babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein
bellows
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 747

posted 09 March 2003 08:57 AM      Profile for bellows     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In this century we have seen three of the worst people in history. Hitler, Stalin and Suddam Hussein. Today has in Hitler and Stalin time thousands of people stood by them. Some for greed, others for power and a lot because they were nuts. Today is no different. If by some fluke Hitler and Stalin came back to earth today there would be thousands who would follow them. We have people all over the world who is standing by Saddam Hussein, yes and Canada is no exception. All you have to do is read some of the comments. Why? is the question. We have nut cases wanting to be bombed, some running around with placards over their head. Some even going over trying to talk to the Saddam. Don't these people work, don't they have a family to raise, maybe they have a secret way of getting money from the government to pay their expences. Look at it this way. If it was Iran, or Russia massing troops to invade Iraq, you wouldn't hear a word. What's the name of the country that Russia today is killing children by the thousands, gosh I forget the name. It's not even in the news anymore.
From: Corner Brook | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 09 March 2003 09:06 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, bellows, Click!
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 09 March 2003 10:05 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you think they're the only ones?
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 09 March 2003 10:08 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Soon, their will be a fourth name added to the list in the thread title, unless we turn out to be luckier than it seems likely at the moment.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 09 March 2003 04:08 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bellows: are you thinking of Chechnya?

If Hussein were not comparable to Hitler and Stalin, there would be VERY FEW people supporting the Amercian actions.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 09 March 2003 04:26 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We have people all over the world who is standing by Saddam Hussein, yes and Canada is no exception. All you have to do is read some of the comments. Why? is the question.

Let us do a thought experiment. Suppose there were an alien world in which it were contrary to international law to cause regime change, except through an international body.

Now, suppose someone said: "I don't care what international law says, I am going to cause regime change in Pod Z!"

Now, suppose you did not think this leader had a right to violate international law. Would this mean you were:

1) Standing up for the dictator in Pod Z?

or

2) Standing up for international law?

You will be graded on your answer.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 March 2003 04:32 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And let's not always see the same hands.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 09 March 2003 04:38 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Suppose there were an alien world in which it were contrary to international law to cause regime change, except through an international body.

Meanwhile, back in ThisWorld(tm), I thought it was contrary to international law to cause regime change even through an international body? Isn't it against the UN Charter to attack another country except in self-defence?


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
bellows
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 747

posted 09 March 2003 08:26 PM      Profile for bellows     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Russia attacked Chechnya without UN approval, and is still killing woman and children by the hundreds. Where is the UN? Where are the human shields?
From: Corner Brook | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 09 March 2003 08:42 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Isn't Chechnya still part of Russia, trying to break away? In this case it is a civil war, by international law. Not the same at all. However, brutality of any kind has plenty of humanitarian opponents as it should be. If you go to the Znet website and look up Chechnya, you will find them.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 09 March 2003 08:55 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Where is the UN? Where are the human shields?
Where is the USA, the vanguard of truth, justice and freedom?

From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
bellows
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 747

posted 09 March 2003 09:34 PM      Profile for bellows     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Civil war! What crap, war is war. You bleed the same and you die the same.
From: Corner Brook | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 09 March 2003 09:48 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, you do, but this is a discussion about sovereignty. It's a lot harder to intervene in a civil conflict under international law, because of state sovereignty.
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 10 March 2003 10:39 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hitler, Stalin and Suddam Hussein
What about Bush? Appaulling that you didn't include him in the list, just because he's the leader of the so called free world.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 10 March 2003 11:02 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You forgot some pretty important monsters there... Khomeni, Ortega, Qadaffi, Austin, Noriega, Aidid, Bin Laden, Omar... were these not Hitler/Stalin too, or was that just shrill propaganda?
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 10 March 2003 11:52 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wasn't Milosovic supposed to be Hitler when we were bombing him?
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 10 March 2003 01:26 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Wasn't Milosovic supposed to be Hitler when we were bombing him?
Apperently so...

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 10 March 2003 01:44 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How could I forget Milosevic? Biggest attraction at Madame Tussaud's for like three days in a row back in '99. THE most monstrous man in Yugoslav history since, well, Tito I suppose, who also ate children don't you know.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moses
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3823

posted 10 March 2003 08:46 PM      Profile for Moses     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't forget Suharto, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Sharon.
From: Earth | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
bellows
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 747

posted 10 March 2003 08:47 PM      Profile for bellows     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is no one in history that killed as many people as Hitler and Stalin.
From: Corner Brook | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barry Stagg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3814

posted 10 March 2003 09:13 PM      Profile for Barry Stagg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Great Liberal Death Wish: Our enemies are always right and we are always wrong. (Sincerest apologies to the literary executor of Malcolm Muggeridge's estate)

So many opponents of the American invasion of Iraq vacillate between comparing President Bush to Hitler and the equally vacuous exercise of comparing Saddam Hussein unfavourably to the same Nazi monster by finding the Iraqi thug a little short in the 'crimes against humanity' category. Why is it so hard for the sedentary liberals of our regulatory classes to accept a powerful nation acting in the interests of its own people while, at the same time, refusing to self-flagellate for using force against menace?


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 10 March 2003 09:35 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OOOh! I like the neo-Nietszchean rhetoric about the "sedentary liberals"! It is so much fun to glorify "action" and "power". I thought it was great sport when Mussolini did it! Those contemptible liberals who are always chattering rahter than just out-and-out bombing and killing!

(Didn't this kind of stupidity go out of fashion in 1945 with the defeat of the Axis powers?)


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 10 March 2003 09:39 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It waxes and wanes, jeff, but really, it's classic and evergreen. It'll never go out of style. Particularly among those who've never heard a shot fired in anger.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eauz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3057

posted 10 March 2003 09:41 PM      Profile for Eauz   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Though I am not a fan of Hussein, will the middle east become more peaceful when he is gone? I believe that he is using his ultimate force to prevent any large scale problems in Iraq and the surroundings. Seeing as Kurds and Iraqis don't like each other, what is going to occur once Hussein IS out of power? Maybe there is a better way around getting rid of Hussein without instant destruction of Iraq? And like in past problems related to the US, they will go in there, Say they "Won" and go home without cleaning up. And the clean up, is what really scares me about this War against Iraq.

*Note to UN/USA/Everyone - Might be opening up worse problems than you have at the moment. (not to mention North Korea/Iran and Canada(hehehe, just kidding ) )


From: New Brunswick, Canada | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 10 March 2003 09:44 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is no one in history that killed as many people as Hitler and Stalin.

Actually, Mao killed more people than Hitler did.

Anyway, why does Saddam Hussein get to be number three on your list of baddies? Surely there are a lot of other candidates...


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barry Stagg
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3814

posted 11 March 2003 12:16 AM      Profile for Barry Stagg   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Nietzsche reference is unwarranted: On Iraq, liberals advocate inaction as a virtue while more pragmatic conservatives accept the need to act against terrorists. To smear conservative action as doctrinaire authoritarianism is to ignore the present reality of the September 11, 2001 aftermath.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 11 March 2003 01:19 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
On Iraq, liberals advocate inaction as a virtue while more pragmatic conservatives accept the need to act against terrorists.


When someone claims his opponents are "sedentary" he is smearing them. He is also falling into a proto-fascist mindset in which "action" and "will" are important values, while thought and judgment are for weaklings.

On Iraq, many liberals stand for inaction if the action promoted is mass slaughter. On regime change in the US, conservatives stand for "inaction". So it is senselenss to frame the debate in terms of sedentary versus non-sedentary positions. Even on Iraq, many liberals favour inspections and a decent set of sanctions.
So the simplistic duality proposed above simply reflects a straw man.

You are right, Nietzsche was smarter than this.

[ 11 March 2003: Message edited by: jeff house ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 11 March 2003 01:52 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Anyway, why does Saddam Hussein get to be number three on your list of baddies? Surely there are a lot of other candidates...

Thanks for pointing this absurdity out. When I originally saw this thread title, my eyelids drooped, and a feeling of immense boredom washed over me. What is the point of engaging in political discussion when 'truth' is arbitrarily dictated by the whims of ideological fashion?

In a century which has contained the like of Pol Pot and Richard Nixon it is truly stunning that people can put Saddam in their 'top three' list of unwaranted brutality.

