[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[blank]

[BitWhys]

[Rasker]

I do agree with Bitwhys about the rudeness toward each other in this forum, over factual or doctrinal disagreements. Comrades, sectarianism between supporters of the Liberation is one of the only ways that the Mullah regime can stay in power!

As to the ongoing humanitarian cost of leaving Saddam in power, BitWhys, just look at how many children died of malnutrition during the sanction regime because Saddam needed to fund himself, his palaces, bribe his big friends with votes or influence on the Security Council, fund terrorism and WMD research. Innocent people did die in the war, true, but at a far far far lower rate than just from Saddam's theft, not to mention whatever thousands of people he murdered over the course of an 'ordinary' year. When the terrorists now kill 20 people with a car bomb they get headlines, Saddam could kill 20,000, all at once, or in dribs and drabs, without ever making the middle pages of the New York Times.
_________________
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!

[BitWhys]

[irani]

Bitwhys, look at Iraqi blogger Omar's post:

Why there are no reports or links for mass graves in Iraq in 2002?

I've noticed this question being repeated more than once on the comment section here and on a few other sites.
I want to know why such a question is being asked; would a report about mass graves in 2002 make the situation any different?
Is it that some people think it's too much for Iraqis to get a year off from being buried in mass graves?
Is the question suggesting that all the mass graves fond so far in Iraq do not count if 2002 was free of mass graves?
Or maybe people asking this question are trying to say that Saddam suddenly became a better person in 2002?

Maybe I'm being oversensitive here and maybe it's just an innocent question; however I'd like to talk shortly about it.

The tragedy of mass graves was associated with certain incidents, namely the uprising in 1991 and the notorious campaign against the Kurds in the late 1980s and a few other cases and I guess most of you already know this.
The other thing is that the absence of mass graves in a specific year does NOT mean that no people were executed at that time because there were always executions carried out separately in different spots in the country and the victims' bodies were either buried separately or sent to their families to be buried.

I still have to admit that 2002 was relatively less bloody than the years that preceded it; at that time I noticed that people would express their anger on the streets with less fear from punishment, not because Saddam became a nicer guy or decided to allow free speech (God forbid!) but mainly because he was more concerned about a greater threat coming from across the Atlantic so he partially ignored the war on the "internal front" against the people.

In spite of that, executions continued until the last days in the regime's life and there are stories about people executed even in the 1st week of April 2003 (sorry for not providing links).
More over, many doctors who served in Abu Ghraib before 2003 confirmed that an average of 40 prisoners were executed weekly in that prison alone in two execution sick festivals each week, every week on Saturday and Tuesday if I didn't forget, which gives a total of around 2000 executions/year in Abu Ghraib alone (sorry again for not providing links).
I read some report a week ago about the number of executions in different countries and China ranked 1st with a total of approximately 3400 executions/year and the Chinese government is being severely criticized for that.

And considering that the population of China is more than 50 times that of Iraq; a total of 80 executions/year would more or less put Iraq in the same rank of China's when it comes to declaring an execution crisis.
But Saddam being keen on fulfilling his responsibilities towards his people was able to finish the assignment of one year in a matter of two weeks.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

[BitWhys]

100,000 violent deaths over two years and that's the consevative estimate.

that's 50,000 dead a year.

If Hussein worked at that pace that would mean 1.25 Million Iraqis died at his hand. Even using Albright's idiotic misinterpretaion of the UNICEF report, that didn't happen.

Hussein deserves his own special place in hell, but the war is worse. And its still a war. Between November and March there were 20 attacks on coalition forces a day in Baghdad alone. That's using US figures that slipped out while they were defending the shooting of the Italian journalist.

Baghdad alone.

Human Rights Watch was well aware of the internal situation and still condemned the action and that was BEFORE the undisputed Lancet cluster study came out.

you can read the rationale if you want...

War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention

[Rasker]

Bitwhys, I'll have to defer to the many Iraqi bloggers I've read who supported the liberation as an act of mercy. They lived through Saddam, through the invasion, and are living through the terrorism, and they feel it has been worth it to be rid of that Beast.

Now, hopefully we can help rid Iran of the mullahocracy by another way...
_________________
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!

[irani]

[BitWhys]

[BitWhys]

[blank]

[BitWhys]

You never asked anything you just hurled abuse.

Speak to the points or bite me

and don't give me any Protest Warrior "I made the pacifict mad" crap because I just find chickenhawks tiresome. You have no idea what motivates me.

you want to play flame wars and talk tough typing words onto a screen save it. I'm not impressed.

now step aside. Rasker and I are exchanging ideas like adults.
_________________
"Riding the SNAFU wav(e)"

[BitWhys]

but since you almost asked I'll tell you I can't give alternatives because I don't know what the situation at the time really was. the friggen CIA didn't know what the situation really was so how the hell should I?

you see what I'm saying?

the Iraq War that I'm against is the one that Bushco created. what they were doing and how they were doing it was wrong. the information they were using was wrong.

the bull-in-a-china-shop-don't-tell-anybody-but-we're-going-in-in-January,
we're-the-masters-of-the-universe,
first-we'll-win-and-then-we'll-sort-it-out,
who-cares-if-its-in-the-middle-of-the-terrorist-capital-of-the-planet-peace-will-break-out-when-we-get-there,
check-our-marker-list-we've-got-some-favours-to-pay-back-when-the-IMF-get's-there approach was downright criminal.

if they operated on the level and showed an ounce of respect it would have been different. and maybe if we got the truth about what was going on I would have supported it. but that's not what happened and then we get into the maybees so there's no point speaking to it any further.
_________________
"Riding the SNAFU wav(e)"

[blank]

[quote="BitWhys"]but since you almost asked I'll tell you I can't give alternatives because I don't know what the situation at the time really was. the friggen CIA didn't know what the situation really was so how the hell should I?quote]

The whole world knew what the situation at that time was, mass murder by a butcher and his sadistic sons. You can't be that ignorant.
I was right these Leftists don't have any alternatives but they want to 'wait until somehow maybe suddenly some other alternatives come up and maybe Sadam would say I am going to peacefully leave,,, like the ragheads would' ..... I did say before that US made some mistakes for not preparing for the terrorists(insurgents) activities, after the toppling of Sadam.
And Bush's biggest mistake was he should have started with Iran first, by helping Iranian people to get rid of these raghead talibans, now he has to deal with the terrorists, homocide bombers, coming straight from Iran, going to Iraq and killing Iraqis & Americans....
Because Bush is willing to stand up to these terrorists regimes without kissing their ass like your leaders and Europeans, then he becomes "disrespectful" & "arrogant"
I tell you what, I prefer 100 Bushs to one of your "respectful" but coward leaders that look the other way when greatest human violations are going on in Iran.

[Rasker]

The fact is, from what we know now, Saddam had bought and paid for France's veto (and perhaps others) on the Security Council (from the Oil for Bribes program), so no substantial new measures were going to come out of the Security Council, soft or hard. The old measures were not working to keep Saddam in compliance with the inspection regime. In a situation like that Bush and Blair were not going to give a veto power to Saddam's 'coalition of the bribed', in fact I'm sorry they gave him those extra few months to organize guerilla warfare. However the coalition did go the last mile to show their good faith, gave Saddam every chance to resume compliance, and he chose to take his chances.

I'm sure some of these commercial ventures between the IRI regime and veto-holders France, Russia, China and/or Britain are designed to give the recipients an interest in the regime's survival, and motivation to stop any effective 'soft' measures coming out of the UN. We shall see who will be the IRI's 'France' this go-around.

We shall also see what future criminal or civil liability attaches to those persons who tried to keep Saddam in power for money, at the cost of many American, coalition and Iraqi lives. Senior investigators have resigned from Volcker's investigation, and Senator Coleman's subcommittee investigation continues...
_________________
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!