Iraq under Hussein

[Jim]

Devastating if authentic:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/international/middleeast/01saddam.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

 

An unaccustomed hush fell over the courtroom as the lead prosecutor, Jaafar al-Musawi, leafed through page after page of documents — displayed on a screen — in which mass executions are discussed as calmly as purchase orders. Many bore the letterhead of Iraq's feared intelligence service, the Mukhabarat. Others were scrawled out by hand.

 

One letter stated, "It was discovered that the execution of 10 juveniles was not carried out because their ages ranged from 11 to 17 years old. We recommend executing them in a secret manner in coordination with the management of the prison and the Mukhabarat."

 

An arrow runs from that sentence to the margin, where it is written by hand: "Yes. It is preferable that they are buried by the Mukhabarat." The handwriting is Mr. Hussein's, the prosecutor said, though he did not offer independent handwriting analysis or other proof to back his claim. . . .

 

Other letters showed that intelligence officials mistakenly printed a death certificate for a 14-year-old boy. When they discovered he was still alive, they had him brought to Baghdad and hanged, according to the letter, addressed to Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, Mr. Hussein's half brother and fellow defendant.

 

Mr. Hussein, who in previous sessions often burst out laughing or delivered lengthy tirades, said almost nothing on Tuesday. Dressed in a dark suit, he looked gaunt and subdued as he watched the documents, and never stood up.. . .

 

Of the 148 men and boys whose death warrants Mr. Hussein is accused of signing, 96 were hanged in the Abu Ghraib prison, the documents showed. Forty-six died under torture, including four additional inmates who were accidentally added to the group. Ten boys and adolescents were executed in 1989, after they reached the legal age.

 

For the first time, at least one of the defendants seemed to acknowledge a connection to the executions, which took place after an assassination attempt on Mr. Hussein in the Shiite village of Dujail in 1982.

 

"I have sentenced the 46 but I have no idea about the others," said Awad al-Bandar, another defendant who was head of the revolutionary court when it ordered the executions. It was not immediately clear why Mr. Bandar believed this admission would be exculpatory.

[Sisyphus]

Ha. What, you were expecting a "not guilty?"

[Jim]

Ha. What, you were expecting a "not guilty?"

 

Not likely. It's good to remind ourselves that even though the WMDs were probably hidden in Syria and even though the road to a democracy is difficult, if not impossible, some good has come from this war.

[Sisyphus]

Is that what this is reminding us of?

[Jim]

Is that what this is reminding us of?

 

Yeppers.

[Sisyphus]

That's funny. I thought it just reminded us that he was an absolute dictator, above the law, and not hesitant to have people killed. Of course, everybody already knew that. I didn't read anything about hypothetical WMDs or the relative merits of brutal dictatorship vs. anarchy and religious terrorism.

[Jim]

That's funny. I thought it just reminded us that he was an absolute dictator, above the law, and not hesitant to have people killed. Of course, everybody already knew that. I didn't read anything about hypothetical WMDs or the relative merits of brutal dictatorship vs. anarchy and religious terrorism.

 

I'm making the limited point that some good comes out of the war to balance against all of the known problems. Is this controversial?

[zyncod]

Nope. But that was three years ago and this is today. And the situation we have now is akin to "out of the fire and into the frying pan." And instead of continually saying how great it is that we're not in the fire anymore, maybe we should be looking for a way out of the frying pan.

[AweBurn]

Whoa! Was bombing the hell out of Baghdad necessary to eliminate this one man? I still love listening to the local conservative radio station to hear such comments as, "We're at war here, Pres. Bush has a right to know our phone conversation if they compromise the security of this nation." (2 days ago) Who on earth are we at war against????? We're fighting an ideaology not a person anymore. I agree Saddam was a horrible man and had to be held responsible for all the murders and such but the war is over. If you disagree I suggest you take a look at Vietnam. We can't be imperialistic war mongers and expect to win wars against ideaologies that transcend the killing of a few guilty individuals.

 

-AweBurn

 

P.S. This "war" is useles....we better pull out now before America goes bankrupt.

[Jim]

Nope. But that was three years ago and this is today. And the situation we have now is akin to "out of the fire and into the frying pan." And instead of continually saying how great it is that we're not in the fire anymore, maybe we should be looking for a way out of the frying pan.

 

Actually, it's not difficult to know that we are in the pan. It feels like hard iron and is getting hotter every day.

 

The more difficult intellectual challenge is to try to visualize the alternate universe (or the "fire" we escaped) where Saddam was still in Iraq (or, if Kerry had been president in 1991, still in Kuwait). We know that Saddam invaded a strategically important US ally, lost, agreed to account for his WMDs, reneged on that agreement, attempted to assassinate a former US president, compensated families who gave their children to terrorist campaigns and continued to refuse to account for the disposition of his WMDs even as the US forces gathered to strike.

 

We know all of this but the hard part is to project what might have happened were he still in power.

[ecoli]

Nope. But that was three years ago and this is today. And the situation we have now is akin to "out of the fire and into the frying pan." And instead of continually saying how great it is that we're not in the fire anymore, maybe we should be looking for a way out of the frying pan.

 

you got that wrong actually, it's out of the frying pan and into the fire, and was invented by Bilboe Baggins (for those of us who've read the Hobbit)

[padren]

Actually' date=' it's not difficult to know that we are in the pan. It feels like hard iron and is getting hotter every day.

 

The more difficult intellectual challenge is to try to visualize the alternate universe (or the "fire" we escaped) where Saddam was still in Iraq [b'](or, if Kerry had been president in 1991, still in Kuwait).[/b] We know that Saddam invaded a strategically important US ally, lost, agreed to account for his WMDs, reneged on that agreement, attempted to assassinate a former US president, compensated families who gave their children to terrorist campaigns and continued to refuse to account for the disposition of his WMDs even as the US forces gathered to strike.

 

We know all of this but the hard part is to project what might have happened were he still in power.

 

Or maybe Kerry would have invented a cure for cancer out of ketchup, and Kuwaitis would have revolted and overthrown saddam and built a democracy.

 

 

Instead of imagining a hypothetical world that reinforces our personal ideaologies and then esousing them as if they meant something, its probably a better to reflect on the fact that yes, Saddam is a really bad guy which I think is more inline with your original point.

 

I understand you feel people don't acknowledge how bad he was, and hope this helps get through to people more, and maybe they'll agree with you that the war has been benefitial because he's gone.

 

Personally, I still feel the fact he's gone is good, but not good enough to justify the war.

[ecoli]

Personally' date=' I still feel the fact he's gone is good, but not good enough to justify the war.[/quote']

 

I feel like I could believe that the war is justifiable, but I just haven't heard a convincing reason to tell us why we're still in Iraq.

[Jim]

Or maybe Kerry would have invented a cure for cancer out of ketchup' date=' and Kuwaitis would have revolted and overthrown saddam and built a democracy.

 

Instead of imagining a hypothetical world that reinforces our personal ideaologies and then esousing them as if they meant something, its probably a better to reflect on the fact that yes, [i']Saddam is a really bad guy[/i] which I think is more inline with your original point.

 

I understand you feel people don't acknowledge how bad he was, and hope this helps get through to people more, and maybe they'll agree with you that the war has been benefitial because he's gone.

 

Personally, I still feel the fact he's gone is good, but not good enough to justify the war.

 

You seem to contradict yourself. On the one hand, you seem to argue that considering what the world would look like sans Saddam is relevant only to reinforce my personal ideologies.

 

On the other hand, you offer your own personal ideology that the war wasn't justified by his removal.

 

I do not see how you can conclude that Saddam's removal is not "good enough to justify the war" without first considering the "hypothetical world" which would exist if he had not been removed. *scratches head*

 

As a practical matter, we will be debating both questions for some time to come: 1. Was the war justified? 2. What do we do now?

 

Bush's propsals re #2 have less credibility if he blew it bigtime re #1. Therefore, I think that #1 is a legitimate topic of debate.

 

Bush's problem with #1 is that he is asking people to weigh the actual human loss of action against the hypothetical loss which might have occurred without action. Hopefully not too many people will blow past this question without thought.

[pcs]

Or maybe Kerry would have invented a cure for cancer out of ketchup, and Kuwaitis would have revolted and overthrown saddam and built a democracy.

 

Do you mean to say that we shouldn't try to predict how a public official would approach an issue by considering his record on it?

[zyncod]

We know all of this but the hard part is to project what might have happened were he still in power.

 

For us, no hard consequences. For the Iraqis? Probably what had gone on before. If we had planned the war out ahead of time and we had the ambassador that we have now since the beginning, it may not have been such a problem. I'm really not against nation-building. I believe that our (liberal, sorry) values are worth exporting. We just need to do it right. And not to acknowledge the fundamental Shiite/Sunni conflict, in my mind, was just stupid. But, yes, Saddam sucked, and no matter what, it is good that he is gone.

 

(This is all irregardless of Bush's past/present/future justifications for the war).

 

you got that wrong actually, it's out of the frying pan and into the fire, and was invented by Bilboe Baggins (for those of us who've read the Hobbit)

 

Yes, I know. It was a deliberate reversal of the little hobbits' saying.

[john5746]

We know all of this but the hard part is to project what might have happened were he still in power.

 

I feel rather confident had we taken him out in 91, 9/11 still would have happened.

 

So, if the past is any guide, Saddam was probably more of a threat in 90 than he was in 03. We didn't take him out then and we seemed to do OK.

 

An easier question to answer is that if we pursue this nation building in Syria, Pakistan and Iran we will spend the country into ruin.

[Jim]

I feel rather confident had we taken him out in 91' date=' 9/11 still would have happened.

 

So, if the past is any guide, Saddam was probably more of a threat in 90 than he was in 03. We didn't take him out then and we seemed to do OK.

 

An easier question to answer is that if we pursue this nation building in Syria, Pakistan and Iran we will spend the country into ruin.[/quote']

 

I've never contended that Saddam had a direct role in 9/11. I think that is a red herring. Instead, I have contended that:

 

1. Nothing morally precluded us from removing Saddam as he had put himself in a very distinctive category by having invaded a strategically important US ally and been defeated;

2. We are safer for having removed Saddam (he was hostile to the US, not adverse to terroristic methods, capable of grave miscalculations bordering on self-destructive and would eventually have acquired WMDs to the extent he ever did destroy them).

3. The lessons taught by the action (assuming we don't destroy the lesson by weakening) are:

a. It is best not to invade a US ally;

b. If you do invade a US ally and promise to account for your WMDs, it is best that you not play games in this process, particularly as US forces gather to enforce your agreement;

c. Gone are the days of Jimmy Carter when you or your surrogates could invade US territory and get away with it for over a year; and,

d. If you have attacked one of our allies, have had WMDs in the past and then play games in honoring an agreement to account for them, dont' blame us if we rely on our best intelligence (which, btw, might or might not be accurate).

4. The lessons were not lost on Libya which, standing alone, may justify the war. (As I recall, Libya's nuke program was much more advanced than our intel had thought. Intel giveth and intel taketh away). This may save an American city sometime in the future. We'll never know....

5. Providing the Iraqis with an opportunity for freedom is, as a side benefit, a good thing. We are not responsible for their conduct from this point and they may well not rise to this occassion. We've led them to the water of freedom and it is up to them to drink.

[Jim]

I feel rather confident had we taken him out in 91' date=' 9/11 still would have happened.

 

So, if the past is any guide, Saddam was probably more of a threat in 90 than he was in 03. We didn't take him out then and we seemed to do OK.

 

An easier question to answer is that if we pursue this nation building in Syria, Pakistan and Iran we will spend the country into ruin.[/quote']

 

But what kind of threat would have he been in 2008? 2013? This is a guy who tried to assassinate a former US president without ever having considered the US response if he had succeeded. He was lucky in the extreme that the plot failed so Clinton only lobbed a few cruise missles in his direction. Had he succeeded, our response would have been cataclysmic. He was equally irrational in having invaded Kuwait and in not documenting what happened to his WMDs and presented that documentation to preclude our invasion.

 

He spent something like $10 million, as I recall, to compensate terrorist families so apparently had no compunction against terroristic methods.

 

Over all, it was time for him to go.

 

I can understand critics of the policy who think that it won't succeed. What I don't get is the anger directed against the US for having removed the guy as if we've violated his rights.