Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
jones
Guest
- Thread starter
- #22
Lives, as in casualties. 20,000+. around 9,000 iraqi deaths. They're people too, and all our troops comming hope with no limbs, I think they would agree with me that they payed a price for 'protecting freedom'.
B
bamthin
Guest
- Thread starter
- #23
I don't really believe any mass graves were being dug recently. I read an article about that. The overwhelming majority of mass killings by the Iraqi government were in the late 80's when the US was allied with them. That's not to say that Saddam stopped being brutal and incompassionate, but certainly he wasn't genocidal. The time to have acted on these atrocities was then, not now, in my opinion.
If you watch someone kill someone and continue to be freinds and even prevent others from fully investigating the murder (The US vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution demanding an investigation of Saddam Hussein's human rights violations in the late 80's), can you come out a decade or more later and react incredulously about it and use it as an excuse for killing them?
The point is, the US was fully aware of the problem when it was happening, when action could have actually prevented some of it from happening.
Why do some people seem to forget those facts about the Saddam/US timeline?
-Bam
If you watch someone kill someone and continue to be freinds and even prevent others from fully investigating the murder (The US vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution demanding an investigation of Saddam Hussein's human rights violations in the late 80's), can you come out a decade or more later and react incredulously about it and use it as an excuse for killing them?
The point is, the US was fully aware of the problem when it was happening, when action could have actually prevented some of it from happening.
Why do some people seem to forget those facts about the Saddam/US timeline?
-Bam
Originally posted by jones
Lives, as in casualties. 20,000+. around 9,000 iraqi deaths. They're people too, and all our troops comming hope with no limbs, I think they would agree with me that they payed a price for 'protecting freedom'.
No, you said "at the cost of their lives" You simply made an innacurate statement to exaggerate your position.
Originally posted by bamthin
Why do some people seem to forget those facts about the Saddam/US timeline?
Yes, they were being dealt with for over 12 years while Saddam played his cat and mouse games. He refused to cooperate with both the US and the UN.
Why do some forget the timeline?
B
bamthin
Guest
- Thread starter
- #26
Originally posted by jimnyc
Yes, they were being dealt with for over 12 years while Saddam played his cat and mouse games. He refused to cooperate with both the US and the UN.
Why do some forget the timeline?
What are your thoughts on the US veto at the UN Security Council into an investigation of Saddam Hussein's human rights violations in the 80's?
I notice that you, and many other pro-war people, point to Saddam's human rights record now that the other arguments for war, the WMD and the 9/11 ties are in doubt. I was curious what a war supporter thinks of that veto though. I was appalled by it, especially in light of the mass graves that we are unearthing now. It seems that if we allowed those investigations, maybe 100s of thousands of Iraqis would be alive instead of buried in that desert.
I understand that is just my opinion, but I am curious how a pro-war American feels.
Thanks in advance.
-Bam
What are your thoughts on the US veto at the UN Security Council into an investigation of Saddam Hussein's human rights violations in the 80's?
Honestly haven't read about that. Link me to the story and then I'll give you my opinion. I will state before even reading it, none of it changes what has transpired in the last 13 years.
I notice that you, and many other pro-war people, point to Saddam's human rights record now that the other arguments for war, the WMD and the 9/11 ties are in doubt.
I've stated humanitarian reasons from day one, as did the UN resolutions. I also touted WMD, but that doesn't mean the humanitarian goals weren't there.
I was curious what a war supporter thinks of that veto though. I was appalled by it, especially in light of the mass graves that we are unearthing now. It seems that if we allowed those investigations, maybe 100s of thousands of Iraqis would be alive instead of buried in that desert.
I don't know the full circumstances behind the veto. Present a link to a fair and balanced review and I'll be happy to comment on it.
Originally posted by bamthin
What are your thoughts on the US veto at the UN Security Council into an investigation of Saddam Hussein's human rights violations in the 80's?
I notice you've been back on the board but haven't gave a link or any more information about this veto in the UNSC.
I've searched and searched and can't come up with what you speak of. Is it possible that it was actually something else they vetoed?
I don't see any specific vetoes against an investigation of Saddam Hussein. In fact, the last time Iraq's name was directly mentioned in a UN veto was in 1961, and it was the USSR that vetoed.
Here are the UN vetoes:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,827
- 1,790
I'm pretty sure Bami means this, the US voted against. UK and others abstained.
During the eighties, the UN was concerned with Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons. Thus, on 3/21/1986, the Security Council President,
"speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council
members were "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the
specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by
Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical
weapons" (S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986).
-the United States voted AGAINST the issuing of this statement.
