[oclug] "A Fine Job"

[Brad Barnett]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:20:40 -0700
Ross Jordan <rjordan at numb.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:03:23PM -0400, Brad Barnett wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:03:26 -0400
> > "David F. Skoll" <dfs at roaringpenguin.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Brad Barnett wrote:
> > > 
> > > [A bunch of apologies for Saddam Hussein]
> > > 
> > > Brad,
> > > 
> > > I didn't realize you were so completely blinkered by ideology.
> > > Why don't you open a newspaper and read some of the testimony
> > > being given *right now* by victims of Saddam Hussein's attempted
> > > genocide?
> > > 
> > > If you're too lazy to look up some references, here
> > > are a few (found in 2 minutes on Google...)
> > > 
> > > http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060823-031530-6399r
> > > http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/Saddam_accused_of_poison_gas_attacks.html?siteSect=143&sid=6989780&cKey=1156268302000
> > > http://www.currentargus.com/ci_4221049
> > > http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/world/15337826.htm
> > > 
> > > Also, search for "Halabja".
> > 
> > 
> > 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.  
> > 
> > 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?  
> > 
> > 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.  Attacking villages does not, otherwise many nations would
> > be.. including Israel... 
> <snip>
> 
> I debated even responding to your post because I think your position is
> so far from my own (and quite luny) that this might be futile. That
> said:
> 
> 1. Use of chemical weapons is generally wrong and illegal, under the
> chemical weapons convention and laws of many nations:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention
> 
> 2. Just because the law is not applied equally to all countries does not
> justify, mitigate or excuse the actions of those who violate the
> convention.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Of course the US is not entirely impartial. It really has little to do
> with the situation.

It has everything to do with the situation.  Almost everything we hear
about Saddam, Iraq, the reasons for invasion, the crimes he supposedly
committed, are from US or US allies.  Every newspaper you read, every
magazine, virtually every television show you.. or at least the majority
of people see, are from US media sourts.

The "opinions" on whether or not Saddam is a criminal, are largely formed
from media, not reality.  Media is, after all, not reality.  You, I or
anyone else on this mailing list would not, for example, be allowed to act
as a juror in any reasonable court against him.

> 
> > Saddam may indeed have been acting to "defend the realm".  He may have
> > had to attack those villages, because they were literally all
> > occupied, or mostly occupied by insurgents.  This was indeed his
> > claim, and I do not see anything refuting it.
> 
> Genocide, ethnic cleansing is not an acceptable response.

So, in my paragraph above.. when in context effectively is
summarized as:

"Saddam likely did attempt ethnic cleansing, but was likely squashing
an insurgent action"

you respond with:

"Genocide, ethnic cleansing is not an acceptable response."

In other words, your response is "the proof is the proof is the proof.."? 
You attempt to prove that Saddam was committing genocide, but stating
genocide is wrong?

Erm?

> 
> > 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.
> 
> The US may not be justified in entering Iraq. That is certainly
> debatable. However, it is really irrelevant when discussing whether
> Saddam was a bad guy.
> 

It is entirely relevant.  The US initially entire Iraq for entirely
different reasons than they now accuse Saddam of.  Prior to the invasion,
the US did not make any overt claims to Saddam's actions.  The entire
reason for invasion was that he was stockpiling weaponry and the like

When the entire current political leadership of the US was shown to be
full of utter and complete crap, they then instantly zeroed in on how
"evil" Hussein was.  Mysteriously, he was not evil enough to invade Iraq
over, until after it was discovered that the invasion was for incorrect
reasons.

My contention is that much of what Saddam is accused of, is on the table
merely because of electoral reasons.  

> > Saddam is not all guilty, and everyone else is not all innocent.
> 
> You're either pregnant or you're not.

I don't believe we're dealing with pregnancy here.

We're dealing with the real world.

Saddam has been accused of many things.  He is not guilty of all those
things, and those accusing him are not innocent of all blame and cause. 
Further, those that were "attacked" by him, are not entirely innocent
either.

> 
> > > > Saddam is not innocent, but as I stated above, "considering the
> > > > religious and political infighting", Saddam did indeed run that
> > > > country well.
> 
> I think you have a very warped view of reality if you think ethnic
> genocide, torture, rape rooms etc. is an example of a country that is
> "run well". 

Uh.

The US has been engaging in torture for the last 4-5 years, as a result of
this action.  Its soldiers have been raping people left, right an centre. 
Does that mean GWB should sit in jail?!  He is, after all, commander in
chief.

Every country in the world engages in torture, rape and so on during war. 
Canada does.  The US does.  Every country, every where does.

My comments specifically, however, discussed whether or not Saddam was
guilty of all of the things he had been accused of.  As well, it discussed
whether or not Saddam was a better leader for current day Iraq, than a
Democratic government.

Before you go much further, you need to get this through your head.  IRAQ
WILL NOT BECOME A DEMOCRATIC NATION THIS WAY.  EVER.  Democracy must come
from WITHIN.  It can not be fostered on a culture that is not ready to
accept it.  In that context, in the context of "Iraq needs a
dictatorship/king/totalitarian rule to be stable", Saddam is indeed a good
leader.  In terms of dictators, I suggest that many of the charges against
him are erroneous, that some of them are legitimate, and that he is  


> Come on. You're argument seems to be: Other countries are
> doing the same thing, and since they have not been found guilty, I don't
> think we should consider Saddam/Iraq guilty. You might have a point that
> the law is not applied equally, but I think you should rethink your
> position.
> 

I am a realist.  I see that Iraq needs a strong hand to remain stable.  I
see that Iraq will probably not achieve a democratic state for a least
another generation or two.  I see that dictators enact justice without a
court... but that a Governer of Texas is clean and rosy because a jury did
his dirty work for him.

How many of the people that Saddam had killed, were killed because they
actually deserved it.  How many were killed, because they were murderers? 
Insurgents?  Terrorists?

Again, Saddam is not entirely innocent.  However, according to the numbers
of people he supposedly killed, SOME of the MUST be guilty of something! 
However, apparently every single one of them was innocent.

On that premise alone, we are being fed a lie.