Investigators exhume Saddam's killing fields

[Guest Nanks]

Credit: The Age/Reuters

 

Investigators have conducted their first scientific exhumation of Iraq's "killing fields", discovering hundreds of bodies which they hope will help convict Saddam Hussein of crimes against humanity.

 

They say nine trenches in a dry, dusty riverbed at the Hatra site in northern Iraq contain at least 300 bodies, and possibly thousands, including unborn babies and toddlers still clutching toys.

 

"It is my personal opinion that this is a killing field," said Greg Kehoe, a US lawyer appointed by the White House to work with the Iraqi Special Tribunal. "Someone used this field on significant occasions over time to take bodies up there, and to take people up there and execute them.

 

"I've been doing grave sites for a long time, but I've never seen anything like this, women and children executed for no apparent reason," added Kehoe, who spent five years in the Balkans. "It's a perfect place for execution."

 

The victims are believed to be minority Kurds killed during 1987-88. One trench contains only women and children, apparently killed by small arms. Another contains only men, apparently killed by automatic gunfire.

Advertisement Advertisement

 

Kehoe said the women and children had been taken from their villages with their belongings, including pots and pans, shot - often in the back of the head - then bulldozed into the trench.

 

Some of the mothers died still holding their children. One young boy still held a ball in his tiny arms. A thick stench hangs over the site, as well as at a makeshift morgue nearby.

 

"The youngest foetus we have was 18 to 20 foetal weeks. Tiny bones, femurs, thighbones the size of a matchstick," says investigating anthropologist P Willey, of California.

 

International organisations estimate more than 300,000 people died under Saddam's 24-year rule and Iraq's Human Rights ministry has identified 40 possible mass graves countrywide.

 

During his reign, Saddam pushed hundreds of thousands of Arabs into Kurdish areas to force the locals out. He is accused of widespread abuses against the Kurds, including the "Anfal" (The Spoils) campaign in 1988, during which thousands died in a mustard gas attack. Human Rights Watch estimates that more than 50,000 Kurds were killed during the campaign.

 

"Everybody said 'never again' after the Holocaust. The world wasn't listening. That's how it happened again and again and again."

 

 

But there's no WMDs, guess we better let this great guy go and get back to his important business of eradicating all the people who don't support him. He's got a real backlog to take care of now.

[2GOLD 0]

No WMD means he was no threat to America meaning we don't care.

That about sums it up.

[snuffbox 0]

I think we've established the lack of WMDs...did we need another new thread?

[Guest Nanks]

I feel my sarcasm may have been lost on you.

[Guest Cerebus]

Nice title.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

But there's no WMDs, guess we better let this great guy go and get back to his important business of eradicating all the people who don't support him. He's got a real backlog to take care of now.

 

I haven't seen anyone saying let SAddam go. Not one person. I haven't seen anyone say SAddam was a good guy. All that has been said is that Bush was dishonest in his reasoning for going to war, and uncertainty over what the conclusion will be.

 

No one likes Saddam.

[Guest INXS]

Perhaps it might have been an idea to do something about Saddam 15+ years ago when he was ethnically cleansing Iraq.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

But then mean old Bush I would have had to "go it alone" and we know we can't have that...

[2GOLD 0]

If Bush had said, "I want to get rid of Saddam cause he is killing his own people and they deserve freedom", that we would have LAUGHED in his face. Hell, we had him back in Storm but the American people were all, "NO! WE ARE DONE! WE GOT OUR OIL PRICES DOWN! LEAVE!"

 

Americans do NOT want to do the right thing unless we get something out of it. It's slowly becoming the obvious reality. If most Americans had their way, we would have let the world been flushed down the toilet years ago.

[Guest SP-1]

If Bush had said, "I want to get rid of Saddam cause he is killing his own people and they deserve freedom", that we would have LAUGHED in his face. Hell, we had him back in Storm but the American people were all, "NO! WE ARE DONE! WE GOT OUR OIL PRICES DOWN! LEAVE!"

 

Americans do NOT want to do the right thing unless we get something out of it. It's slowly becoming the obvious reality. If most Americans had their way, we would have let the world been flushed down the toilet years ago.

Bingo.

[Guest MikeSC]

If Bush had said, "I want to get rid of Saddam cause he is killing his own people and they deserve freedom", that we would have LAUGHED in his face. Hell, we had him back in Storm but the American people were all, "NO! WE ARE DONE! WE GOT OUR OIL PRICES DOWN! LEAVE!"