During the eighties, the UN was concerned with Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons. Thus, on 3/21/1986, the Security Council President,
"speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council
members were "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the
specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by
Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical
weapons" (S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986).
-the United States voted AGAINST the issuing of this statement.
B
bamthin
Guest
- Thread starter
- #32
Here's what I read, sorry took me a while to refind it. The guy's e-mail is at the bottom if you have questions about any of it. I bolded the part that I thought was especially relevant, but the whole article is good. I mistook "refused to vote in favor" for "veto", but that technicality shouldn't take away from the point. Apologies for that. What do you think of this?
Rumsfeld, Bush Sr. Refused To Back 1989 UN Resolution To Investigate Iraq For Human Rights Abuses
By Jason Leopold
In 1989, the State Department released a report that described in gruesome detail Iraqs violation of human rights, specifically how Iraqs President Saddam Hussein tortured his own people for allegedly being disloyal.
But despite the atrocities outlined in the report, which President Bush now refers to when speaking about his desire to remove Hussein from power, the United States, under the first Bush Administration, refused to vote in favor of a United Nations resolution calling for an inquiry into Iraqs treatment of its population and possibly indicting Hussein for war crimes and human rights abuses.
The two people most vocal about refusing to go along with the U.N. investigation are now lobbying for a U.N. resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq and are highly critical of the countries that refuse to back a U.S. led coalition to use military force to remove Hussein from power. Those men are Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
But in 1989, the first Bush administration refused to join the U.N. in publicly protesting the forced relocation of at least half a million ethnic Kurds and Syrians in the late 1980s, even though the act violated principles of the 1948 Genocide Convention, according to Middle East Watch, a human rights organization.
The Bush and Reagan administrations also declined to punish Iraq when it used poison gas against Iranian soldiers in 1984 and Kurdish citizens in 1988. Moreover, the U.S. did not oppose the fact that Hussein bought 45 American helicopters, worth about $200 million, with assurances they were for civilian use, then transferred them to his military.
Armitage said in 1990 that that "in retrospect, it would have been much better at the time of their use of gas if we'd put our foot down," according to an August 1990 story in the Los Angeles Daily News.
Despite U.S. intelligence reports that showed Iraqs capability of building weapons of mass destruction and its inhumane treatment of its own civilians, the Bush Administration turned a blind eye and instead focused on improving U.S. relations with Hussein. The U.S. removed Iraq from its list of countries supporting terrorism in 1983, which reopened the door to federal subsidies and loans to Iraq.
Saddam Hussein made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world," Rumsfeld said, who, as a Middle East envoy for the Regan Administration, reopened discussions with Saddam in 1983, according to the Daily News story. "It struck us as useful to have a relationship with him."
The current Bush Administration, many of whom served in the Reagan and the first Bush administrations, refuse to acknowledge that their policies toward Iraq at the time backfired and we may be paying a price for it now. But at this point, Iraq does not pose a threat to the U.S. and threats against the nation appear to be purely personal.
Under former Rumsfelds watch during his years in the Reagan and Bush administrations, he and the former presidents allowed Hussein to build his army and a cache of chemical and nuclear weapons. In fact, many of the hawks that serve in the current Bush Administration assisted Husseins regime in reaching these goals during the late 1980s and early 1990s.
For example, Judicial Watch said, according to the Daily News story, that the U.S. extended $270 million in government-guaranteed credit from the Export-Import Bank to buy other American goods, despite repeated failures to make loan repayments on time. Since 1982, Baghdad has become one of the biggest buyers of U.S. rice and wheat, purchasing $5.5 billion in crops and livestock with federally guaranteed loans and agricultural subsidies and its own hard cash.
Iraq benefited from a thriving grain trade with American farmers, cooperation with U.S. intelligence agencies, oil sales to American refiners that helped finance its military, and muted White House criticism of its human rights and war atrocities, the Daily News story said.
Armitage admitted in 1990 that the Reagan and Bush administrations were well aware of Husseins brutality, but still, the U.S. was more interested in maintaining a healthy relationship with Iraq because the countrys vast oil reserves was beneficial to U.S. interests.
"We knew this wasn't the League of Women Voters," Armitage said, referring to Husseins regime, according to the Daily News story.
******************
- Jason Leopold is an investigative journalist based in California, he is currently finishing a book on the California energy crisis. He can be contacted at [email protected]. This story is available for republication, please contact the author by email.
LINK
-Bam
Rumsfeld, Bush Sr. Refused To Back 1989 UN Resolution To Investigate Iraq For Human Rights Abuses
By Jason Leopold
In 1989, the State Department released a report that described in gruesome detail Iraqs violation of human rights, specifically how Iraqs President Saddam Hussein tortured his own people for allegedly being disloyal.
