Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Censorship

Journal bmetzler's Journal: Saddam's Mass Graves - A Photographic Journal 31

Journal by bmetzler

President Bush and his team did a wonderful job when they stood up to France and Russia and liberated the Iraqi people, while at the same time proactively defending the United States.

I know there are people who still don't believe the atrocities that Saddam committed while in power. For those who need to see to believe, there is a site with photos of the mass graves and those affected by it.

View them and weep. Human rights still do matter. Because we have a President that has the guts to do what needs to be done, even when most of the world seems to be against him, we have a world that is a better place.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Saddam's Mass Graves - A Photographic Journal More

Saddam's Mass Graves - A Photographic Journal

Comments Filter:

  • Amen (Score:2)

    by neocon ( 580579 )

    And that's really the point. For all the whining about supposed diplomatic niceties, and all the claims that ``it's really more complicated'' than whether people are being fed into industrial plastic shredders or woken up in the middle of the night to be hauled off and never seen again, the one question the anti-war camp is never really able to answer is this:

    For all the rationales and sophistry, your position actually boils down to claiming that Saddam should not have been deposed, and thus, by ext

  • I know there are people who still don't believe the atrocities that Saddam committed while in power.

    Are there really? Even the hardest of hardcore anti-war folks I know freely acknowledge that Saddam was a horrible, brutal man.
    • Even the hardest of hardcore anti-war folks I know freely acknowledge that Saddam was a horrible, brutal man.

      And that we did the right thing by removing Saddam from power?

      There are 2 responses I get from the left. One is that Saddam really wasn't evil and we should have left him alone. The other is that Saddam *might* have been evil but it should be the victims of these mass murders responsibility to defend themselves. We should naturally also wait to defend ourselves until more atrocities are commit

      • Can't speak for 100% of the political spectrum, but the vast majority even of us liberals agree that taking Hussein out is the "right" thing to do.

        What we disagree on is whether the way we went about removing him from power was done the "right" way. We dislike the way the war was sold to the American public - misleading statements, etc. We think more of an effort should have been made to get key American allies on our side, like we did with the first Gulf War.

        At least during the DFL debate last night t

    • I know there are people who still don't believe the atrocities that Saddam committed while in power.

      Are there really? Even the hardest of hardcore anti-war folks I know freely acknowledge that Saddam was a horrible, brutal man.

      Given the above, then, and given the connections [newsmax.com] between the Baathists and al-Qaeda, and given that the linguine-spined weasels in the UN weren't about to hold Saddam accountable for his crimes against humanity...what, exactly, would you have done about him? Is it not better

      • Given the above, then, and given the connections between the Baathists and al-Qaeda

        Which are in serious dispute, considering that even Bush admits there's no good evidence of them.

        given that the linguine-spined weasels in the UN weren't about to hold Saddam accountable for his crimes against humanity

        Heh. You likely hold about the same opinion of the UN that I do. NATO probably would have been a better bet, though. We shut out Turkey when they probably could have been bartered down and given us a ve
  • Here's a few [thememoryhole.org] of what it cost us. Here [shianews.com] is what we have caused. Here [web-light.nl] is what has yet to come, but will, because of our bombs. Because we use Depleted Uranium.

    Was it worth doing right then, did it have to be done right then? That(all of that) is on your head, because now we will never know if there was a peaceful way to accomplish the same objective, and now we're stuck. The price that will be paid in human life, human misery and human dignity has yet to be paid in full. May it be less than I suspect.
    • The same kind of images could be shown of civilians killed during WWII as well. That doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

      The damage done shown in your link [shianews.com] lasted for a few weeks in an effort of liberation. You must gauge things within context. Here is the damage we STOPPED [shianews.com] - atrocity that lasted for not weeks, not months, but DECADES. From Shia News:

      Official Iraqi documents recovered after the fall of Saddam's regime suggest a staggering

      5 million executions were made during Ba'ath era alone.

      • Corrected Link: Here is the damage we STOPPED [shianews.com]
      • The problem is that you assume that your version of "freedom" is best for everyone else. This is a very ingorant attitude that has created a lot of bloodshed. The US did very little about Saddam despite knowing exactly what he was up to years ago [progressive.org]. Trying to sell this war as a "liberation effort" smells really really bad.

        Freedom's price is paid in blood. It always has been, whether on the Cross or on the battlefield.

        Exactly. The problem is when you try to enforce your version of freedom and/or religion o
        • VERSION of freedom? There is no such thing as a version of freedom.

          You can partially restrict freedom, but that doesn't make it a completely different kind of freedom.

          I'm not sure at all where the hell you're coming from--unless you're making some kinda facetious arguement for Saddam's freedom to run a brutal dictatorship.

          As for the lag, yes, countries make mistakes same as individuals. Saying "you could have stopped this ten years ago" doesn't make it wrong for us to stop it now.

          Oh, and as for religi
          • There is no such thing as a version of freedom.

            The US thought differently when they replaced the democratically elected Salvador Allende with the brutal dictator Augusto Pinochet in Chile under the name of "Freedom for Chile".

            I have no problem with Saddam being removed.

            What bothers me is that as of lately the US decides to invade countries at will under the veil of "liberation for the people".

            As for the lag, yes, countries make mistakes same as individuals. Saying "you could have stopped this ten year
            • 1st Point: I condemn idiocity by my own country very readily, and Pinochet was an idiocity. Also not relevant to the current administration.

              2nd Point: So far, we've invaded two countries--one the verifiable home of terrorists who'd just killed ~3000 people, and one that we were still technically in a state of conflict with. (International opinion aside, by the terms of the cease-fire, Saddam has been in violation since 1992ish. That we ignored it until now doesn't change the fact that shots have been f
              • 2nd Point: A lot of people think differently. [deoxy.org]

                3rd point: How can you say that "Iraq is better off than it was"?

                The 1991 U.S. assault left Iraq in a near apocalyptic condition as reported by the first United Nations observers after the war. As a direct, intentional and foreseeable result of this destruction, tens of thousands of people have died from dehydration, dysentery and diseases caused by impure water and inability to obtain effective medical assistance.

                And then we strike them again. Up until now,
                • LIFO

                  There was a list of banned countries--I believe it was only France, Russia, and Germany--in other words, people actively selling weapons to Saddam.

                  8,000 civilians is a disputed figure, but I have no documentation so I'll not even discuss it--however, how about the ~5,000,000 civilians killed by Saddam over the past 20 years? Which is better?
                  How about the palaces Saddam continued to build while his people were starving under the sanctions? Iraq had more than enough cash and goods to buy food from cou
    • Here is what has yet to come, but will, because of our bombs. Because we use Depleted Uranium.

      So far, there's about as much evidence of Elvis walking on the moon as there is of that naturally-occurring mineral causing deformities. (Even the British army personnel accidentally bathed in a cloud of DU dust - a far, far greater exposure than any Iraqi civilian could face, short of trying to eat a tank shell - suffered no adverse effects.)

      Was it worth doing right then, did it have to be done right then? Tha

      • You just have to go and use logic w/o the vitriol, don't you? I knew there was a reason I friended you. :-) I was using those pictures as a counter balance to Brent's pictures. Show the whole picture. Now, to reply to your points.

        Saddam must've gotten up awfully early in the morning. But seriously, I'm not arguing that he wasn't a maniac, there just happen to be a lot of maniacs in the world. Some of those maniacs don't even succeed in providing anywhere near the standard of living Saddam did(well pro
        • But seriously, I'm not arguing that he wasn't a maniac, there just happen to be a lot of maniacs in the world.

          How many have achieved 7-figure death tolls, invaded their neighbours twice and repeatedly attempted to procure long-range missiles and WMDs? (I think by now even Bumbling Blocks has to admit those attempts were made; despite his best efforts, even he managed to find a couple of the smaller missiles!)

          Some of those maniacs don't even succeed in providing anywhere near the standard of living Sadda

    • That(all of that) is on your head, because now we will never know if there was a peaceful way to accomplish the same objective, and now we're stuck.

      I presume that Clinton sympathized with your views. The peace-loving left had 8 years to stop Saddam. They accomplished nothing. How many years did you think we needed to let people continue to be raped, tortured, and murdered before deciding that there was no "peaceful" way to accomplish *your* objective? It's not like Saddam turned up recently.

      Bush sa

      • Ahh, but force only works so long as you're the biggest and can defeat everyone else.

        We can now, how about in 10 years? 20 years? How about now that Bonehead withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic missile treaty and now other countries(namely Russia) are developing nukes we have no defense against(oh and our missile defense system SUCKS, it works 30% of the time against incomings with GPS installed on them).

        And, actually, Clinton wanted to go after Iraq. The so-called paragons of liberty, the RNC, accused him
  • How old are those graves? How long does it take for a skeleton to become totally denuded? How long for the hair to fall away? I know that in a sealed crypt, it takes a helluva long time, but no idea what it takes in this sort of situation. IOW, are those recent burials, or 30 years old?

  • Saddam was a nasty man, therefore fighting him was the priority in dealing with world terrorism, QED. Well I'm convinced!

    • Lemme change four words and delete one of your theory.

      Saddam was an evil man, therefore fighting him was the priority in helping oppressed peoples.

      Regardless of the stated reasons for the war, and regardless of the supposed American imperialism, the undeniable fact is that there will be no more mass murders of dissenters or minority populations as long as American troops are in Iraq--and if we do it right, for many years after that.

      And THAT, my friend, is a thing worth fighting for. I don't defend the s

      • And any other countries on the "evil dictator" list...I'd be looking over my shoulder if I were you. Bush might just decide that he can't afford to have the world thinking he invaded Iraq for oil, and thus he might just come after you next.

        Right, so Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe should be worried about American intervention, for example? Massive humans rights abuses, policies that have brought the entire population to the brink of starvation, an international intervention is imminent? Somehow I don't think

        • Bush might just decide that he can't afford to have the world thinking he invaded Iraq for oil, and thus he might just come after you next.

          I don't think so, because there is no political motivation to save these particular people.

          My point, of course, was that the need to camoflauge the administration's "real" intent in Iraq might just provide enough political motivation for us to attack another two-bit dictatorship with some level or real or percieved ties to terrorism. Especially now that we have Sad

Slashdot Top Deals

Too much of everything is just enough. -- Bob Wier

Close