 

Americans do NOT want to do the right thing unless we get something out of it. It's slowly becoming the obvious reality. If most Americans had their way, we would have let the world been flushed down the toilet years ago.

Bingo.

Actually, I do think there is a considerable audience in America who'd want to do the right thing.

 

I know if Bush ONLY said "Saddam is evil", I'd have few problems.

-=Mike

[Skywarp! 0]

Because at first it wasn't about "doing the right thing". The reasoning for this war is that WE were at risk from weapons he might have.

 

The humanitarian issue was the fallback excuse when it was discovered there were no WMDs, popular with those who were going to defend this war despite everything.

 

There are so many humanitarian wars we could have waged if this President was really concerned with this. It's almost transparent.

[Justice 0]

Because at first it wasn't about "doing the right thing". The reasoning for this war is that WE were at risk from weapons he might have.

 

The humanitarian issue was the fallback excuse when it was discovered there were no WMDs, popular with those who were going to defend this war despite everything.

 

There are so many humanitarian wars we could have waged if this President was really concerned with this. It's almost transparent.

Must there always be one singular reason behind everything we do?

 

Iraq was a very complex situation. To ignore that is lunacy. To expect one reason to cover everything that we went in Iraq to do is moronic.

 

Okay, question to all those who thought it was only for the WMDs: If it were only for the WMDs, why aren' t we out yet? Seriously, if we didn't have plans on staying a while and fixing everything up, why would we do it in the first place.

 

Indeed, there are many humanitarian wars that could be waged.

 

BUT.

 

There are places that are easier to wage them in and there are places where it's more important to wage them in. Iraq was the right place, the right time, and the right government. They were the ideal one to start with. If you can name a better war to wage in today's world, go for it.

[Guest SP-1]

The thing that seems to be easily forgotten is also that faulty intelligence = an action with honest intentions. Just faulty intelligence. It does NOT = dishonest president.

Edited October 13, 2004 by SP-1

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Oh, I didn't realize this is a humanitarian war. Killing people is quite humanitarian. Jesus, some people will buy into any propoganda they see. Face it folks, ugly as it may seem, there was an agenda for this war other than freeing the minority of people in Iraq who supposedly wanted our help. Not to mention the state of chaos those people are going to be in for the next decade because of our humanitarian effort. The best interest of Iraqi citizens was not on the forefront of our mind when we waged this war. Please, do not be that naive. If it was, we probably wouldn't have dropped bombs on their freaking heads.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

It does NOT = dishonest president.

 

Perhaps, but it does equal a president with an itchy trigger finger.

[Justice 0]

It does NOT = dishonest president.

 

Perhaps, but it does equal a president with an itchy trigger finger.

No... that doesn't add up. He acted on what he thought was good intel and tried to eliminate a potential threat. I don't see how that adds up to "Itchy Trigger Finger".

[Justice 0]

Oh, I didn't realize this is a humanitarian war. Killing people is quite humanitarian.

Oh God, this is Kamui-esque.

 

Welcome to reality: In war, people will die. When a violent dicatorship that had support from a diehard minority, it'll happen. So, lemme guess: If we were to kill people in Sudan, we'd instantly be hypocrits because "Humanitarians" are not allowed to kill, right?

 

Jesus, some people will buy into any propoganda they see.

 

Yeah. I mean, seriously, you'd probably believe the shit C-Bacon is parading around.

 

Face it folks, ugly as it may seem, there was an agenda for this war other than freeing the minority of people in Iraq who supposedly wanted our help.

 

Shiites and the Kurds technically make up a LARGE MAJORITY in Iraq. The Sunnis were the minority.

 

And I never said that there weren't other reasons for going into Iraq. Your mind just fails to comprehend the possibility that there were more than one reason the White House actually had, and that they advertised the WMD because that's the only one they could bring to the UN without being laughed out of the building.

 

Not to mention the state of chaos those people are going to be in for the next decade because of our humanitarian effort.

 

We were the same way after the Revolutionary War because of the massive debts and instability that we had, especially without a big brother nation to help us out. Doesn't anyone remember the Whiskey Rebellion? The fact that we had to write a completely new basis for government in the form of the Constitution?

 

Jesus, like this would be all magically healed in one night. It's never been easy rebuilding a country. It just takes time, patience, and perseverence.

 

The best interest of Iraqi citizens was not on the forefront of our mind when we waged this war.

 

Well, okay...

 

If it was, we probably wouldn't have dropped bombs on their freaking heads.

 

... And there goes the entire credibility of the previous statement. Excellent.

 

Please, do not be that naive.

 

Perhaps you should pratice what you preach.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

So, lemme guess: If we were to kill people in Sudan, we'd instantly be hypocrits because "Humanitarians" are not allowed to kill, right?

 

Not if we said, " Let's go to Sudan and kill those bastards." However if we said, "We're only killing them for their own good." then yes, that would be rediculous.

 

 

that they advertised the WMD because that's the only one they could bring to the UN without being laughed out of the building.

 

So instead of being laughed at before going against the UN, we were dishonest before going against the UN. Much better choice. Got ya.

 

 

We were the same way after the Revolutionary War because of the massive debts and instability that we had, especially without a big brother nation to help us out.

 

HUGE difference between American Revolution and Operation Iraqi freedom. In the Am. Rev. We fought for our independance. In Iraq, we supposedly fought for someone elses independance.

 

 

QUOTE 

If it was, we probably wouldn't have dropped bombs on their freaking heads. 

 

 

 

... And there goes the entire credibility of the previous statement. Excellent.

 

Why? Was I misinformed? Did we not bomb them?

 

QUOTE 

Please, do not be that naive. 

 

 

 

Perhaps you should pratice what you preach.

 

Perhaps you should learn a form of argument from somewhere other than Pee-Wee's playhouse.

[Guest PlatinumBoy]

If Bush had said, "I want to get rid of Saddam cause he is killing his own people and they deserve freedom", that we would have LAUGHED in his face. Hell, we had him back in Storm but the American people were all, "NO! WE ARE DONE! WE GOT OUR OIL PRICES DOWN! LEAVE!"

 

Americans do NOT want to do the right thing unless we get something out of it. It's slowly becoming the obvious reality. If most Americans had their way, we would have let the world been flushed down the toilet years ago.

Bingo.

The problem is--if you believe that America doesn't want to do the right thing--who does? The UN? China? Basically any European or Asian country? I think you could narrow it down to maybe like Tibet and the Vatican.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Not the Vatican.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh, I didn't realize this is a humanitarian war. Killing people is quite humanitarian.

Wow. That is some interesting logic there.

 

Taking it to its extremes, we were no better than Hitler during WW II, because dammit, we killed people there.

Jesus, some people will buy into any propoganda they see. Face it folks, ugly as it may seem, there was an agenda for this war other than freeing the minority of people in Iraq who supposedly wanted our help.

And the agenda is...?

 

Political popularity?

Oil?

A desire for an empire?

 

I'd think of more ass-backwards idiotic theories, but I'm drawing a blank.

Not to mention the state of chaos those people are going to be in for the next decade because of our humanitarian effort.

As opposed to the lovely tyrant who only necessitated MASS GRAVES.

 

Yup, WE are te bad guys.

The best interest of Iraqi citizens was not on the forefront of our mind when we waged this war. Please, do not be that naive. If it was, we probably wouldn't have dropped bombs on their freaking heads.

Well, it probably wasn't on the forefront of YOUR mind. But others have a more altruistic view of the world.

Perhaps, but it does equal a president with an itchy trigger finger.

A president, mind you, who had been criticized for "letting" 9/11 happen.

Not if we said, " Let's go to Sudan and kill those bastards." However if we said, "We're only killing them for their own good." then yes, that would be rediculous.

We'd be killing the people committing genocide to protect those who are not. Using your logic, that'd make us as bad.

So instead of being laughed at before going against the UN, we were dishonest before going against the UN. Much better choice. Got ya.

Using the best intel you have --- and which, mind you, recent events tend to indicate may have well been correct --- is hardly being dishonest.

 

But, in your world, Bush is supposed to know what the CIA doesn't.

Nor MI-6.

Nor any other country's' intel service.

HUGE difference between American Revolution and Operation Iraqi freedom. In the Am. Rev. We fought for our independance. In Iraq, we supposedly fought for someone elses independance.

Hmm, the American Revolution was not even CLOSE to being unanimously supported (loyalists were not all that small a minority). And we had foreign interference on our behalf (well, until the war ended --- then that changed).

Why? Was I misinformed? Did we not bomb them?

You just seem a little, I dunno, oblivious to reality.

Perhaps you should learn a form of argument from somewhere other than Pee-Wee's playhouse.

Yup, that's some good irony there.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

If Bush had said, "I want to get rid of Saddam cause he is killing his own people and they deserve freedom", that we would have LAUGHED in his face. Hell, we had him back in Storm but the American people were all, "NO! WE ARE DONE! WE GOT OUR OIL PRICES DOWN! LEAVE!"

 

Americans do NOT want to do the right thing unless we get something out of it. It's slowly becoming the obvious reality. If most Americans had their way, we would have let the world been flushed down the toilet years ago.

Bingo.

The problem is--if you believe that America doesn't want to do the right thing--who does? The UN? China? Basically any European or Asian country? I think you could narrow it down to maybe like Tibet and the Vatican.

 

Not America, the people of America. Most could care less about other countries. Luckily, in most cases our government realizes sometimes we do have to do things where we have nothing to gain from doing it but a possible ally in the distant future.

[Guest MikeSC]

BTW, if you still hold onto this insane belief that we were in the wrong, here's a snippet from the article.

 

Mr Kehoe said that work to uncover graves around Iraq, where about 300,000 people are thought to have been killed during Saddam Hussein's regime, was slow as experienced European investigators were not taking part.

 

The Europeans, he said, were staying away as the evidence might be used eventually to put Saddam Hussein to death.

Yup, those are allies I want.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Taking it to its extremes, we were no better than Hitler during WW II, because dammit, we killed people there.

 

I don't see where I used that logic at all. I don't have a problem with the killing. I'm just telling you sheep not to believe that we are doing for the good of those who we are bombing.

 

 

And the agenda is...?

 

To be honest, I don't know. That is part of the problem. In WWII the agenda was clear, same for the American Revolution, but there seems to be a horde of possibilities for what we are doing in Iraq.

 

 

As opposed to the lovely tyrant who only necessitated MASS GRAVES.

 

Yup, WE are te bad guys.

 

I didn't say that. Only dispelling the nyth that killing is somehow humanitarian.

 

Well, it probably wasn't on the forefront of YOUR mind. But others have a more altruistic view of the world.

 

Bull. The Iraqi citizens shouldn't have been our top concern going into war with them. That is why I find this "humatarian effort" so laughable.

 

 

A president, mind you, who had been criticized for "letting" 9/11 happen.

 

I didn't criticize him for that, nor would I.

 

QUOTE 

So instead of being laughed at before going against the UN, we were dishonest before going against the UN. Much better choice. Got ya.

 

 

Using the best intel you have --- and which, mind you, recent events tend to indicate may have well been correct --- is hardly being dishonest.

 

But, in your world, Bush is supposed to know what the CIA doesn't.

Nor MI-6.

Nor any other country's' intel service.

 

Reread Powerplay's post that my quote was in response to. I wasn't saying Bush was being dishonest about the WMD's, and I've never said that. Powerplay said they were only using the WMD's because it is the only argument the UN would buy into.

 

Hmm, the American Revolution was not even CLOSE to being unanimously supported (loyalists were not all that small a minority). And we had foreign interference on our behalf (well, until the war ended --- then that changed).

 

If you don't recognize the difference between the two conflicts mentioned,(you do)

 

Then you are either:

 

A) Stupid (you're not)

B) Just being argumentative. (Hmmm)

 

 

QUOTE 

Perhaps you should learn a form of argument from somewhere other than Pee-Wee's playhouse.

 

 

Yup, that's some good irony there.

-=Mike

 

Sorry, I just didn't get the sophistication in his "I know you are but what am I?" defense.

[Guest MikeSC]

Taking it to its extremes, we were no better than Hitler during WW II, because dammit, we killed people there.

I don't see where I used that logic at all. I don't have a problem with the killing. I'm just telling you sheep not to believe that we are doing for the good of those who we are bombing.

Ah, so the unmitigated fucktard who'll believe any insanely bullshit conspiracy theory is the bright one, while the rest of us with a semblance of a capacity for rational thought are sheep?

And the agenda is...?

To be honest, I don't know.

Well, thank God THAT list isn't short.

That is part of the problem. In WWII the agenda was clear, same for the American Revolution, but there seems to be a horde of possibilities for what we are doing in Iraq.

Or you have your head so firmly implanted in your ass that you can't see it.

As opposed to the lovely tyrant who only necessitated MASS GRAVES.

 

Yup, WE are te bad guys.

I didn't say that. Only dispelling the nyth that killing is somehow humanitarian

But you "have no problem with the killing". Your own words.

 

Pick a position and try and stick with it for more than two sentences.

Well, it probably wasn't on the forefront of YOUR mind. But others have a more altruistic view of the world.

Bull. The Iraqi citizens shouldn't have been our top concern going into war with them. That is why I find this "humatarian effort" so laughable.

Why shouldn't they have been a top concern?

 

Them dark-skinned folks aren't worthy of such concern?

So instead of being laughed at before going against the UN, we were dishonest before going against the UN.. Much better choice. Got ya.

Using the best intel you have --- and which, mind you, recent events tend to indicate may have well been correct --- is hardly being dishonest.

 

But, in your world, Bush is supposed to know what the CIA doesn't.

Nor MI-6.

Nor any other country's' intel service.

Reread Powerplay's post that my quote was in response to. I wasn't saying Bush was being dishonest about the WMD's, and I've never said that.

I bolded the relevant part, since you CLEARLY have no clue what you're talking about.

Powerplay said they were only using the WMD's because it is the only argument the UN would buy into.

Which is true. And you said the WMD claim was, and this is a DIRECT quote from you skippy, "dishonest".

Hmm, the American Revolution was not even CLOSE to being unanimously supported (loyalists were not all that small a minority). And we had foreign interference on our behalf (well, until the war ended --- then that changed).

If you don't recognize the difference between the two conflicts mentioned,(you do)

 

Then you are either:

 

A) Stupid (you're not)

B) Just being argumentative. (Hmmm)

Just pointing out the sheer idiocy of your argument.

 

Though, in hindsight, I could just sit back while you contradict yourself a little more and do the work for me.

Perhaps you should learn a form of argument from somewhere other than Pee-Wee's playhouse.

Yup, that's some good irony there.

-=Mike

Sorry, I just didn't get the sophistication in his "I know you are but what am I?" defense.

There's a lot of things you don't get. Don't just stop with sophistication of an argument.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Great insults there Mike. Unfortunately, other than calling me names, you added NO points, so there is nothing for me to rebut.

Care to try again? And this time, don't let your feeling threatened by a differring opinion affect your ability to make a point.

 

I will answer the WMD's thing:

 

Powerplay said that we misrepresented our position to the UN. That is the dishonety I was talking about. Read what I have said elsewhere. I think Bush himself made an honest mistake.

[Guest MikeSC]

Great insults there Mike. Unfortunately, other than calling me names, you added NO points, so there is nothing for me to rebut.

There is nothing for you to rebut because you have no case to stand on.

Care to try again? And this time, don't let your feeling threatened by a differring opinion affect your ability to make a point.

I'm as threatened by you as I am by C-Bacon. The only fear I have is a pulled muscle in my side from laughing at your attempts at logic.

 

Go back and try and re-read your post. As lacking in logic as C-Bacon's asinine "give the world a vote in the US election" thread.

I will answer the WMD's thing:

 

Powerplay said that we misrepresented our position to the UN. That is the dishonety I was talking about. Read what I have said elsewhere. I think Bush himself made an honest mistake.

No, Powerplay said we went with the one case the UN would give two shits about. As we saw with Rwanda, suffering is hardly anything that moves the UN. So, we went with WMD and rampant violations of resolutions.

 

But, I know, that's a little too deep for you to follow.

-=Mike

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

First, if you'd drop the insults conversation would be a little easier to follow.

 

No, Powerplay said we went with the one case the UN would give two shits about. As we saw with Rwanda, suffering is hardly anything that moves the UN. So, we went with WMD and rampant violations of resolutions.

 

Powerplay said we put great significance on the WMD's, only because the UN wouldn't accept our position otherwise. In other words, we weren't quite honest with the UN. We gave them a reason for war we thought they would accept instead of a real reason.

 

Once again, that is the only point you brought, the rest was just cool disses.

[Guest MikeSC]

First, if you'd drop the insults conversation would be a little easier to follow.

You're the one who decided to start with the "you're all lemmings" bullshit, so no, you will not be treated cordially, skippy.

No, Powerplay said we went with the one case the UN would give two shits about. As we saw with Rwanda, suffering is hardly anything that moves the UN. So, we went with WMD and rampant violations of resolutions.

 

Powerplay said we put great significance on the WMD's, only because the UN wouldn't accept our position otherwise. In other words, we weren't quite honest with the UN.

Jesus Christ, did your mom drink a lot while pregnant with you?

 

What part of "We gave them the only reason they MIGHT give a shit about" is so lost? Do you need a map drawn to clarify?

 

We had NUMEROUS reasons. We...focused...on...WMD...because...it....was...the...only...one...the...UN...mi

ght... give...a...shit...about.

 

Is it REALLY that hard to follow?

 

There was no lying or dishonesty. It was making the only case they might listen to.

 

That the humanitarian part wouldn't move them is a condemnation of the UN.

We gave them a reason for war we thought they would accept instead of a real reason.

 

Once again, that is the only point you brought, the rest was just cool disses.

Nobody can POSSIBLY be this dense.

-=Mike

...However, I suspect you'll disprove that theory...