But despite the atrocities outlined in the report, which President Bush now refers to when speaking about his desire to remove Hussein from power, the United States, under the first Bush Administration, refused to vote in favor of a United Nations resolution calling for an inquiry into Iraqs treatment of its population and possibly indicting Hussein for war crimes and human rights abuses.
The two people most vocal about refusing to go along with the U.N. investigation are now lobbying for a U.N. resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq and are highly critical of the countries that refuse to back a U.S. led coalition to use military force to remove Hussein from power. Those men are Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
But in 1989, the first Bush administration refused to join the U.N. in publicly protesting the forced relocation of at least half a million ethnic Kurds and Syrians in the late 1980s, even though the act violated principles of the 1948 Genocide Convention, according to Middle East Watch, a human rights organization.
The Bush and Reagan administrations also declined to punish Iraq when it used poison gas against Iranian soldiers in 1984 and Kurdish citizens in 1988. Moreover, the U.S. did not oppose the fact that Hussein bought 45 American helicopters, worth about $200 million, with assurances they were for civilian use, then transferred them to his military.
Armitage said in 1990 that that "in retrospect, it would have been much better at the time of their use of gas if we'd put our foot down," according to an August 1990 story in the Los Angeles Daily News.
Despite U.S. intelligence reports that showed Iraqs capability of building weapons of mass destruction and its inhumane treatment of its own civilians, the Bush Administration turned a blind eye and instead focused on improving U.S. relations with Hussein. The U.S. removed Iraq from its list of countries supporting terrorism in 1983, which reopened the door to federal subsidies and loans to Iraq.
Saddam Hussein made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world," Rumsfeld said, who, as a Middle East envoy for the Regan Administration, reopened discussions with Saddam in 1983, according to the Daily News story. "It struck us as useful to have a relationship with him."
The current Bush Administration, many of whom served in the Reagan and the first Bush administrations, refuse to acknowledge that their policies toward Iraq at the time backfired and we may be paying a price for it now. But at this point, Iraq does not pose a threat to the U.S. and threats against the nation appear to be purely personal.
Under former Rumsfelds watch during his years in the Reagan and Bush administrations, he and the former presidents allowed Hussein to build his army and a cache of chemical and nuclear weapons. In fact, many of the hawks that serve in the current Bush Administration assisted Husseins regime in reaching these goals during the late 1980s and early 1990s.
For example, Judicial Watch said, according to the Daily News story, that the U.S. extended $270 million in government-guaranteed credit from the Export-Import Bank to buy other American goods, despite repeated failures to make loan repayments on time. Since 1982, Baghdad has become one of the biggest buyers of U.S. rice and wheat, purchasing $5.5 billion in crops and livestock with federally guaranteed loans and agricultural subsidies and its own hard cash.
Iraq benefited from a thriving grain trade with American farmers, cooperation with U.S. intelligence agencies, oil sales to American refiners that helped finance its military, and muted White House criticism of its human rights and war atrocities, the Daily News story said.
Armitage admitted in 1990 that the Reagan and Bush administrations were well aware of Husseins brutality, but still, the U.S. was more interested in maintaining a healthy relationship with Iraq because the countrys vast oil reserves was beneficial to U.S. interests.
"We knew this wasn't the League of Women Voters," Armitage said, referring to Husseins regime, according to the Daily News story.
******************
- Jason Leopold is an investigative journalist based in California, he is currently finishing a book on the California energy crisis. He can be contacted at [email protected]. This story is available for republication, please contact the author by email.
LINK
-Bam
Originally posted by bamthin
Rumsfeld, Bush Sr. Refused To Back 1989 UN Resolution To Investigate Iraq For Human Rights Abuses
Here is a list of all resolutions within the UNSC for 1989:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1989/scres89.htm
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
As you can see, there is no reference to a resolution to investigate Iraq for HR abuses. I don't know what the story is here, but it would be much easier if we knew the specific resolution you speak of.
The only references I find about this 'resolution' is on:
scoop.co.nz
counterpunch.org
freepress.org
All 3 are just reprints of the same story you posted.
We have no reputable source, we have an op/ed article from an unknown person using a hotmail address.
I'll comment further if something pops up that is factually based.
B
bamthin
Guest
- Thread starter
- #35
Ok, that's fair enough. Wht do you think of this then?
-snip-
In early September the Senate unanimously passed the Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988. In its original form, the legislation called for the following changes in US policy toward Iraq:
An embargo on all dual-use technology exports
The elimination of all CCC and Export-Import Bank credits
An embargo on all US imports of Iraqi oil
A requirement that all loans to Iraq under consideration in international financial institutions (the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, etc.) be opposed by the United States36
Liberal and conservative senators alike lent their outspoken support to this assertive legislation. Liberal Democrat Claiborne Pell declared, "Iraq's conduct is a crime against humanity. . . . It must be met with the strongest possible response."37 His conservative Republican counterpart, Senator Jesse Helms, concurred in stating that the Senate legislation "will help demonstrate to the Iraqi regime just how serious our country views its campaign against the Kurds. In addition, it will help assure that United States tax dollars do not subsidize the Iraqis."38 As members of the Senate saw it, the time had come for exercising whatever leverage the United States held in its relationship with Iraq. However, despite the unanimous support of the Senate, over the course of the next few months, the sanctions bill was systematically watered down, and it eventually died under the heavy influence of both the Administration and opponents within the House of Representatives.
-snip
And, also if you think the reasons that this did not make it past Reagan/Bush and the House is related to this:
-snip-
Implemented through the manipulation of powerful American domestic special interests, Iraq's strategy of inverse engagement is perhaps best illustrated in its oil pricing policies. In its effort to engage Iraq, the United States had gone from importing no Iraqi oil before lifting sanctions in 1982, to importing 126 million barrels in 1988. However, what is most interesting in this exchange is that despite historically low global oil prices, American oil companies received a $1 per barrel discount on purchases of Iraqi oil, a benefit not shared by non-US companies. Thus, by 1988 Iraq's inverse engagement policy resulted in discount pricing that increased normal American oil company profits on 126 million barrels of oil per year.42 These companies could have purchased non-Iraqi oil from alternative suppliers; however, they would do so without the $126 million financial "carrot" offered by Saddam's inverse engagement strategy. Thus, despite its severe financial crisis, the Iraqi government was willing to purchase what it perceived as an extra $126 million worth of power and influence with American oil company executives, who in turn would be asked to use their substantial clout inside the Washington beltway.
LINK
What are your thoughts on this?
-Bam
-snip-
In early September the Senate unanimously passed the Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988. In its original form, the legislation called for the following changes in US policy toward Iraq:
An embargo on all dual-use technology exports
The elimination of all CCC and Export-Import Bank credits
An embargo on all US imports of Iraqi oil
A requirement that all loans to Iraq under consideration in international financial institutions (the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, etc.) be opposed by the United States36
Liberal and conservative senators alike lent their outspoken support to this assertive legislation. Liberal Democrat Claiborne Pell declared, "Iraq's conduct is a crime against humanity. . . . It must be met with the strongest possible response."37 His conservative Republican counterpart, Senator Jesse Helms, concurred in stating that the Senate legislation "will help demonstrate to the Iraqi regime just how serious our country views its campaign against the Kurds. In addition, it will help assure that United States tax dollars do not subsidize the Iraqis."38 As members of the Senate saw it, the time had come for exercising whatever leverage the United States held in its relationship with Iraq. However, despite the unanimous support of the Senate, over the course of the next few months, the sanctions bill was systematically watered down, and it eventually died under the heavy influence of both the Administration and opponents within the House of Representatives.
-snip
And, also if you think the reasons that this did not make it past Reagan/Bush and the House is related to this:
-snip-
Implemented through the manipulation of powerful American domestic special interests, Iraq's strategy of inverse engagement is perhaps best illustrated in its oil pricing policies. In its effort to engage Iraq, the United States had gone from importing no Iraqi oil before lifting sanctions in 1982, to importing 126 million barrels in 1988. However, what is most interesting in this exchange is that despite historically low global oil prices, American oil companies received a $1 per barrel discount on purchases of Iraqi oil, a benefit not shared by non-US companies. Thus, by 1988 Iraq's inverse engagement policy resulted in discount pricing that increased normal American oil company profits on 126 million barrels of oil per year.42 These companies could have purchased non-Iraqi oil from alternative suppliers; however, they would do so without the $126 million financial "carrot" offered by Saddam's inverse engagement strategy. Thus, despite its severe financial crisis, the Iraqi government was willing to purchase what it perceived as an extra $126 million worth of power and influence with American oil company executives, who in turn would be asked to use their substantial clout inside the Washington beltway.
LINK
What are your thoughts on this?
-Bam
Not to be a pain in the ass, but do you have a link to where this was actually brought forth in the House of Representatives? Surely it must be on record somewhere. A lot of these things include MUCH more than what is discussed. I'd like to read it in it's entirety to see the reasons why it was shot down. Sometimes good things get shot down because of lesser included bills or resolutions. I'd rather read the factual events than someone else's journal.
This is extremely broad. I'd like to read the documents myself before making an informed opinion.
the sanctions bill was systematically watered down, and it eventually died under the heavy influence of both the Administration and opponents within the House of Representatives.
This is extremely broad. I'd like to read the documents myself before making an informed opinion.
Originally posted by bamthin
Ok, the US Senate web page doesn't let me search before the 101st Congress and this bill was in the 100th Congress. I did, however, find a copy of the bill and you can read it here .
It's very short and easy to read, IMO.
-Bam
This doesn't tell me who voted, if there was a vote. Why it was 'watered down' or why it died. This just tells me there was a proposal. I'm not going to make you hunt anymore as I take you at your word. There could be hundreds of reasons this was thwarted. It doesn't look good, I'll agree with you there, but I'd rather know the full story.
Regardless, I just don't see a connection to present time. Even if wrongs were made in the past, that doesn't mean people can't correct those mistakes in the future.
B
bamthin
Guest
- Thread starter
- #39
And I would agree that this wouldn't exonerate Saddam for his complete disregard for human life. However, I think that the US should learn a hard lesson from this and strive to never let it happen it again. I believe the CIA had a significant hand in creating Osama Bin Laden with its support for the mujahdeen back when the Soviets rolled into Afghanistan and I think there was a degree of support for the Taliban as well.
We need to take a moral stand early on tyrants and murderers and monsters. Coming out later, after the monsters we help create ravage thousands of lives, just doesn't cut it with me.
In retrospect, we should have stayed out of the Iran/Iraq war or we should have come out strongly against Saddam as soon as we knew what he was doing. I really can't blame the Middle East, or the rest of the world for that matter, for distrusting the US because of this.
We should have framed the Iraq invasion with an apology to the Iraqis and an admission to the UN and the world that we made a mistake supporting this guy in the 80's. We should have explained that we were sacrificing our money and men to atone for our blunder and allow the Iraqi people to have a better life.
I think the UN and the rest of the world would have respected that and I think alot more Americans, me included, would have supported the war, especially if the coalition broadened as a result.
The arrogance and shortsightedness of the American foreign policy needs to change. We are all complicit in these gaffs as taxpayers. We can't stand up as the righteous protectors of the innocent and the freedom police to the world and also support tyrants, murderers, and monsters in the background.
-Bam
We need to take a moral stand early on tyrants and murderers and monsters. Coming out later, after the monsters we help create ravage thousands of lives, just doesn't cut it with me.
In retrospect, we should have stayed out of the Iran/Iraq war or we should have come out strongly against Saddam as soon as we knew what he was doing. I really can't blame the Middle East, or the rest of the world for that matter, for distrusting the US because of this.
We should have framed the Iraq invasion with an apology to the Iraqis and an admission to the UN and the world that we made a mistake supporting this guy in the 80's. We should have explained that we were sacrificing our money and men to atone for our blunder and allow the Iraqi people to have a better life.
I think the UN and the rest of the world would have respected that and I think alot more Americans, me included, would have supported the war, especially if the coalition broadened as a result.
The arrogance and shortsightedness of the American foreign policy needs to change. We are all complicit in these gaffs as taxpayers. We can't stand up as the righteous protectors of the innocent and the freedom police to the world and also support tyrants, murderers, and monsters in the background.
-Bam
I can agree with most of that. I honestly don't know the full background of what transpired in the 80's. If mistakes were made it's a shame, but they do happen. That was a different time and a different administration. That shouldn't negate the efforts currently being taken to make things better for Iraq and the ME region.
I won't hold the current Iraqi government responsible for what Saddam has done over the past 20 years. I won't hold Schroeder responsible for former German leaders. I won't hold Putin responsible for past Russian leaders. People make mistakes. These places, in my opinion, are now better off than they were in the past.
It's obvious Saddam should never have been supported. Nobody should have ever given this man any type of weapons. That doesn't take away the right of future leaders to do the right thing though.
I won't hold the current Iraqi government responsible for what Saddam has done over the past 20 years. I won't hold Schroeder responsible for former German leaders. I won't hold Putin responsible for past Russian leaders. People make mistakes. These places, in my opinion, are now better off than they were in the past.
It's obvious Saddam should never have been supported. Nobody should have ever given this man any type of weapons. That doesn't take away the right of future leaders to do the right thing though.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 123
- Views
- 978
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 184
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 113
- Replies
- 84
- Views
- 747
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 7K
- Views
- 49K
- Replies
- 639
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 664
- Views
- 7K
- Replies
- 113
- Views
- 372
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-