weird imperial border straight through allied minorities, they won't care" kind of things.) Whether or not one supports a war, any invasion raises a lot of questions about what happens to the Kurds -- questions Nick is spot-on about and questions that have led me to call "not enough information" on this whole thing from long ago. He's right that the Kurdish leadership in Iraq seem to think their current situation is quite nice, and than an invasion could easily ruin it. He's right that Turkey is made nervous by the possibility of those Kurds becoming any more independent than they are, because as soon as an independent Kurdistan exists on the Iraqi side of the border, the Kurds on the Turkish side are likely to ask why they aren't a part of it, too. (I imagine you can see why Turkey would prefer not to have a secessionist movement grow in a really remote portion of the country.)

All of which is just one of a lot of questions hanging in the air around this whole thing.

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 17 February 2003 23:37 (twenty-two years ago)

The paper yesterday was the Observer, and the person writing the article was Kanan Makiya, a leading iraqi dissident. The Turkish reference was from, i believe, a guardian article a week or two ago, saying that Turkish politicians/newspapers have started mentioning two areas of Iraq that used to "belong" to Turks/Ottomans before, despite the fact that they've been quite happy without them for fifty years. These happen to be areas where lots of Kurds live.

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 00:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Why let SH slaughter innocent Iraqis when we can do it ourselves?

― Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 04:49 (twenty-two years ago)

insert 'Kosovars', 'Bosnians', etc. for Iraqis for obvious rebuttal

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 04:51 (twenty-two years ago)

deep. 170,000 iraqis are "missing", gone without a trace, according to human rights watch. he's responsible for the death of over a million more because of his wars of aggression.

how come everyone in favor of a palestinian state is not as vocal in their support for an independent kurdistan? is it because they are not blowing up zionists?

― keith (keithmcl), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 04:52 (twenty-two years ago)

He's right that the Kurdish leadership in Iraq seem to think their current situation is quite nice, and than an invasion could easily ruin it.

I trust you to imagine that I have a really cool rebuttal to this that is unclassified.

― Millar (Millar), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 05:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd like to see Kurdistan, Palestine and Texas as independent states, personally.

― hstencil, Tuesday, 18 February 2003 05:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Add Florida to that, as a territory of Israel

― Millar (Millar), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 05:26 (twenty-two years ago)

No way. They have Spring Training.

― felicity (felicity), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 05:28 (twenty-two years ago)

he's responsible for the death of over a million more
because of his wars of aggression.

You mean the war with Iran which the U.S. instigated coz they were pissed Iran kicked out their puppet government?

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 18 February 2003 05:42 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.