Why Do Some Defend the Butcher of Baghdad?

by Perry 41 Replies latest jw friends

  • Perry
    Perry

    A BBC Correspondent documentary aired on June 23, 2002, exposed how the Iraqi regime staged these processions: Instead of burying dead children immediately in accordance with Muslim custom, Iraqi authorities hold the bodies in cold storage until enough bodies are available to conduct a "parade of dead babies." 15 In one such event, the Iraqi regime exhibited some 60 coffins, decorated with large photographs of the deceased, around Martyr Square in Baghdad while government-controlled demonstrators chanted anti-U.S. slogans and demanded the elimination of UN sanctions, all for the benefit of foreign reporters who were present.

    On camera, an Iraqi identified as Ali, described as a former member of Saddam's inner circle living in northern Iraq, related the account of a taxi driver who had explained to him how it worked: "He went to Najaf [a town 100 miles south of Baghdad] a couple of days ago. He brought back two bodies of children for one of the mass funerals." 16

    Ali continued: "The smell was incredibly strong. He didnt know how long they'd been in storage, perhaps six or seven months. The drivers would collect them from the regions. They would be informed of when a mass funeral was arranged so they would be ready. Certainly, they would collect bodies of children who had died months before and been held for the mass processions." 17

    In a separate article, the programs host reported, "A second, Western source went to visit a Baghdad hospital and, when the official Iraqi minder was absent, was taken to the mortuary. There, a doctor showed the source a number of dead babies lying stacked in the mortuary, waiting for the next official procession." 18

    If there has been an upsurge in birth defects and cancers in parts of Iraq, it is most likely to have been caused by the regime's use of chemical weapons from 1983 to 1988, including mustard gas and nerve agents. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in southern and northern Iraq against the Iranians, with whom they were at war from 1980-88, and against the Iraqi Kurds, as in the well-known chemical attacks in the northern town of Halabja. Mustard gas has long been known to cause cancers and is strongly suspected of causing birth defects.

    Iraq claims that 1.7 million children, including 700,000 under the age of five, out of a total national population of 22 million people, have died because of sanctions. According to an Iraqi government website, after the Oil-for-Food Program was instituted the number of children who died before the age of five jumped 50 percent from 1996 to 2001. The facts tell a different story:

    • Under the Oil-for-Food Program, the Iraqi regime exported food to earn hard currency it could use for its own purposes. Infant formula sold to Iraq under the Oil-for-Food Program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, presumably exported by the regime to circumvent the sanctions. 10
    • According to the UN, under the Oil-for-Food Program the daily food ration in Iraq rose from about 1,200 kilocalories per day in 1996 to over 2,200 kilocalories per day in August 2002. 11
    • Iraq therefore implausibly claims that child mortality soared while the average caloric intake for Iraqis increased by 80 percent, and while medical supplies were becoming more plentiful.
    • High-ranking regime loyalists receive the most expensive medical care, including heart bypass surgery and neurosurgery using an ultra-modern, $6 million gamma knife, while basic medicines are in short supply for the Iraqi people. 12
    • Since the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein has spent more than $2 billion building 48 new palaces, some complete with gold-plated faucets and artificial waterfalls on their grounds. 13
    • How much food does $2 billion buy for hungry people? In 2001, the World Food Program spent $1.74 billion to deliver 660,000 metric tons of food to 77 million people worldwide.
  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    UN-Realist knows the answers to your questions. Then again, The antiwar kids will dismiss this as "Propoganda"

  • larc
    larc

    I have a friend who was an Iraqi soldier during the war with Iran. He said that there are places along the border between the two countries that are so poisonous from the chemical warfare that you can not go there. These areas stretch for over a mile in width. He also told me that if you speak out against the government, they not only kill you, but also your entire family and your neighbors on your city block.

  • pettygrudger
    pettygrudger

    Who's supporting the Butcher of Bagdad? I haven't seen anyone here claim he was a "good guy"?

  • dubla
    dubla

    support-

    To argue in favor of

    yeah, i havent seen anyone arguing in favor of hussein either....just some people claiming that hes never done anything irrational, and that hes not a madman (just misunderstood)....and that his actions against his people are no worse than the actions the u.s. has taken against their people.....stuff like that, but no defending or supporting.

    aa

  • Mary
    Mary

    I will assume you're talking about the Iraqi people in general who are supporting this mad man..........they do it because they don't know any better. These people are taught from birth to HATE anyone who's not a Muslim and according to the Koran, the more Jews or Infidels you kill in the name of Allah or Muhammed, is viewed as a wonderful thing. Strap some dynamite to your tummy along with some nails, and go blow yourself up and apparently Allah thinks this is just great.

    These people are living a thousand years behind the times. To say anything negative about the State of Islam is punishable by death. Women are treated worse than dogs and have no rights whatsoever. These people are uneducated and believe whatever their leaders say. It's sort of like the Organization: Do not question us, and do not think for yourselves.

    However, removing Saddam Hussein isn't going to do a whole lot, because they've got a ton more fanatical insane men to take his place.

  • Magog
    Magog

    It is not so much that people defend Iraq, as much as they are critical of American policy, more notably when that policy is coming from a Republican President. Were this Administration still under Democrat Bill Clinton, the media criticism would be almost mute as it was when Mr. Clinton ordered the American military invasion of Kosovo and Serbia or the bombings in Afghanistan and Somalia. No UN sanctions were sought, but instead Nato under American lead, and including German soldiers helped out Mr. Clinton with his military prowess.

    Critics argue that we have no business policing the world, that Iraq is not a proven threat, and that if America goes after Iraq, then why not other bad regimes. Critics have even gotten the demonstrators to chant "No Blood for Oil."

    Iraq is a threat to the entire planet. They not only pay reward money to families of terrorists, but openly advertize this benefit. Iraq not only invaded Kuwait, but had plans to invade Saudi Arabia and other Arab oil states because Mr. Hussein wants to control world oil supply. Given Mr. Hussein's track records of controlling food to his own people, we can only imagine what the world would be like were he to control its oil. Were Mr. Hussein to actually possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and have the ability to deliver them, there is little doubt as to what nations would be on his target list.

    Weapons inspections were tried on Germany after WWI and prior to the rise of Hitler. They do not work. The rest of the world appeased Hitler until it became too obvious that he must be fought and eliminated. The world is repeating history with Iraq because history is not a good teacher. Each generation has to learn its own lessons over and over again and again.

    The world in general claims that by invading Iraq the American and British militaries will be killing innocent people as though these people were targets. Instead they prefer that Iraq be left alone to develop its weapons programs to perfection. Then Iraq will be too powerful to submit to any more weapons inspections. Iraq will then kill our children first before we decide that it becomes too obvious that Mr. Hussein, like Mr. Hitler, must be fought and eliminated.

    The "Peace-Niks" sound so very noble, and love to be critical of America because it is chic to do so, or because they find it necessary to appear to be analytical. They even accuse the rest of being suckers for American government propaganda. Yet, upon close review of their arguments one finds them weak and lacking the critical analysis they want us to believe they have.

    For example, "No Blood for Oil" chant is supposed to grab our emotions in gut-wrenching fashion and make us believe that all this American administration wants is to find an excuse to seize Iraqi oil for corporate greed. Actaully, it is far cheaper and more convenient to simply buy the oil as we have been doing for many decades. The pay-back period to make up for the cost of war will be so long that it does not make sense to invade Iraq for its oil. This kind of logic betrays the anti-American sentiment among those against war with Iraq as little more than lunacy.

    If we listen to the critics, we will let Iraq kill our children first. Maybe then after we carry thousands of coffins through our streets will we find it necessary to take some remedial action and eliminate the threat to our planet. PM Chamberlin of Great Britain had it right all along - Appease, Appease, and Appease some more until the opposition has your face in the dung heap, then maybe they will get the clue that something is wrong with this picture. Maybe it should be the bad guy whose face is rubbed in dung.

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    Some folks just cannot understand that evil does exist. They dont want to believe it, and feel that if we just give this mis guided mad man a chance that all will be well with the world. Little do they know that people like this are eaten for lunch by these evil types.

    Some do not understand that it is a part of human society of change to invade another Nation. You cannot name one Nation on earth that has not been invaded one time or another in History. It is a fact that this sometimes must occur for the greater good.

    Edited by - thichi on 23 January 2003 11:28:32

  • wasasister
    wasasister

    Perry and Yeru:

    I'm really disappointed that neither of you can make a distinction between those who question American foreign policy and those who support Saddam.

    If you continue to paint people with such a broad - and completely unfair - brush, we have nothing to discuss. Is that what you want?

  • Englishman
    Englishman
    You cannot name one Nation on earth that has not been invaded one time or another in History

    Very true. I understand that the only European country that has never been at war with England is Portugal.

    Englishman.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit