Iraq Reverts

[Conan71]

Here's a few more highlights from his career of asshattery and despotism:

1988 -- Al-Anfal Campaign

From February to September 1988, Saddam conducted what has been called a genocidal campaign against the Kurdish population. Gen. Ali Hassan al-Majid, or "Chemical Ali," Saddam's cousin, carried out the Al-Anfal operation using chemical weapons. Human Rights Watch estimates between 50,000 and 100,000 died. Kurdish officials and some international human rights groups put the number killed as high as 182,000. Saddam was on trial for the Anfal campaign at the time of his execution. Six defendants remain in the Al-Anfal case, including "Chemical Ali," who is facing charges of genocide.

1988 -- Halabja Gassing

During the Anfal campaign, "Chemical Ali" ordered an attack against civilians in the town of Halabja. Iraqi forces dropped bombs containing mustard and nerve gases. An estimated 5,000 men, women and children died in a single day. Many more died from long-term medical problems, and birth defects are still common in the area.

1990s -- Marsh Arabs Devastated

Saddam attacked the Shiite "Marsh Arabs" by destroying their land. Once a significant wetland, the marshes in southern Iraq were devastated by a government drainage plan that left behind a wasteland. In 1991, 250,000 Marsh Arabs lived in the region. Now 90 percent of the area is in ruins and only an estimated 20,000 people remain. Tens of thousands live in refugee camps in Iran. Efforts are now underway to restore the marshes. Human Rights Watch calls the campaign against the Marsh Arabs a crime against humanity and other rights activists call it genocide. There are claims chemical weapons also were used.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2761722&page=1

[heironymouspasparagus]

This from his wikipedia page...

...He convened an assembly of Ba'ath party leaders on 22 July 1979. During the assembly, which he ordered videotaped, Saddam claimed to have found a fifth column within the Ba'ath Party and directed Muhyi Abdel-Hussein to read out a confession and the names of 68 alleged co-conspirators. These members were labelled "disloyal" and were removed from the room one by one and taken into custody. After the list was read, Saddam congratulated those still seated in the room for their past and future loyalty. The 68 people arrested at the meeting were subsequently tried together and found guilty of treason. 22 were sentenced to execution. Other high-ranking members of the party formed the firing squad. By 1 August 1979, hundreds of high-ranking Ba'ath party members had been executed.

It was actions like this. He was brutal, vindictive, and unstable.

You can argue that it was not the United States responsibility to take him out, but you can't argue that he didn't need to go.

Yeah, he was a typical little tin-horn dictator - in an ideal world they all need to go.  As was Idi Amin in Uganda (worse than Hussein).  And a huge assortment of others in the world - past and present. 

Still gives no national interest justification for the second Iraq war that exceeds the "threshold of pain" test to make it valid reason....just being sleazy may be necessary, but not sufficient.  What was the pressing national interest to have 4,000+ of our kids killed, and tens of thousands wounded, and spend $2 trillion?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Here's a few more highlights from his career of asshattery and despotism:

And the estimates for Idi Amin are about 500,000 killed.  And Rwanda, there were over a million.  Republic of Congo today is going through this.  Somalia is as big a mess.  The list goes on and on....


Pressing National Interest....to kill our kids and spend our wealth....


Example:  Al Qaeda in Afghanistan!

[Conan71]

And the estimates for Idi Amin are about 500,000 killed.  And Rwanda, there were over a million.  Republic of Congo today is going through this.  Somalia is as big a mess.  The list goes on and on....


Pressing National Interest....to kill our kids and spend our wealth....


Example:  Al Qaeda in Afghanistan!

Do you believe turning our cheek and allowing slaughters like that to happen is preferable?  Do you believe that the life of an American is more sacrosanct than a Rwandan or Kurd or the United States amassing wealth is more important than those lives?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Do you believe turning our cheek and allowing slaughters like that to happen is preferable?  Do you believe that the life of an American is more sacrosanct than a Rwandan or Kurd or the United States amassing wealth is more important than those lives?

No.  Not what I was saying at all (as you know).  And have said here before.  If we are so concerned about humanitarian issues, then why are we not concerned about the BIG humanitarian issues?  You do remember that was one of the failed, lame selling points of Iraq intervention, don't you?  Iraq was a little popcorn fart of humanitarian issues at the same time millions were being slaughtered while we DID turn a blind eye to them!!  Repeatedly!!

And do you possibly imagine that it might have been different if there was significant oil in any of those places??  If not, then what made us decide to look past the millions to "worry" about the hundred thousand??  At exactly that same time, there were probably a dozen places where our efforts would have been better spent if we were really interested in "humanitarian issues".  All of them with NO significant oil deposits!  Will be waiting patiently for a rational answer....


Nice try, though!  Come out and play again sometime!!

[Conan71]

Those damn facts:

Oil giant British Petroleum has signed concessions with the Mogadishu authorities to explore oil and gas in Somalia.

An intelligence brief released on Monday indicated that Somalia's coastal waters in the Indian Ocean could be having some of the world's largest oil deposits.

The statement issued by Mr David Golman, an intelligence news analyst, pointed to reports showing existence of large oil deposits in Somalia, which could change the global market dynamics.

"Intelligence collected by Strategic Intelligence shows Somalia's Puntland province has 10 billion barrels of oil reserves, making it one of the top 20 countries holding oil," it added.

