Yeah - that Saddam...what a swell guy...bodies of babies found in graves...

[dmp]

Bodies of babies found in Saddam's 'killing field'


By Joe Murphy, Evening Standard Political Editor 13 October 2004

A mass grave containing the bodies of children, babies and their mothers has been unearthed in Iraq.

Shocked investigators reported finding "thighbones the size of matchsticks" at what they believe is the site of one of Saddam Hussein's atrocities. Among the findings-were the skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys.

A baby had been shot in the back of its head and was found still being clutched by its mother, who had been shot in the face. The discovery was reported as Tony Blair came under mounting pressure to apologise to Parliament for the misleading intelligence claiming Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

It will strengthen the Prime Minister's case that despite the intelligencefailures the war to topple the Iraqi dictator was justified by his record as a mass killer of his own people. Mr Blair is facing MPs for the first time since the Iraq Survey Group report last week admitted there were no illegal chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy demanded he make a full Commons statement on the findings but Mr Blair was hoping to escape by merely answering questions at his regular weekly appearance.

The mass grave was being excavated near Hatra, a village in northern Iraq with a large Kurdish population. US-led investigators have located nine trenches so far containing hundreds of bodies, believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the Eighties. The bodies had been bulldozed into the ground.

Evidence from the graves will be used at the Iraqi Special Tribunal where Saddam will face trial for war crimes. "It is my personal opinion that this is a killing field," said Greg Kehoe, a US official. "Someone used this field on significant occasions over time to take people up there and execute them."

One trench contains only women and children while another contains only men. "The youngest foetus we have was 18 to 20 foetal weeks," said a US investigating anthropologist. "Tiny bones, femurs - thighbones the size of a matchstick."

Some 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam's regime. Iraq's human rights ministry has reportedly identified 40 possible mass graves across the country.

Meanwhile, Saddam underwent an operation to repair a hernia about 10 days ago and has made a full recovery, Iraqi sources said today.

He has been in US custody since 13 December and appeared in court in July for a preliminary hearing.

...and even today sanctions or inspections could be in place. There was no NEED to invade Iraq. I've never had "sex with a woman" nor "get how that works".

Okay...so I changed that last part...but still.

 

[dilloduck]

Okay...so I changed that last part...but still.

But ya gotta understand !!!!! We only had a search warrant for WMDs. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to throw all your genocide evidence out.

 

[dmp]

But ya gotta understand !!!!! We only had a search warrant for WMDs. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to throw all your genocide evidence out.

I sense sarcasm...

Just a piont of Order: We had a 'warrant' based on his failure to provide proof he had no WMDs, AND we had 'justification' for Saddam violating OTHER terms in the Cease-Fire agreement.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I personally never defended Saddam as being a "swell guy". It seems to me that no one did.

And sarcasm or not, I agree that morality was very low on the list of reasons to go to war.

 

[-Cp]

And I guess we found no "WMD'S" either? I guess Saddam doesn't count as a WMD - and the genocide he was committing doesn't matter Bush Lied, people died! Saddam wasn't soo bad...

 

[MJDuncan1982]

And I guess we found no "WMD'S" either? I guess Saddam doesn't count as a WMD - and the genocide he was committing doesn't matter Bush Lied, people died! Saddam wasn't soo bad...

Of course Saddam doesn't count as a WMD. Is that what Bush and the rest of the world talks about when they use that term? Call him a tyrant but lumping him in as a WMD is just an attempt to prove there were WMD in Iraq.

And I don't think the genocide mattered to the American public because you never heard one damn word about it until the debate on whether invasion was a good idea started up. Where is Bush's great empathy for those involved in genocide for the people of Darfur?

Never said Bush lied...

 

[-Cp]

Of course Saddam doesn't count as a WMD.

So how many people would Saddam have to kill before you'd count him as a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

So how many people would Saddam have to kill before you'd count him as a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

He can never be a WMD in the sense of the word used in the ordinary language of the situation.

This is an attempt to switch definitions. A WMD is chemical, nuclear or biological. The use of the word would change considerably if it was broadened to include anything that killed a lot of people.

It was used in the U.N., by Bush and the Administration and by the whole world to mean a certain thing. Do you HONESTLY think when Bush said we had to rid Saddam of WMD he meant Saddam was one of those WMD?

You can use a broad definition of your own to what a WMD but the world uses a different one which doesn't include Saddam or any other 'person' for that matter.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Here's a link:

http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html

Has CIA documents, Congressional documents, DOD documents, U.S. laws, etc.

All use the same definition. The one used in the argument for war.

To go back and rewrite history and say there was a different definition for the word in an attempt to validate that argument is not honest.

 

[dmp]

Here's a link:

http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html

Has CIA documents, Congressional documents, DOD documents, U.S. laws, etc.

All use the same definition. The one used in the argument for war.

To go back and rewrite history and say there was a different definition for the word in an attempt to validate that argument is not honest.

Knowing everything you know now about Saddam, do you feel Iraqis, as a nation, and the rest of the world was 'better off, safer' with him in power?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Knowing everything you know now about Saddam, do you feel Iraqis, as a nation, and the rest of the world was 'better off, safer' with him in power?

I can't answer that question because it is too soon to tell. I don't know much about the situation...nobody does. Something like this can't be know for years.

Change of subject or somehow related to Saddam not being a WMD?

 

[deaddude]

Knowing everything you know now about Saddam, do you feel Iraqis, as a nation, and the rest of the world was 'better off, safer' with him in power?

Probably. If we stay the course and we put in place a stable government then yeah the Iraqis are better off and safer. If after we leave that stable government goes the way of the dodo and goes into a state of anarchy then no.

In regard to the world, no I don’t think the world as a whole is much safer. With all of the evidence we have right now, our guess with the most evidence is that Saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction. So excluding his immediate neighbors the world is not safer.

 

[dmp]

I can't answer that question because it is too soon to tell. I don't know much about the situation...nobody does. Something like this can't be know for years.

Change of subject or somehow related to Saddam not being a WMD?

That's not my subject.

The point, however, lays in Saddam being vile...being evil...and being 'wrong'; he's to blame for the US Invasion, not GWB...Saddam failed to comply with agreements HE made. Since he failed to prove he had no WMD, he got his ass kicked and his country taken, and given to it's citizens.

 

[MrMarbles]

Those bodies are reported to have been there from the 80's, you know when he was a buddy of the States. And everything he did was sanctioned by the CIA.

 

[drowe]

Those bodies are reported to have been there from the 80's, you know when he was a buddy of the States. And everything he did was sanctioned by the CIA.

There is some truth to that Marble and in no way does it make it less tragic. However, in the eighties, your favorite extinct nation (USSR) had thousands of thermonuclear weapons pointed at us and the global political climate was drastically different than it is today.

everything he did was sanctioned by the CIA.

This is simply not true Marble.

However, Saddam did receive some backing from us during the Iran Iraq war for two basic reasons:
1 - We didn't like Iran (Hostage crisis, courtesy of Jimmy "peanut-head" Carter)

2 - Attempt to thwart any Iraq/USSR alliance.

I'm not saying the CIA absolutely had no knowledge of this horrible event. But to say everything he did was in any way given the "thumbs up" by the US (even CIA spooks) exposes a lack of understanding the history of the late 20th century.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

I personally never defended Saddam as being a "swell guy". It seems to me that no one did.

And sarcasm or not, I agree that morality was very low on the list of reasons to go to war.

Who gave differing values for the reasons for going in to Iraq? I think ALL of the reasons were equally valid, and none more important than another. Moral reasons are the most admirable of reasons to have taken Saddam out....the rest of the reasons were for national security, and security of the region, as well as giving the UN some semblance of credibility.

When the great debating society said there would be grave and serious consequences, we had a duty to stand behind the duties required as the largest member and supporter of the UN.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Who gave differing values for the reasons for going in to Iraq? I think ALL of the reasons were equally valid, and none more important than another. Moral reasons are the most admirable of reasons to have taken Saddam out....the rest of the reasons were for national security, and security of the region, as well as giving the UN some semblance of credibility.

When the great debating society said there would be grave and serious consequences, we had a duty to stand behind the duties required as the largest member and supporter of the UN.

If morality is so high on the list of reasons to go to war then where is the outrage for Darfur?

 

[nakedemperor]

Who gave differing values for the reasons for going in to Iraq? I think ALL of the reasons were equally valid, and none more important than another.

With no WMD and no Al Qaeda connection, the case for war could not have been sold to the legislative. Its lunacy to think otherwise.

 

[MrMarbles]

There is some truth to that Marble and in no way does it make it less tragic. However, in the eighties, your favorite extinct nation (USSR) had thousands of thermonuclear weapons pointed at us and the global political climate was drastically different than it is today.


This is simply not true Marble.

However, Saddam did receive some backing from us during the Iran Iraq war for two basic reasons:
1 - We didn't like Iran (Hostage crisis, courtesy of Jimmy "peanut-head" Carter)

2 - Attempt to thwart any Iraq/USSR alliance.

I'm not saying the CIA absolutely had no knowledge of this horrible event. But to say everything he did was in any way given the "thumbs up" by the US (even CIA spooks) exposes a lack of understanding the history of the late 20th century.

What I don't like seeing is the hypocracy of American foreign policy. I don't know why it exists, maybe it is from the changing of administrations over the years, I don't know. But it's the big reason for the collective 'rolling eyes' of the world whenever the States does something now.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

If morality is so high on the list of reasons to go to war then where is the outrage for Darfur?

I don't remember the Security Council of the UN passing 2 decades worth of resolutions about Darfur.....maybe we should wait until John Kerry is elected before we send in troops to fix that problem.