It is truly depressing.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 11 March 2003 01:55 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Meanwhile, back in ThisWorld(tm), I thought it was contrary to international law to cause regime change even through an international body? Isn't it against the UN Charter to attack another country except in self-defence?


The UN Security Council certainly thinks it can enforce UN resolutions such as 1440, because that resolution grew out of an act of Iraqi aggression, the invasion of Kuwait. So, the international community may discipline an aggressor. I presume this would include regime change in appropriate circumstances. Hitler springs to mind as an example.

Obviously, the Security Council does not have the right to arbitrarily designate regimes for
removal; exactly how this limitation would be enforced is a nice question.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 11 March 2003 02:33 PM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When I originally saw this thread title, my eyelids drooped, and a feeling of immense boredom washed over me.

Ah yes. Moredreads is bored again. Inevitably, it happens when he hears that Saddam systematically murdered Kurds, displaced a quarter of a million marsh Arabs, routinely tortures political opponents, and has forced millions more into exile.


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 11 March 2003 03:27 PM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In a century which has contained the like of Pol Pot and Richard Nixon it is truly stunning that people can put Saddam in their 'top three' list of unwaranted brutality.

What is truly stunning is your juxtaposition of Richard Nixon with Pol Pot. To the best of my knowledge, Nixon (a rather nasty man at times) didn't not murder millions of his own people, as did Pol Pot. By the same token, I wouldn't lump Saddam together with Pol Pot, either. Pol Pot was a genocidal maniac: Watch Anthony Hopkin's "Nixon", and then watch "The Killing Fields" to get some idea.


From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 11 March 2003 04:01 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its not a juxtoposition, it it a relational observation, as the (secret) bombing campaign in Cambodia is often linked to the evolution of Pol Pot's Khemer Rouge. During the entire period of the US south Asian war as many as 4 million South Asians were killed, many more than were killed by Pol Pot himself.

However if the qualifying factor is 'killed their own people,' as you say, then Hitler should be struck of your list as well, given that Hitler did not consider German Jews, or Polish and Russian civilians to be 'his own people.' Nor does Saddam consider the Kurds to be 'his own people.' The fact is that it is ideogical definitional strategies that exclude certain groups of people from the protection of the cultural group that are central to creating the propoganda environment in which mass murder is justified.

In my view, the fact that Nixon indescriminately bombed non-American South Asians, to the point were not a single stone or concrete structure that predates 1975 stands today in North Vietnam, is just a criminal as any of the various crimes commited by Hitler. Or are you suggesting that South Asian lives are somehow 'less valuable' because they are non-American lives?


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 11 March 2003 04:05 PM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post
Just ask yourself, honestly: would I prefer to live in the United States under Nixon (1968 to 1974), or under Pol Pot during this time period.

Under Pol Pot, if you wore glasses, you were considered an intellectual. Ergo, and enemy of the state. Final destination = the Killing Fields.

In the United States, there was the lamentable incident at Kent State (four dead in Ohio). So you may have a point.

[ 11 March 2003: Message edited by: fatcalf ]


From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 11 March 2003 04:42 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One) Even your favourite source for information on Pol Pot (the Killing Fields, wherein the devestation of the bombing is depicted,) directly links the bombing campaign to the exccesses that followed.

Secondly) Sure I would rather live in the US under Nixon than under Pol Pot. The fact that Romans under Ceasar had immense liberty and luxury in comparison to Gauls in no way exempts Ceasar from crimes that he commited against Gauls in order to nurture that luxury and liberty. Nor does the fact that Gauls committed crimes against each other in any way mitigate the criminality of Romes imperial invasion.

Frankly, if I were Aryan I would rather live under Hitler in Germany in 1938, rather than Pol Pot in 1977. This fact in no way suggest that Hitler was justified in creating the state he did or committing the crimes he did.

[ 11 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 11 March 2003 04:51 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But Saddam didn't technical murder his own, they were Kurdish rebels (with U.S. support). Think of it like the OKA crisis, where the govnt put a cap on it, just wish Iraq would have handled it the same. The number is something like 5,500 dead Kurds. A far cry than what Ariel Sharon has murdered in Lebanon and Palestine.

Someone mentioned.. "At least Nixon didn't murder his own"

Murder is Murder!


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 11 March 2003 05:05 PM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But Saddam didn't technical murder his own, they were Kurdish rebels (with U.S. support). Think of it like the OKA crisis, where the govnt put a cap on it, just wish Iraq would have handled it the same. The number is something like 5,500 dead Kurds.

Is it possible, I wonder, to discuss Saddam's atrocities without someone expressing boredom or engaging in genocide denial?


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 11 March 2003 08:50 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why don't you read the thread d____s. Look at it and you will see that people are saying that whether they are 'his own' people or not is irrelvant. The same goes for any war crime. No one is denying that Saddam killed people. What is being disputed is the relvance of their 'nationality' when discussing 'war crime.'

That is what is meant by the phrase "Murder is Murder."

You continue to be overtly, persitently and wilfully obtuse.

To discuss the technical facts of someting to determine what actually happened specifically is not 'justification' for it. You seem to be stuck on this idea that any time anyone discusses Saddam's attack on the Kurds in detail, and they don't include the phrase 'heinous war crime' in every sentence, then they are supporting the ethnic cleansing.

Ferchirsakes.

[ 12 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 11 March 2003 10:50 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is it possible, I wonder, to discuss Saddam's atrocities without someone expressing boredom or engaging in genocide denial?

I'm not denying what Saddam has done, just putting forward the facts. And I tell you one thing... If we were to rank Saddam's atrocities compared to others, by numbers killed, he would rank no where near the top of the list. On the other hand, he's #1 on America's list. How Ironic.

[ 11 March 2003: Message edited by: Blind_Patriot ]


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 11 March 2003 11:10 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If we were to rank Saddam's atrocities compared to others, by numbers killed, he would rank no where near the top of the list.

And that is a tragedy in itself.

I don't think anyone would debate that Saddam is a genocidal, vicious killer. What we object to is the rhetorical device that puts Saddam - and only Saddam - on a level with Stalin and Hitler. It trivialises the atrocities committed by Stalin and Hitler to compare them to Saddam's.

This column provides a list of the world's most murderous known regimes. (Kind of morbid, but good to know.) The survey ends in 1987, but I still don't think Saddam would appear on that list.

If we're going to discuss Saddam, let's discuss him as what he is, which is horrible enough.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 11 March 2003 11:28 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting Smith, I was always led to beleive that the Holocaust was the worst crime (I think they're all horrible), but there has been worse. I would think that the holocaust was probably the most in a amount:time ratio. What about Rwanda? Nobody intervened, and the U.S. was warned about it too. Although I beleive Saddam should be stopped or contained, I wonder why Iraq and not Rwanda? Wasn't something like 400,000 in Rwanda.
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 12 March 2003 12:16 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Closer to a million, actually.

I guess Rwanda didn't pose an external threat. Certainly not to the US. The wars raging in the Congo, Burundi, etc. also don't pose an immediate threat to us or our economic interests, so we tend to ignore them. It's sad, but there it is.

There are a lot of ways of measuring the impact of crimes this horrendous, I guess. Two thirds of the Jews in Europe - over 90% of the Jews in Poland, I think - died under Hitler. That is utterly staggering, no matter what the numbers are. The article I linked to gives the sheer numbers and the numbers as a percentage of population, but not the percentages of the populations that were specifically targetted for extermination. And that would be very interesting to know, although in the case of political dissidents it might be impossible to measure.

[ 12 March 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 12 March 2003 12:38 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
I guess Sadam will soon have to hand over those cigarettes, that is after all a WMD that can kill many more then it already has. Those Americans never learn, again they are going to be accused of having helped Sadam in obtaining those smokey WMD's.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 12 March 2003 10:33 AM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To discuss the technical facts of someting to determine what actually happened specifically is not 'justification' for it. You seem to be stuck on this idea that any time anyone discusses Saddam's attack on the Kurds in detail, and they don't include the phrase 'heinous war crime' in every sentence, then they are supporting the ethnic cleansing.


