Are the American People Insane?

Remove all ads!

I wonder, are they passing out petitions with this type of information as well?:

'Ali Hasan al-Majid, Saddam's relative who oversaw the operation, announced in May 1988: "I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? **** them! The international community, and those who listen to them!" from Iraq's Crime of Genocide: The Anfal Campaign against the Kurds
By Human Rights Watch
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1995

__________________________________________________
A Petition
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate

The Venerable Chief and Leader, the Honorable Saddam Hussein (May God Protect Him), President of the Republic and Head of the Honorable Revolutionary Command Council:

Struggling Comrade, I greet you. And I present myself to you as a devoted citizen.

I implore you in the name of Ba'athist Justice to hear my plight, which has deprived me of sleep night and day. For I lost all hope and when I had no one left to turn to except yourselves, I came to you with my problem, which may be of some concern to you.

Sir:

I, the undersigned, Assi Mustafa Ahmad, who returned as a prisoner of war on August 24, 1990, am a reserve soldier born in 1955. I participated in the Glorious Battle of Saddam's Qadissiyat in the Sector of Al-Shoush and was taken prisoner on March 27, 1982. I remained a prisoner until the day that the decision to exchange prisoners of war was issued. Then I returned to the homeland and kissed the soil of the Beloved Motherland and knelt in front of the portrait of our Victorious Leader and President Saddam Hussein. In my heart I felt a tremendous longing to return to my family. They would delight in seeing me, and I would delight in seeing them, and we would all be caught up in an overwhelming joy that could not be described.

However, I found my home completely empty. My wife and my kids were not there. What a catastrophe! What a horror! I was told that the whole family had fallen into the hands of the Anfal forces in the Anfal operation conducted in the Northern Region, under the leadership of Comrade Ali Hassan al-Majid. I know nothing of their fate. They are:

1. Azimah Ali Ahmad, born 1955/ My wife.
2. Jarou Assi Mustafa, born 1979/ My daughter.
3. Faraydoun Assi Mustafa, born 1981/ My son.
4. Rukhoush Assi Mustafa, born 1982/ My son.
I have thus come to you with this petition, hoping that you would take pity on me and inform me of their fate. May God grant you success and protect you. You have my thanks and respect.
[signature]

Former Prisoner of War
Reserve Soldier/Assi Mustafa Ahmad
Without home or shelter in Suleimaniyeh/
Chamchamal/Bekas Quarter/
Haji Ibrahim Mosque October 4, 1990
__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________
The Reply
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate
Republic of Iraq
Bureau of the Presidency
Reference No.: Sh Ayn/B/4/16565

Date: October 29, 1990

Mr. Assi Mustafa Ahmad
Suleimaniyah Governorate
Chamchamal District
Bekas Quarter
Haji Ibrahim Mosque

With regard to your petition dated October 4, 1990. Your wife and children were lost during the Anfal Operations that took place in the Northern Region in 1988.

Yours truly,
[signature]
Saadoun Ilwan Muslih
Chief, Bureau of the Presidency
__________________________________________________

see the Human Right's Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________

"Since 1975, over 4,000 Kurdish villages had been destroyed; by a conservative estimate more than 100,000 rural Kurds had died in Anfal alone; half of Iraq's productive farmland is believed to have been laid waste.

The Kurdish genocide 'fits Hilberg's paradigm to perfection,' which is summarised in the following key concepts: "definition - concentration (or seizure) - annihilation."

see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/Khaledtext.html
__________________________________________________

In July, two men, Zaher al-Zuhairi and Fares Kadhem 'Akla, reportedly had their tongues cut out for slandering the President, by members of Feda'iyye Saddam, a militia created in 1994 by 'Uday Saddam Hussein, the President's eldest son. The amputations took place in a public square in Diwaniya City, south of Baghdad.

In March 'Abd al-Wahad al-Rifa'i, a 58-year-old retired teacher, was executed by hanging after he had been held in prison without charge or trial for more than two years. He was suspected of having links with the opposition through his brother who lived abroad. His family in Baghdad collected his body from the Baghdad Security Headquarters. The body reportedly bore clear marks of torture, with the toenails pulled out and the right eye swollen.In May, two Muslim clerics, 'Abd al-Sattar 'Abd al-Ibrahim al-Musawi and Ahmad al-Hashemi, were executed in Baghdad, reportedly for publicly accusing the government of being behind the murder of Ayatollah Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr in 1999. The two were said to have been arrested at the end of 2000.

In July, two lawyers, Mohammad 'Abd al-Razzaq al-Hadithi and Karim al-Shammari, were reportedly sentenced to death by a special court for alleged anti-government activities. The two were among a group of lawyers interrogated in June about the distribution of leaflets critical of the lack of independence of the judiciary. It was not known whether the sentences were carried out.

In March Hussam Mohammad Jawad, a 67-year-old retired medical doctor, and his brother-in-law Iyyad Shams al-Din, aged 63, were arrested by the authorities, reportedly to put pressure on Su'ad Shams al-Din, a medical doctor and the wife of Hussam Mohammad Jawad, to return to the country. Arrested in June 1999 and tortured, she had subsequently fled abroad. The two men were reportedly released in May.
In August, 22 people were arrested in Ramadi and Kut, allegedly for suspected anti-government activities. At the end of the year their fate and whereabouts remained unknown.

That is from the most recently updated report for JUST 4 MONTHS that I could find.
__________________________________________________
see Amnesty International, http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/iraq!Open

Actually, the debate seems to have shifted now. The earlier debate in other threads seemed to indicate that many (most?) felt Bush was a moron and no action should be taken in Iraq. Now many are saying instead that they feel or are beginning to be persuaded that a regime change is necessary.

Containment not only has a decade of failure under its belt but it certainly doesn't do the people of the region any good.

So, if not containment, what? That to me indicates a forced regime change.

Sprite, and idoru both bring up reasonable objections in my opinion. The argument they present though is not against a forced regime change but unilateral action. (EDIT: idoru posted again while I was typing and the new post seems to differ with the ealier upon a cursory look.)

If we can come to some at least hesitant agreement that a regime change is a good thing though, as we seem to be approaching, then I don't find the fears of Sprite and idoru to be compelling reasons for there not to be unilateral action if necessary.

Here is the scenario I am imagining: The U.S. and U.K. seek U.N. support for a forced regime change in Iraq. Say that support is vetoed (as an aside, Putin and Bush are friends and Russia and the U.S. are becoming closer all the time in ways that aren't broadcast on ABC everyday, this fear of Russia seems preposterous to me.)

Now, after the hypothetical veto what then? There has been no change in Iraq. The same leadership, guilty of genocide which rules with fear and murder would retain its iron grip. What is the morally correct action? To say, "well they vetoed it, so I guess we will have to sit here and twiddle our thumbs until Hussein gasses another 50,000 and try again." Or is the morally correct action to say, "well, looks like we will have to stand on our own."

Amon-Ra spoke to this very well above I think.

Sprite, I've never read any article like you mention. I have no doubt that they exist though. One of the prices to pay for free speech is foolish speech. I know when you say unilateral action against Hussein might lead to was on Amsterdam you are using hyperbole, I'd just feel lax though if I didn't point out that Hussein isn't a guy sitting in his room taking hits from the bong.

That said, I do not believe there will be purely unilateral action. If there is a veto of action though, and everyone else in the world chooses not to sit on their hands once again, the question becomes: if not us, who? If not now, when?

[ October 01, 2002, 04:59: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

I'm more of the mind of getting a sniper (or THE Sniper ) within a 1000 feet of Saddam...and giving him a bad case of lead poisoning!

 

The US (as Bush has indicated) very much wants the UN to take care of this matter of disarming a fellow who consistently fires at US and UK troops despite UN regulations and specific agreements not to do so.

But if the UN will not do so (and all it takes is a veto by France, Russia, China, or the UK), then what are we to do?

Should we stand idly by while Hussein grows and assembles biological and nuclear weapons? Should we wait for him to kill thousands of people again? Should we ignore it if he attacks his own people and just wait until he attacks Americans?

[ October 01, 2002, 05:39: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

While of course its not my place to criticise people for having headed "off topic", I would like to point out that the topic was in fact "Are the American people insane?", and not Do you support the Bush administration/The proprosed invasion of Iraq.

On this note I would like to comment that, while insane would be putting things too strongly, I do, on whole, believe the American people to be something of a nuisance. This dislike comes primarily from the blind patriotism for which the Americans are famed, and additionally from their perversion of the English language, mainly through the use of different spellings (grey becomes gray, paid becomes payed, et cetera) as well as seemingly creating new meanings for existing words.

 

Clearly you haven't seen much of America. Pre-9/11 people in mainstream America were ridiculed for being patriotic. They received the same labels from others that many Europeans give us: slow, uneducated, narrow-minded, etc.

Now patriotism is much more en vogue.

And as for the language, you Brits should be thanking us. If it weren't for us, English would be spoken only in the UK, Ireland, South Africa, Hong Kong, India, Australia, Nigeria, and New Zealand. As it is, you really don't have to learn a new language to travel.

You're welcome.

 

Shralp and any other Americans: Pleae note that this newbie does not represent the general opinion in the UK.

[ October 01, 2002, 05:44: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

 

While I apologise to my rather blunt approach in the phrasing of my comments, I still stand by my points on the language, as it does little good the language being expanded further across the world thanks (with thanks to be spoken with a slight air of sarcasm and disgust) to the American people if it is a warped shadow of the language in it's former glory.

 

The reason why so many other countries fail to support America is not because they believe that toppling Saddam is a bad idea. More that the way in which Bush is going about is wrong.
The way Bush was announcing long before the UN disscussions that he would attack with or without the support of the UN created a bit of a warning signal IMHO.
America seems to be almost desperate to destroy Hussain, almost oblivious to the consequences of their actions. The rest of the world is prepared to hold back and think about it for a bit. Actions of this magnitude DO require careful thought.
The fact that America is prepared to rush in and noone else is suggests that they are still bloodthirsty from the WTC disaster. This is not a good thing to be when in tense situations.

The accusation that America is after the oil reserves is proof of how the rest of the world percieves Bush's actions. The fact that he would go against the world on this isse suggests that America could soon become a dictating superpower who simply gets it's own way or else. And this is what people are afriad of.

However on the other side of things it is obvious that due to a direct threat on their country, the American government is being a lot more decisive for a reason. Maybe Bush sees an even greater threat from Saddam.

Of course i am only putting it very simply. But i think that Bush is in the right to attack Saddam. The problem is he can't just storm in when he feels like it. His intentions are good but his means are bad. If he continues to ignore the arguments of other states then America will become a worse threat to world peace than Iraq.

 

Depends on how you define aggression. They have not performed any large scale attacks on other countries. The aforementioned radar base attacks happens when US forces claim that they have sensed that Iraqi radar has locked on to their fighters. So, they take out the Radar that was used to lock on.

I'm not arguing for a US/UK withdrawal of forces. The no flight zones and the intense monitoring is part of WHY Iraq hasn't been aggressive since the Gulf war.

I'm terribly sorry for being unclear. It is considered likely that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. However it is not considered likely that Iraq is currently a nuclear power, or even that they're very close to achieving that.

Biological and chemical weapons are horrible indeed, but they do have some basic limitations compared to nuclear weapons. They can only cover a smaller area, they can not be deployed over a great distance, especially not with Iraq's ancient Scud missile technology. And once they ARE deployed, they're gone. They do not cause radiation like a nuclear bomb, which is capable of effectively destroying large areas of land for the next thousand years or more.

Developing nuclear weapons takes more than 4 years, and requires more than just uranium. First of all it requires competence, you don't just throw in some uranium in a robot and fire it in the general direction of Israel. It is not completely clear whether Iraq alone has enough educated people to develop nuclear weapons or not. They obviously did before, but the country has gone downhill since, to say the least.

And then there's the actual technology required. It was taken by the UN inspectors, and most experts agree that Iraq can not produce this machinery on its own. It will have to be imported. So far no Iraqi attempt to import this equipment has been stopped. Nothing. The case against Iraq is based on evidence that suggests that Saddam Hussein has previously TRIED to get access to such weapons, but apparently with not much success.

What about Tariq Aziz, Saddam's right hand? He's the one who speaks good english, you've probably seen him on the news. What about the generals in his army? What about the various exiled leaders from rebellions?

My point here is that while Saddam himself may have an idea of who he would want, that does not in itself guarantee that it will be so. Saddam Hussein is an extremely totalitarian leader. He's in near complete control of the country. Whenever a leader who pulls that many strings himself disappears, there will be a struggle for power. Saddam is, in a twisted way, very talented at what he does. To take that kind of control and then hold on to it is not an easy task. I personally think it unlikely that his son would possess the same talent, if that's the word for it. Not many people do.

I'll throw one more coin into the fountain: Do you think Saddam Hussein is suicidal? He knows that one small move of aggression on his behalf, and the US will have their excuse to crush him. He knows that with the current situation, the only thing that keeps him alive is just that element of uncertainity: Is he really a threat?

Saddam is not suicidal. Nor is he stupid. He knows very well that Iraq has no way of ever gettign close to beating the US... and he also knows that any form of aggression against Israel or Kuwait would mean a US attack. Saddam is not a suicide bomber, if he has shown one thing, it is that he really values his own life. He has countless bunkers, secret palaces, dopplegangers... he is even rumored to be hypocondric.

It's 7 am, and I believe I'm probably contradicting myself somewhere again, but I hope I'm making at least a bit more sense now. Goodnight.

 

I simply don't understand how anyone, even from America, could look at the recent goings-on and not get the feeling that something's wrong. I really can't put my finger on it, try as I might, and that seems to be the problem for many other anti-preemptive strikers. It's like there's more going on than we're allowed to know.

Hussein's crimes are not the reason for a possible American assault. If they had been, we would have wiped him out eleven years ago, when we had the chance. I mean, duh. There's an alterior motive. The government only acts on something when the American people either distinctly want it or distinctly don't want it, or when it works out to its advantage and the public can eventually be convinced of it. Just glance through an American History textbook. It's completely true. And since only about half, at most, of our citizens have been manipulated into supporting an attack, and significantly less are completely sure of the rightness of such an action, Bush and Co. obviously have something to gain.

But what? Oil? No. We don't need Iraq's oil. We have plenty already, more than any other nation. Security? What security could be gained in making even more enemies? People in the Middle East hate us, and not without reason. Wrapping up Bush, Sr.'s work? Possibly. Of the options available to the general public, this seems to make the most sense.

Or, perhaps we should think that potentially hostile nations shouldn't be allowed weapons of mass destruction. And there's no doubt that Saddam's guilty of at least trying to build them. However, what right have we to attack Iraq for posessing these weapons, when we have the world's largest stockpile? Judging by Dubya's current "biggest f'ing stick" policy, I'd say the United States are potentially hostile. Iraq, Afghanistan, or anyone for that matter, has every right to bomb us if we go in there waving an anti-nuke flag. What kind of hypocritical bastards are we?

One last, somewhat off-topic, note. Having just read up on his presidential reign, I'd say Teddy Roosevelt seems to be a big influence on Bush. Both were Texans with a "cowboy" attitude, and similiar diplomacy, and both liked to wave their big sticks around. Unfortunately, TR was also a rabid imperialist, and completely went against U.S. idealogy by basically forcing Central and South America to march to our drums, all while flouting his new version of the Monroe Doctrine. Bush's actions seem remarkably similiar, only on a broader scale. And while I don't know if the doctrine he's abusing has a name, it's being waved about just as frantically as poor Monroe's ideas were.

As for the initial topic: the American people aren't insane, just ignorant and easily manipulated. Even those of us (like me) who'd rather not believe what our government says don't know enough to effectively refute a point. We're a buncha wishy-washy idiots, basically.

 

I'm pulling my hair out here:

Ok, lets get something straight, if you have no facts on a subject and have a "gut feeling" that something is wrong, that is not evidence that something is *in fact* wrong! What is this, "we're all ignorant and easily manipulated?"

Speak for yourself there Rube.

BTA and Shralp have both put up educated arguments based on fact and logic, and everyone who doesn't *want* to agree simply ignores their posts and moves on to the next, "no, something is wrong" spin.

Everyone would rather go along with the popular hysteria, its so much easier than attempt to learn something or see a different viewpoint.

Here's the funny part, I don't even agree with them! But damnit I'm going to listen to what they're saying, because they're the only ones who are saying anything worth listening to, rather than the same fear stricken hysterical BS that everyone else is throwing around. Bush is evil, American's are evil, blah blah blah, how easy, how convenient, what a great way to write off something that's much more complicated than that.

Damona is entirely right, no one is here to discuss anything. If anyone disagrees with you, they must be wrong. Very few seem to actually take any more than a casual attempt to get educated on the subject, then claim expertise on a "gut feeling." If someone disagrees, they must be, "insane," "easily manipulated," and "stupid."

Bravo sheep.

 

Novak, here is the analogy that came into my head when I was still considering the motives of the current administration:

A woman comes home, pulls out the IRS code, and sits and studies it for a day or two. She then realizes that she is slightly above the cutoff for one income bracket but if she donates $102.33 to charity she can take a deduction, drop into the lower income bracket, and save a lot of money. She quickly opens the phone book, chooses a random charity, and writes them a check for that amount. This is her only charitable donation of the year.

Now then, I would say that the woman deserves no moral pat on the back for her action. Motivation has to play a part in when we consider a person worthy because of their actions. HOWEVER, this does not mean she should not have given to charity. That does not mean giving to charity is something that should not be done, right?

Suppose Bush is like that woman (I'm not convinced he is, but let's assume.) If we can agree that there is a purely humanitarian reason requiring a regime change, then Bush's personal motivations are in many ways irrelevant. If Bush is motivated by selfish reasons, it only means he wouldn't deserve that moral pat on the back for doing the right thing.

Thus far, the only person who has really made any type of argument against there being a humanitarian reason sufficient for a forced regime change is idoru in my opinion.

idoru, I believe your argument is strong. Hussein is old. He may well keel over tommorrow. However, at 75, it seems to me that he may well last well over another decade. I will agree that the odds of Hussein further using gas on his own people is now less likely. However, if you go to the the Amnesty International website I linked above and look at the reports over the last decade you will see that a "tame" Hussein is still one running around cutting out the tongues of lawyers for saying they need an independent judiciary. In other words, the brutality may not be on a scale to make Hitler proud anymore, yet it still continues.

Another consideration in my opinion is that I believe the U.N. sanctions on Iraq to be harmful. I believe innocent people are paying the price. Hussein is diverting at least 2/3 of the humanitarian relief to military expenditures. So, if Hussein remains in power for another decade, I'd anticipate the sanctions continuing and the people of Iraq will continue to bear the brunt of these sanctions. Measured this way, the thought that war means more lives lost is not clear to me. I think it a strong possibility more life will be lost by continuing our current containment policies.

 

Well yes, I do hear some people say "AMericans think they're better than the rest of the world" etc, but most of the people I know have no problem whatsoever with what the USA is doing.

 

In recent weeks alone, a shipment for equipment to enrich uranium was intercepted on the way to Iraq and smugglers with weapons-grade uranium were caught by Turkish authorities near the Iraq border.

Those are just examples I can recall off the top of my head. Your claim that "So far no Iraqi attempt to import this equipment has been stopped. Nothing." is simply wrong.

 

I just wonder what Americans would say if the international community tried their generals for their actions in Vietnam, Hiroshima, etc. They want to be excluded from Haag but they can name other countries as "countries of evil". It doesn't work like that. Iraq has to give a real reason to be attacked. So what if they have powerful weapons, so do 50 other countries in the world.
BTW, Shralp, you're right, if there weren't Americans English would not be spoken throuhgt the world. But if there weren't for the English and other Europeans, the USA would not even exist. Basicaly, Americans are a nation that united 230 years ago from several European nations. You have no history, no tradition when compared to the Europeans. Europe has been in war and peace situation with islamic countries for centuries and not once were they named as evil.
But then again, there was no oil to fight for then...
Sorry if you think I'm wrong, but doesn't it make you think how MOST of the world say that Americans are arrogant and uneducated, narrow-minded... And Great Britain is kissing some serious ass with Blair.
Bah, who in their right mind would WANT to go to war. People die. It's not like the movies. There are no heroes. There are just dead people and lucky people. It's easy for Bush to say attack, he's not gonna be anywhere near the front.

[ October 01, 2002, 19:05: Message edited by: Corr Raven ]

 

Really? You can state this as fact? During the crusades, the Europeans never referred to the Muslims as evil? Are you sure?

Nobody seems to be holding it against you.

 

Are the American people Insane?

Pretty simple actually...

Yes, they are

[ October 01, 2002, 20:30: Message edited by: Faragon ]

 

Heh, I had told myself I wouldn't push the boulder anymore but here I am again, this was just too interesting to pass up.

Much has been made about Russian, French, and Chineese saying they do not wish action in Iraq. I found this article by happenstance which explains a lot about why Russia and France don't want to upset the status quo -- they make too much money dealing with Hussein. All those gassings are in the past, we can overlook those now if business is good, right? And the U.S. is blamed for wanting war for oil, sheesh....

Here's that article:

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1031119786127&p=1012571727166

Also, Barbara Slavin reports today that China is indicating a hesitant willingness to either support or abstain from the current U.N. proposal circulating.

A possible crimp in the plans for Bush though, looks like Iraq is going to finally agree to inspections though the palaces are still off limits. I hope that's it for me.

 

As this topic is about american people in general i have to say i only have met 4 americans personal.
A girl that was taking a shower 2 times a day.
A boy that wasn't able to look anyone in the eye, but he was able to talk german and had a baby with a german woman.
Two boys selling drugs in europe, freaks from the westcoast. I was unable to understand the last two boys because of their accent. But one of them seemed to be a bit more normal than the other three.
I don't like this topic, because i think a whole country can't consist of morons (Iraq, US). There must be somebody reasonable.
Well i know a man from Iraq too. He's very polite, has given me tea while i was waiting for my ward. But as he's a Kurde, you might say he must be good (argh). It's a sad thing, that the bombs can't distinguish between good and bad people while killing them.

[ October 01, 2002, 23:42: Message edited by: Oblate ]