Further, the brief says that a company that drilled wells in Puntland (a semi-autonomous state in north-eastern Somalia) estimates 4 billion barrels - worth about $500 billion in today's prices - in its two discoveries in Somalia.

If drilled, it added, Somali oil would beat countries like Nigeria and Kuwait, to make the Horn of Africa state the 7th largest producer in the world.

http://www.africareview.com/Business---Finance/Somalia-likely-to-have-large-oil-deposits/-/979184/2280734/-/18hfls/-/index.html

Congo ranks 35th in oil reserves globally.

Rwanda has no oil reserves but does have methane reserves.  I still suspect this had nothing to do with why we dithered on Rwanda.  Probably a good question for former President Clinton.

Aside from that, there is little doubt that the U.S. involvement in the invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi forces had everything to do with protecting our energy allies and keeping global energy markets stable.

I'm not even going to address Iraq part deux as I don't believe you are capable of having a rational conversation about it without resorting to "Baby Bush", "Daddy Bush",  "War For Oil", or "Murdochian Plot".

[davideinstein]

I'll never think highly of Clinton after Rwanda happened.

Silence is acceptance.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Those damn facts:

Congo ranks 35th in oil reserves globally.

Rwanda has no oil reserves but does have methane reserves.  I still suspect this had nothing to do with why we dithered on Rwanda.  Probably a good question for former President Clinton.

Aside from that, there is little doubt that the U.S. involvement in the invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi forces had everything to do with protecting our energy allies and keeping global energy markets stable.

I'm not even going to address Iraq part deux as I don't believe you are capable of having a rational conversation about it without resorting to "Baby Bush", "Daddy Bush",  "War For Oil", or "Murdochian Plot".

You are trying to compare number 35 Congo to number 2 Iraq??  As for Somalia - conjecture that it MIGHT be as high as number 20 or 25 with about 2.5 billion in reserves.  About 1/3 of our annual usage.  30%...of what we use in one year - not significant in our frame of reference.  I suspect they all have more than is admitted to now, but in 2001 - different story completely.  You are right about one thing - there can never be a rational discussion when you keep so far away from any perspective.  (It would be like earlier discussions about $500 million for Solyndra versus $90 billion to Halliburton.)

Kuwait was undoubtedly about Kuwait's oil and Saudi Arabia.  The issue there was Hussein's complete misread of conflicting signals we had been sending leading him to think it would be no big deal if he took back that part of Iraq that had been stripped away decades earlier.  He was stupid.  He didn't understand the concept of "people with money want to keep their playgrounds".  And we will help them do it.


As for the rest of part deux, well, I have made a case.  So far, you have said nothing substantive to justify why and/or what national interest was served or at stake.  Another lack of rational discussion....unless you would care to actually SAY why you think it was justified...??  I posed the question - you have completely avoided it.  But the attempted deflection is another nice "sound bite" Faux effort....

[Conan71]

You are trying to compare number 35 Congo to number 2 Iraq??  As for Somalia - conjecture that it MIGHT be as high as number 20 or 25 with about 2.5 billion in reserves.  About 1/3 of our annual usage.  30%...of what we use in one year - not significant in our frame of reference.  I suspect they all have more than is admitted to now, but in 2001 - different story completely.  You are right about one thing - there can never be a rational discussion when you keep so far away from any perspective.  (It would be like earlier discussions about $500 million for Solyndra versus $90 billion to Halliburton.)

Kuwait was undoubtedly about Kuwait's oil and Saudi Arabia.  The issue there was Hussein's complete misread of conflicting signals we had been sending leading him to think it would be no big deal if he took back that part of Iraq that had been stripped away decades earlier.  He was stupid.  He didn't understand the concept of "people with money want to keep their playgrounds".  And we will help them do it.


As for the rest of part deux, well, I have made a case.  So far, you have said nothing substantive to justify why and/or what national interest was served or at stake.  Another lack of rational discussion....unless you would care to actually SAY why you think it was justified...??  I posed the question - you have completely avoided it.  But the attempted deflection is another nice "sound bite" Faux effort....

I've said plenty in many threads here about justification for Iraq.  You choose to hear what you want to and you misread links I post just like the link on Somalia which indicates they could become the seventh largest producer of oil, with more reserves than Kuwait.

There's no point in discussing issues with people who don't pay attention.

[guido911]

There's no point in discussing issues with people who don't pay attention.

I'm sorry. Were you saying something?

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'll never think highly of Clinton after Rwanda happened.

Silence is acceptance.

I never did think much of him....he is a dipstick.

[guido911]

The good news is that the world is much more tranquil thanks to Barry.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/wh-weve-substantially-improved-tranquility-global-community

[AquaMan]

Yeah, Switzer is a cool guy.

[Conan71]

Yeah, Switzer is a cool guy.

Hah! That was the first image in my head too!

[Gaspar]

The good news is that the world is much more tranquil thanks to Barry.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/wh-weve-substantially-improved-tranquility-global-community

All kinds of good news today.

Harry Reid says the border is completely secure too.
"The border is secure," he told reporters after the Senate Democrats' weekly policy lunch. "[Sen.] Martin Heinrich [(D-N.M.)] talked to the caucus today. He's a border state senator. He said he can say without any equivocation the border is secure."

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/212328-reid-southern-border-is-secure#ixzz37Zj38xxu

Someone should alert him that a population of folks the size of Newark NJ just walked across the border.