Actually, Moredreads, I have a much simpler hope: That when people like you discuss Saddam's atrocities, they don't express boredom. And that when some fool claims that only 5500 Kurds died under Saddam, and claims that he's "not denying what Saddam has done, just putting forward the facts," then someone -- anyone -- would stand up and tell him what a useless piece of garbage he is to undercount the actual number of dead Kurds by a factor of 20.

[Edited to remove scatological reference, as per Mimi's request below.]

[ 12 March 2003: Message edited by: Whazzup? ]


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 12 March 2003 10:48 AM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And since Smith, Moredreads and BP are so interested in the "facts," and all are convinced that Saddam would never make it on any list of major mass murderers, why not do a little research to back that up?

What was the population of Iraq during Saddam's reign? How many deaths is he commonly believed to be responsible for, using Rummel's notion of "democide." Do the math. That is, if you're interested in the "facts."


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 12 March 2003 11:20 AM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
Human Rights Watch in its highly detailed report on the policy of Iraqi genocide against the Kurdish minority evaluates that the number of Kurds assassinated by Saddam Hussein's government runs into the six figures. This report was written in 1993. It is entitled "GENOCIDE IN IRAQ: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds"

At least 50,000 Kurds were murdered in the Anfal operation alone (which included the poison gassing campaign), and very possibly twice that number. Anfal ran from 1987 to 1989.

During the 1991 uprisings after the Gulf War, manuy more tens of thousands of Kurdish civilians were exterminatd by Iraqi government and police forces.

Do I see genocide denial on Babble? Is the Pope Polish? Unfortunately, the well established incontrovertible factual record shows that it is wrong to deny the charges of genocide. I can understand if certain individuals have not yet had a chance to go over the available documentation but the group here on Babble should theoretically know all of this I would have assumed.

Not a reason for Mr. Bush to insist on blowing up Iraq of course, but a solid reason for sending Hussein to tbe International Criminal Court (or to a Kurdish firing squad). I have never understood why the Security Council - for example why not this week? - does not order an international arrest warrant for the man. That would bring massive pressure on the regime to disarm as well as encourage a coup d'etat (or a courageous Iraqi military officer to put a bullet in Mr. Poison Gas's skull)

P.S. Whazzup: would you please refrain from using scatological phrases when referring to other people here?

[ 12 March 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 12 March 2003 01:24 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps my numbers are off a little. I'm here to share what I know and to learn what I don't know and discuss issues. Nobody except Smith responded to my Rwanda question. Why?
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 12 March 2003 01:38 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where does HRW stand on Nixon in Cambodia? Genocide?
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 12 March 2003 01:51 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post
Hard to say. It was founded only in 1988. Their earliest report on that country appears to date from 1991 - it dealt with landmines.

Judging by other reports on various issues, I guess they would have concluded the US bombings were illegal (war crimes of some sort I suppose) had they been in existence as an organization during the period 1969-1975.

[ 12 March 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 12 March 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, i fund their report on the Kissinger/Hitchens movie, but that was about it... just wondering if they had a historical analysis of past Human Rights abuses, but I guess not.

Illegal, obviously. But genocide? And if not, why not? What technicality separates Saddam's crimes in Kurdistan from Nixon's in North Vietnam and Cambodia - carpet bombing civilian non-combatants, village cleansing etc.? Is it the lack of ethnic specificity do you suppose, are Cambodians not distinct enough?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 12 March 2003 04:28 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm Linking These Two Threads
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
John Collins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3199

posted 12 March 2003 09:05 PM      Profile for John Collins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What technicality separates Saddam's crimes in Kurdistan from Nixon's in North Vietnam and Cambodia

A lack of information, since Nixon, Kissinger and Bush Sr. are responsible for starting Saddam's attacks on the Kurds, back in 1975. It's all explained in the Pike Commission Report, but the salient details are in my posts at the end of this thread.

Christopher Hitchens has done wonderful work in keeping this information available, notably in an article for Harper's Magazine in 1989.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 14 March 2003 01:39 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, I don't see any "genocide denial" in my posts. Did I say 100,000 Kurds were not murdered? No. I believe they were. I wouldn't put Saddam in a triumvirate with Hitler. That's genocide denial? Please.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca