[oclug] [OT] "A Fine Job"

[Fred Williams]

On Wed, 2006-23-08 at 15:03 -0400, Brad Barnett wrote:

> 
> Most of the news articles I've seen today, indicate that because Saddam
> used chemical weapons, and because he attacked villages, his actions were
> targeted primarily against civilians.  
> 
	It must also be remembered that at the time the killings were merely
given a footnote on western news services; barely a mention.  The West,
especially Washington, didn't seem to have any interest in vilifying
President Hussein until they wanted to take over his country.  Iraq
continued to be a Most Favoured Nation for trading quite some after the
killings in question and continued to receive trade credits.  The Kurds
that were the victims of all this were pushing for American Oil
companies to get out of Iraq.  Since President Husein was the Darling of
Washington at this time, one has to wonder if the orders for those
killings came from Washington originally.

> None of the two above ideas, nor a handful of witnesses proves that this
> is indeed the case.  By that reasoning, all of the attacks that the
> Israeli army recently was forced to take, to defend itself, are also
> ethnic cleansing?  
> 
	Israel has been caught "targeting civilians."  Whether it's "ethnic
cleansing" may be debatable.

> Let's be perfectly frank here.  The use of chemical weapons does not make
> one a criminal, otherwise the US would be one of the largest on the
> planet.

	Well, it is, even without the "chemical weapons" moniker.  The whole
war in Iraq is an international crime.  It's naked aggression against a
sovereign state.  Then add to that the use of Depleted Uranium, a string
of torture camps around the world, germ warfare against Cuba, training
death squads for Southeast Asia and Latin America.  The list goes on and
on.

>   Attacking villages does not, otherwise many nations would be..
> including Israel... after all, with Hezbollah so entrenched, what choice
> did Israel have?

	They could have left them alone.  They weren't bothering anybody.

> Do you believe them to be entirely impartial?  Do you believe the US to be
> entirely impartial, when parties are even now starting a bandwagon to
> seek re-election?
> 
	President Hussein will certainly never get a fair trial in a U.S.
controlled Iraq, or possibly anywhere now, whether he's guilty or not.

> Naturally, I do not know with a certainty which is correct, but the
> one-world view which is constantly spouted by the US led media is
> certainly not the only part of the story.  The US currently needs cause
> for entering Iraq, as every reason that claimed for entering Iraq,
> has been proven to be wrong or a lie.  Political justification is
> required, and showing Saddam in the worst possible light helps to justify
> their war.
> 
	Yes.  That's true.

> Saddam is not all guilty, and everyone else is not all innocent.
> 
	Yes indeed.


> So, because Israel attacked one religious group in Lebanon, that was an
> attempt at genocide?  It was not, for that was not the intent.
> 
	It still could be.  Maybe they didn't have enough ammo to do it all at
once.  There was a note in the news this morning that Israel is warning
that Southern Lebanon is a tinderbox waiting to explode.  That could be
the case, but the danger of war breaking out again is mostly due to the
fact that Israel invaded that tinderbox.  The other interpretation is
that Israel is preparing to blame the next outbreak on Hessbolah, (or
however you spell it), before Israel attacks again.

> Do you know what was in the heart of Saddam?  What his intent was?  No,
> you do not.  You do know, however, know what his prosecutors and enemies
> state about him.  He sure as hell isn't an angel, but I do not believe
> everything stated about him.
> 
	Right on!

> > 
> > I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion; your response makes
> > me too angry to continue.
> > 
> 
> You should not let yourself get angry.  Political discussions are best in
> a cold environment...
> 
	If only that were possible: We might have fewer wars.  Yet the crimes
that have been committed are against real people and the suffering is
greater than any of us can imagine.  If we cannot feel sorrow and anger
over that, then what use is a heart?


-- 
Regards,
Fred Williams
unclefred at fredwilliams.ca