Why I oppose the happening war on Iraq.
-
If you were to look back 20 years from now, the US view towards would be an allied-stance. But within these 20 years, came the Gulf War, the Israeli conflicts, and the terrorist act commited recently. Now, the era after 9.11, Bush wishes to use military force and agression upon the nation of Iraq, for accusations Bush himself sees, with the support of his administration and council.
If you look at Bush's past decisions and targets, have you seen any positive aftereffect? His bombing on Afghanistan to demolish terrorists and Al-Qaeda brought a country back to the Stone Age. Mind the hyperbole, but the United States of America did nothing of their own wreck they created. Afghanistan was built from stone up, its pieces picked back together, by the European Union and United Nations. Is the European Union mad at this, for picking up another's pieces? Well yes, they are, the people who had to do it. On the other side, Bush's address to Congress and his announcement on the plan for economic reform has done nothing so far, but widen deficits and debts for his country. His plan to minimize terrorist activity only created greater economic slumps for the market. Not only did his methodogy not work, but he has hurt the world in general. Almost all airline businesses have been in a depression.
After 9.11, it was inferred by the US and President Bush that Al-Qaeda was linked to Iraq. There was no evidence. This was another claim he made, along with many other ones to pose Iraq as the "bad guy." Apparently Bush and Colin Powell claim Saddam Hussein linked to the Al-Qaeda terrorist network, by support through finance and medical supplies. There has been no hard evidence whatsoever. All of his justifications for war against Iraq has been coincidental or history. For example, one of the prime reasons USA gives in persuading that Iraq must be liberated of Iraq is for the past atrocities Saddam has done to the Kurds of the north. History cannot justify for further terrorism. Bush wants to help these people by killing other people? It's an eye for an eye, only he manipulates the situation for others. Another reason is Saddam's so called arsenal of "biological and chemical weapons." So far, from the inspections, it has only been concluded that Iraq has a wide range of items unaccounted for, and some items, violating UN sanctions. These include the Al-2 missiles, wide-range missiles. Great amounts biological and chemical agents have been found also. But Blix, head of the inspections, said himself that the inspections were not over when he was forced to leave earlier this week. There have only been accusations of Iraq having chemical or biological weapons. Iraq does not have any nuclear weapons.
USA claims Iraq is a threat, but why are they not doing about anything else in the world, and choosing to attack Iraq first? North Korea has admitted to using nuclear weapons, which they claim they have possession of, after restarting their weapons program, and Iran, which has been revealed to have been enriching uranium, possibly for weapons, according to US intelligence. Perhaps the possible reason for attacking Iraq may be its oil fields, as Iraq has the second largest oil reserves on the planet. Bush claims this war is not for oil, but for its people. Recently today the Secretary of Defense representing at the Pentago announced a speech. This was when US forces have reported that the Iraqi regime has been setting 3 or 4 oil fields on fire. His comment on the oil fields came along his answer to the aftermath of the "liberation of Iraq." He noted on how the Iraqi people needed their oil for the effortson rebuilding "post-Saddam Iraq". How does oil help lives? Through business and selling, of course, and I myself would infer that the US would be dealing with this oil, as they have done with Kuwait after the Gulf War. Maybe history does repeat itself. Many Americans against the war have also noted that "Bush is only finishing up what old Bush did."
When looking at other places in the world, the US participation is very mediocre in efforts. US did barely anything in Kosovo, the Chetchen conflict in Russia, and the dying continent, Africa. Is a reason why their lack of participation is due to unappealment in benefits? Is it because they have nothing to return to the US? Perhaps the US could tell us.
The numbers of those disapproving war and the numbers of those supporting war are extravagent. It is reported that 40% of Americans support the war against Iraq. However, many of these people say it is a war against Saddam, as Bush notes that Saddam and his presidency are the only threats within Iraq. In Great Britain, USA's greatest ally in this war, had a 50/50 split on the view on Iraq. This was shortly after Blair started his campaign against Saddam, using television commercials, where Kuwaiti children and soldiers are unescorted in attacking Saddam. The key phrase implied within the commercial: "Do you want them to go alone?" Before the British propaganda, the view was for opposing war, with 70% of Britons against the US-led war. Many Britons believe it is Blair's decision, and that he is not listening to his own country. In a earlier poll, it was discovered that 1/3 of Blair's own party in Britain was against him. Australia, not on the security council of the United Nations, offered help for the United States militarily. However, the decision was made by John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia. Many Australian and British citizens resent the choices of their Prime Ministers. It is unlikely from the current statistics, that both Prime Ministers will be re-elected. On the other hand, Germany, an influential and powerful nation (but one not holding a permanent seat in the security council) announced it was against the war. France and Russia then also stated it was strongly against the US-led war, saying it was unjust. China also followed suit, announcing opposition to a war not led through the United Nations. 3 nations against 2 on the permanent security council. But other nations that are on the security council are less likely to make good decisions themselves, in my opinion, as they take too much in consideration to their real perspective. They take into account US relations, foreign aid, and economic trades and marketing when making a decision. This is why the decision of minor countries is greatly a deal on the nation is more influential on them, in terms of dependancy.
France threatens to veto any resolution that has military action against Iraq, so therefore a resolution made within the United Nations would not be commited. The US, withdrawed from using the United Nations to create an multilateral resolution, and took force by itself and its supporters. Many countries condemn the attack made.
Bush claims the war is for the people of Iraq. Most people in Iraq resent a war, as it will only cause them grief, poverty, and hurt their country. The US claims that the Iraqi presidency is a threat to international security, yet they do nothing about North Korea, a great threat to South Korea, Alaska, and Japan. It's funny how the US claims Iraq is a threat when they have satellites running all on Iraq, U-2 surveillance flights, and U.N. inspectors within the country. The war has been predicted to cost in billions by many. Since when did the US care about someone else so much? Africa is greatly ignored and hundreds are dying by the day. North Korea is dying of poverty. Another factor that US justifies its war with Iraq is the security of the homeland of people. Why would the US be threatened by someone else if they weren't so hated? During Clinton's presidency terrorism was a very minimal rate, and nations like Germany praised the United States. Now many Germans condemn it.
And in conclusion, what makes the information the US announces valid to the full extent? In the Gulf War, they claimed that Iraqi soldiers were marching into Kuwaiti hospitals and killing innocent children and newborn babies. If you do not know, this was an absolute LIE made by the US media and officials. It was set up by the ambassador's daughter of Kuwait. The propaganda did do what they intended it to do - make Iraq look like the bad guy. A lot of Americans then percieved Iraq to be "evil" and it created the view of the United States as being a savior and ridding of such "evil." A lot of the things that Bush says in his speeches are very biased towards American sidings, as he is an American himself. He does not mention any risk of innocent Iraqi lives being lost, except that all efforts will be made to prevent it. It's hard to tell who is innocent or not when hundreds of people try to protect their own home from being demolished. What is true? What is not? Don't just listen to what someone else says and believe it correct and as your own standpoint, in the agreement of what you believe to be the majority.
This is my Singapore. This is your Singapore. This is the Singapore I will be coming to in the future, hoping that my dreams and goals will come true. Don't ruin my image of the people of Singapore by believing whatever that US channel on your television says.[/url] -
And in conclusion, what makes the information the US announces valid to the full extent? In the Gulf War, they claimed that Iraqi soldiers were marching into Kuwaiti hospitals and killing innocent children and newborn babies. If you do not know, this was an absolute LIE made by the US media and officials. It was set up by the ambassador's daughter of Kuwait. The propaganda did do what they intended it to do - make Iraq look like the bad guy. A lot of Americans then percieved Iraq to be "evil" and it created the view of the United States as being a savior and ridding of such "evil." A lot of the things that Bush says in his speeches are very biased towards American sidings, as he is an American himself. He does not mention any risk of innocent Iraqi lives being lost, except that all efforts will be made to prevent it. It's hard to tell who is innocent or not when hundreds of people try to protect their own home from being demolished. What is true? What is not? Don't just listen to what someone else says and believe it correct and as your own standpoint, in the agreement of what you believe to be the majority.
There is no point for you to try to prove otherwise. The media may be biased, but how can you prove that Iraqis soldiers did not carry out the killing????? By the OTHER MEDIA of course!!!!!!! Unless you are there to witness it, your decision CAN ONLY be shaped by the MEDIA.
It all boils to to whatever media you choose to believe in. For me, and for most people, the most logical and no doubt, the most prevalent one is chosen. Whatever the case, I do not believe that anyone can say for Sure whether this war is for the better or the worse......NOBODY unless GOD can forsee the future. But what is debatable is the MOTIVATION of this war. Is this war wage to really to rid the world of evildoers????? This question can only be answered by GEORGE BUSH. For this, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. -
Dun trust America? would trusting u or Iraq be better then? Just a tot.
USA brought Afghanistan back to stone age?
If anything i think the afghans have been liberated. My friend who was on humanitarian mission there said that most pple there are so relieved that the Taliban went out of power. Now, Afghan has human rights not rights crookedly twisted by extreme muslims (they shldnt be called muslims in the first place, muslims aint like them). Afghan now has its first woman minister, an unusual sight in strict Islamic countries in the middle east. Stone AGe? I doubt you really know whats the situation like in Afghan now, i know and my frens know and we will be likely going back there this december for another humanitarian aid.
And the fact is that Iraq refuse to cooperate with the UN for 12 LONG years over the disarment of WPM. Let me just refresh your memory on why Iraq cannot be trusted: Isnt it true when UN asked Iraq whether they possess any nuclear weapon or WPM, Iraq answered a definite 'NO'? It is true isnt it? BUT NOW, Iraq is saying that it will retaliate with WPM, isnt it true? Yes it is. So we can only conclude that for the last 12 YEARS, Iraq has been lying. Do you think we can trust them anymore? Hardly.
And if u insist that other than war this, there is another solution to this, please write to the UN and they will be more than willing to send you to talks with Osama or Saddam, see whether they will listen to you. If they do, I will rejoice so will the whole world. But I doubt so cos, these are the very people who blew up the carpark at Oklahoma, blew up the WTC, blew up Bali, planned to blow up SIngapore, caused 8 years of misery to Iran and these are the people who destroyed the lives of kuwaitis (there are still 600 kuwaitis missing amidst multitudes that died).
So, be against this war all u wan, but be ready to be shot down because the next target for these beasts may just be your or my loved ones. -
Aye Aye!
Like it or not, it sounds very logical to me, and rather neutral as well. -
bah... the afghans bombed themselves into the stone age... it took the brutal taliban to impose a limited degree of stability and unity on the afghans and it took the USA to give the afghans their freedom back...
u can't say that the afghans weren't pleased with their liberation... think about it... which guy do u know agrees with being stoned to death for chatting up the neighbour's daughter? and which girl do u know enjoy being wrapped up like a dumpling in the hot afghan sun?
saddam's no angel... well, neither is bush, or america... i believe that they have vested interests. i believe that its about oil. but i also believe that i'll rather have the americans get it over with than to protest impotently with high sounding rhetoric...
american foreign policy has been so inept for the past year that they've pinned themselves into a corner and war is the only face saving way out for them... let them be... the light at the end of the tunnel will shine through AFTER they drop their bombs and throw that noxious villian outta there. all this waiting has done nothing but get more people out of job.
and don't think the french are angels either... u don't even need to be a foreign policy expert to realise why they're blocking US initiatives in the UN... because its not theirs! they're selfish and egoistical! they want to be in the driver's seat, but they haven't got the balls, and the muscles to push it through. so they just complain on the sidelines and make face saving gestures... "oh, we'll join the US side if iraq uses WNDs..."
merde... lily-livered, yellow bellied frogs...
sg is a small country. we have to be flexible and set the sails where the wind blows... the french are not about to replace the usa as an economic engine anytime soon... so the most prudent way for us is to balance china and usa...
there is no right way. its not about right and wrong. its not even about friends. its about interests. -
For many who support this war, most agree on several factors:
a. Iraq had 12 long years to disarm. They failed to do so and even after drafting 3 separate resolutions, saddam is as defiant as ever.
b. Iraq has a long history of hatred for the US(the iraqi regime at least, not the ppl). They have a long history of using biological weapons and conventional warheads. Just ask israel and kuwait, Iran and the northern kurds. Who's to say they will not support terrorists organisations by supplying dirty bombs or biological weapons to exact "jihad" reprisals against them or any other ally for that matter? They obviously had no qalms in offering incentives to the families of suicide bombers in palestine.
c. The Iraqis made a mockery of the UN weapons inspection team. Clearly, they were unable to unearth convincing evidence due to deliberate deception. The inspectors were tailed, bugged and misguided at every turn. The iraqis merely provided unconvincing proof that they were disarming by showing the world empty al-samoud warheads. This act of deceit is like tossing hungry dogs a few bones to chew on, keeping the fresh meat well hoarded - in effect, keeping nations guessing but at the same time, insufficient grounds to pass a new UN resolution sanctioning stern action.
d. Diplomatic efforts by the US were thrwarted by France, Russia and China at every turn, the former 2 nations coincidently having serious investments in Iraq. Was it just to be different from the US or protecting their own interests..i leave that to others to decide.
e. The UN has failed to be firm and fair in its handling of Iraq. They have apparently disregarded resolution 1441, sanctioning the use of force in the event of a breach. If anything their handling of the affair has been a farce...discrediting their ability to manage future world issues. That and the threat of firm vetos by the 3 permanent members of the UN security council pursuaded US and britain to withdraw their attempts at diplomacy.
Is it then fair to call the US actions illegal? As they have mentioned the 3 prior UN resolutions gives them sufficient right to act where other nations talk but do not have the stomach to match their words with force of arms.
No one wants war but in difficult times, one has to act to ensure security for the future. Are we going to wait for a bomb to go off right next to us before we say "Whack them first! Evidence be damned..."? -
to be absolutely fair, if the UN charter is to be applied without bias, i find the latest diplomatic developments bizarre...
the US military strikes IS ILLEGAL... cos it failed to acquire a security council resolution... but i support it cos the UN has failed to support a just cause fairly.
but at this time, saddam would be fully justified in using WNDs against the "aggressors" the UN charter allows for that... self defence is just cause... however, the french have decided to support the US only if iraq uses WND against coalition forces
c'est bizarre... -
Originally posted by CX:
Which brings us to the US's justification of war (or so they claimed), that it is because Iraq still possessed WMDs that lead to the use of force!
to be absolutely fair, if the UN charter is to be applied without bias, i find the latest diplomatic developments bizarre...
the US military strikes IS ILLEGAL... cos it failed to acquire a security council resolution... but i support it cos the UN has failed to support a just cause fairly.
but at this time, saddam would be fully justified in using WNDs against the "aggressors" the UN charter allows for that... self defence is just cause... however, the french have decided to support the US [b]only if iraq uses WND against coalition forces
c'est bizarre...
[/b]
-
ApplauseOriginally posted by BillyBong:For many who support this war, most agree on several factors:
a. Iraq had 12 long years to disarm. They failed to do so and even after drafting 3 separate resolutions, saddam is as defiant as ever.
b. Iraq has a long history of hatred for the US(the iraqi regime at least, not the ppl). They have a long history of using biological weapons and conventional warheads. Just ask israel and kuwait, Iran and the northern kurds. Who's to say they will not support terrorists organisations by supplying dirty bombs or biological weapons to exact "jihad" reprisals against them or any other ally for that matter? They obviously had no qalms in offering incentives to the families of suicide bombers in palestine.
c. The Iraqis made a mockery of the UN weapons inspection team. Clearly, they were unable to unearth convincing evidence due to deliberate deception. The inspectors were tailed, bugged and misguided at every turn. The iraqis merely provided unconvincing proof that they were disarming by showing the world empty al-samoud warheads. This act of deceit is like tossing hungry dogs a few bones to chew on, keeping the fresh meat well hoarded - in effect, keeping nations guessing but at the same time, insufficient grounds to pass a new UN resolution sanctioning stern action.
d. Diplomatic efforts by the US were thrwarted by France, Russia and China at every turn, the former 2 nations coincidently having serious investments in Iraq. Was it just to be different from the US or protecting their own interests..i leave that to others to decide.
e. The UN has failed to be firm and fair in its handling of Iraq. They have apparently disregarded resolution 1441, sanctioning the use of force in the event of a breach. If anything their handling of the affair has been a farce...discrediting their ability to manage future world issues. That and the threat of firm vetos by the 3 permanent members of the UN security council pursuaded US and britain to withdraw their attempts at diplomacy.
Is it then fair to call the US actions illegal? As they have mentioned the 3 prior UN resolutions gives them sufficient right to act where other nations talk but do not have the stomach to match their words with force of arms.
No one wants war but in difficult times, one has to act to ensure security for the future. Are we going to wait for a bomb to go off right next to us before we say "Whack them first! Evidence be damned..."?
-
SImple.
Bush and UN: Hey Saddam, hand over all ur WMD and u will be spared.
Saddam: (innocently) but...but...we dun have, u check lah! We DUn have!
...and this goes on for 12 years.....
Bush: I cannot take it liao, they say dun have, i am sure they have, lets attack Iraq.
Saddam: Wah i say i dun have WMD u dun believe, if u attack me, i attack u with WMD, no choice liao.
...So its pretty clear whos the liar here. -
Whoa Lan eh! This is sooo bloody confusing leh. Just kill them all LAR and be quiet about it... reading your lengthy posts gimme head ache lar!!
I dun care; whichever side win just so i can get some quietness lar!.
heheh -
looks like this war is being scripted
-
interesting ! anyway, War had oredi started ! now is time for US to take over Iraq. Hopefully, they win !Originally posted by gasband:SImple.
Bush and UN: Hey Saddam, hand over all ur WMD and u will be spared.
Saddam: (innocently) but...but...we dun have, u check lah! We DUn have!
...and this goes on for 12 years.....
Bush: I cannot take it liao, they say dun have, i am sure they have, lets attack Iraq.
Saddam: Wah i say i dun have WMD u dun believe, if u attack me, i attack u with WMD, no choice liao.
...So its pretty clear whos the liar here. -
hopefully less people will die...Originally posted by kim_hwoarang:interesting ! anyway, War had oredi started ! now is time for US to take over Iraq. Hopefully, they win !
but then again who win also will a lot of people die.
god bless those that had died and theri families...
peace -
A. Prior to the latest inspections the inspections before those were US-led, questioning some possible manipulation in extension of that time. Saddam does not defy the inspections, for Hans Blix himself said that progress was moving along well, until they were forced out of the country from Bush's so-called "deadline."Originally posted by BillyBong:For many who support this war, most agree on several factors:
a. Iraq had 12 long years to disarm. They failed to do so and even after drafting 3 separate resolutions, saddam is as defiant as ever.
b. Iraq has a long history of hatred for the US(the iraqi regime at least, not the ppl). They have a long history of using biological weapons and conventional warheads. Just ask israel and kuwait, Iran and the northern kurds. Who's to say they will not support terrorists organisations by supplying dirty bombs or biological weapons to exact "jihad" reprisals against them or any other ally for that matter? They obviously had no qalms in offering incentives to the families of suicide bombers in palestine.
c. The Iraqis made a mockery of the UN weapons inspection team. Clearly, they were unable to unearth convincing evidence due to deliberate deception. The inspectors were tailed, bugged and misguided at every turn. The iraqis merely provided unconvincing proof that they were disarming by showing the world empty al-samoud warheads. This act of deceit is like tossing hungry dogs a few bones to chew on, keeping the fresh meat well hoarded - in effect, keeping nations guessing but at the same time, insufficient grounds to pass a new UN resolution sanctioning stern action.
d. Diplomatic efforts by the US were thrwarted by France, Russia and China at every turn, the former 2 nations coincidently having serious investments in Iraq. Was it just to be different from the US or protecting their own interests..i leave that to others to decide.
e. The UN has failed to be firm and fair in its handling of Iraq. They have apparently disregarded resolution 1441, sanctioning the use of force in the event of a breach. If anything their handling of the affair has been a farce...discrediting their ability to manage future world issues. That and the threat of firm vetos by the 3 permanent members of the UN security council pursuaded US and britain to withdraw their attempts at diplomacy.
Is it then fair to call the US actions illegal? As they have mentioned the 3 prior UN resolutions gives them sufficient right to act where other nations talk but do not have the stomach to match their words with force of arms.
No one wants war but in difficult times, one has to act to ensure security for the future. Are we going to wait for a bomb to go off right next to us before we say "Whack them first! Evidence be damned..."?
B. Yes Iraq has a long hatred for US, but don't you find sanctions on military weapons a bit absurd? "You may not use this and this and this," yet USA has access to any biological agents it desires. It's someone hypocritical, and I'm sure that most countries dissaprove of such "bullying." Many other countries also hold a hatred against the US, like North Korea. Do you see the US attacking North Korea?
C. Is it not the UN's job to "inspect" as they are instructed to do? Surely any deceptions is their responsiblities to unsolve. Iraq was also at good cooperation before the deadline ended.
D. How is rejecting a resolution requiring use of military force a thwart to diplomatic efforts? "The war for peace," is that not an oxymoron? Diplomacy does not involve military action, according to the United States, as they said so themselves, edging an effort to end the North Korea crisis using "diplomacy."
E. The US is also breaking resolutions by the UN from making a unjust attack on Iraq, no? It is acting like Israel, in many terms. Accusing another state of breaking resolutions and distrupting peace when they are doing it themselves. If you do not know, Israel has been breaking international law for a great amount of years by settling in Palestinian land, yet refusing to give it back, and they say they are doing all they can for a "peaceful solution" for the Palestinian people.
Iraq is was also not of threat to international security when the US had surveillence of every corner in Iraq. How can that make Iraq of any threat when you even had UN inspectors within the country? There was, and is no arguable justification for war. -
standing neutral,but my opinion of war is: 'War isn't about who's right,it's about who's left....
-
Just one point. U would rather let a liar like Saddam get away scot-free then? A liar who do not lie on small scales but lie about not having WMD. Alright then, as i said, go tell Kuwaitis, Kurds and Iranians that Saddam is not a dangerous person. If they agree with u, then i think war shld stop.Originally posted by Nighth4wk:A. Prior to the latest inspections the inspections before those were US-led, questioning some possible manipulation in extension of that time. Saddam does not defy the inspections, for Hans Blix himself said that progress was moving along well, until they were forced out of the country from Bush's so-called "deadline."
B. Yes Iraq has a long hatred for US, but don't you find sanctions on military weapons a bit absurd? "You may not use this and this and this," yet USA has access to any biological agents it desires. It's someone hypocritical, and I'm sure that most countries dissaprove of such "bullying." Many other countries also hold a hatred against the US, like North Korea. Do you see the US attacking North Korea?
C. Is it not the UN's job to "inspect" as they are instructed to do? Surely any deceptions is their responsiblities to unsolve. Iraq was also at good cooperation before the deadline ended.
D. How is rejecting a resolution requiring use of military force a thwart to diplomatic efforts? "The war for peace," is that not an oxymoron? Diplomacy does not involve military action, according to the United States, as they said so themselves, edging an effort to end the North Korea crisis using "diplomacy."
E. The US is also breaking resolutions by the UN from making a unjust attack on Iraq, no? It is acting like Israel, in many terms. Accusing another state of breaking resolutions and distrupting peace when they are doing it themselves. If you do not know, Israel has been breaking international law for a great amount of years by settling in Palestinian land, yet refusing to give it back, and they say they are doing all they can for a "peaceful solution" for the Palestinian people.
Iraq is was also not of threat to international security when the US had surveillence of every corner in Iraq. How can that make Iraq of any threat when you even had UN inspectors within the country? There was, and is no arguable justification for war. -
interesting quote i found.....
let us wait n c.....
World War 3 To Come From Event In Basra, Iraq?
1933 Demonic Vision of H.G. Wells
"After the Second World War, the United Nations will be the second attempt at World Government, but Wells understands that this attempt will also not be successful. Thus, the plan for the 'Modern World State' would succeed in the third attempt ... and would come out of something that would occur in Basra, Iraq."
by Dr. Dennis Cuddy
"The Globalist: The Power Elite Exposed" -
this is wad i found -
Dear Nighth4wk and your associates,
I am not sure where you get you information from - that the bombing of Afghanistan by USA, has brought the country back to the Stone Age.
Do you think the Talebans needed help from the USA to bring the country back to the Stone Age, in the manner they ruled the people of Afghanistan ?
The Talebans were doing it quite well by themselves, until Bush came along and brought some light into the lives of the ordinary Afghanis men, women, boys and girls.
If you think that the current situation is abhorred by the IRAQI peoples, try reading the following which is extracted from the following site:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/World/2020_iraqiwomen030321.html
A Worthy Cause
Women Who Know of SaddamÂ’s Brutality Say This War Is Just
March 21 — They are educated. They aren't required to veil themselves. They can work. But these four women from Iraq say they were missing two crucial things in their homeland — freedom and dignity.
The four women — Maha Hussain, Zainab al-Suwaij, Katrin Michael and Roz Rasool — told ABCNEWS' Barbara Walters stories that could be punishable by death in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Even Iraqis in the United States are terrified to speak frankly about Saddam's regime, largely because they are terrified of reprisals against family members.
The women are speaking out because they feel they are speaking for the voiceless people living under Saddam's regime.
"We know how it looks like inside Iraq," al-Suwaij said on 20/20. "We saw the torture. We saw our relatives and our friends disappearing day after day."
Human rights groups estimate that at least 290,000 Iraqis have disappeared since Saddam took power 34 years ago. Hussain was just a schoolgirl in Baghdad when the reality of life under Saddam hit home. She recalls riding on a school bus at age 13 and seeing a crowd gathered in the center of the capital, around bodies of men hanging from poles. "I remember the blue faces, the long necks," she said.
Saddam's reign of terror extended far beyond public executions. He established a strategy of brutalizing women in order to control their men. Although the stories these women tell are horrific and difficult to substantiate, they are consistent with a pattern of cruelty toward women documented by various human rights groups.
Routine Rapes, Human Meat Grinders, Chemical Baths
Al-Suwaij knows firsthand how even young girls were imprisoned for what seem to be trivial offenses.
Al-Suwaij says she had a 16-year-old cousin who was beaten and tortured with electrical shocks for having written something against the government in her school notebook.
And if a man is a dissident or if a man writes a letter or makes a joke about Saddam, these women said, authorities would rape his wife or female relatives in front of him.
"Rape is used as a tool to humiliate the woman, but to also bring men into submission," Hussain said. To compound the humiliation, authorities would videotape the torture and rape and send the tape to family members.
Saddam's contempt for human rights extended to his well-documented use of poison gas against his own people. The horror of one of those chemical attacks still haunts Michael 16 years later.
"Children, women, men Â… vomiting, screaming, crying with swollen eyes. Everybody was Â… screaming, 'We are blind. We cannot see,' " Michael said. She said she still has difficulty breathing, because of her exposure to the gas.
Al-Suwaij has seen the inside of an Iraqi prison, and she describes horrific scenes. She said she was shown "human meat grinders" in which people were shredded and disposed of in a septic tank, and chemical baths in which people were literally dissolved.
"You cannot exaggerate about these things. People were slaughtered," she said.
All four women met earlier this month with members of the Bush administration.
They raised the issues they feel need to be addressed in Iraq.
They say there needs to be a clear commitment to democracy in Iraq, and that the United States and its allies will need to chaperon the transition.
Protesters Missing the Point
The anti-war demonstrations happening all over the world are disturbing for these women. Rasool believes the protesters are missing the point.
"Knowing what we've been through, knowing what the people in Iraq are going through up to now, and then when we see protesters, that they don't know the reality of the people who are suffering right now," she said. "They don't know about torture, they don't know about rape."
Although these women support U.S. military action, they say they felt betrayed after the 1991 Gulf War when they heeded then-President George H.W. Bush's call to arms. The elder Bush said Iraqis must rise up on their own and force Saddam to step aside.
So these women joined with many other Iraqis who risked their lives because they thought that the Americans were going to back them up.
"That was the first time I saw Iraq liberated. I saw the joy and the happiness of the people," al-Suwaij said.
But the uprising was short-lived. The allied army went home, clearing the way for Saddam to regain control. It is estimated that 30,000 Iraqis perished in the ensuing bloodbath.
"After the failed uprising I was hiding for two months until I left Iraq," said al-Suwaij.
These women are saddened that America and its allies backed off and let Saddam continue his brutal reign after the 1991 war. They ask, Where was the United Nations then? Where were all these human rights activists?
Where are they today? the women ask. Just two weeks ago, a Kurdish mother of eight was splashed with gasoline and set ablaze by military police for no reason, she told Kurdish television.
"We're asking the, the whole world, to see our suffering inside Iraq. We ask them to participate in our freedom and liberty," Rasool said. "Iraqi people suffered enough during 35 years, and they deserve freedom."
As U.S. and British troops advance toward Baghdad, these women say their friends and loved ones will welcome the coalition troops with open arms. -
Yes saddam did not, shall me say, "defy" the inspection teams. He ordered them tailed, bugged and obstructed in as many ways possible without international incident. Does it comfort you that someone welcomes teams to conduct weapons inspection but deliberately limits their progress?Originally posted by Nighth4wk:A. Prior to the latest inspections the inspections before those were US-led, questioning some possible manipulation in extension of that time. Saddam does not defy the inspections, for Hans Blix himself said that progress was moving along well, until they were forced out of the country from Bush's so-called "deadline."
Hans Blix himself stated that (for lack of a stronger term) "better" cooperation could be shown by the iraqi govt. Doesn't 1441 demand full cooperation from the iraqi regime over such inspections? Is that not blatant defiance itself?
Is there a chance that US will (for absurb reasons) use these chemical and biological weapons on innocent civilians? As for North Korea, there are other inclinations that bar the US from an immediate use of force against them...mega big factors like CHINA, RUSSIA ..
B. Yes Iraq has a long hatred for US, but don't you find sanctions on military weapons a bit absurd? "You may not use this and this and this," yet USA has access to any biological agents it desires. It's someone hypocritical, and I'm sure that most countries dissaprove of such "bullying." Many other countries also hold a hatred against the US, like North Korea. Do you see the US attacking North Korea?
Iraq on the other hand has no love lost even in the Muslim community because they invaded another muslim country and looted and killed its own brothers in the past. They have alienated themselves from the world and can expect no support in the form of military action or aid. North Korea is an entirely different senario.
As i argued previously, have they not had 12 years to inspect iraq? What has been the outcome each time? Lies, deceit, diplomatic games and stalling tactics.
C. Is it not the UN's job to "inspect" as they are instructed to do? Surely any deceptions is their responsiblities to unsolve. Iraq was also at good cooperation before the deadline ended
If 12 years is insufficient, perhaps u'd kindly define for us a suitable time frame?
I agree. Diplomacy does not require military force. Let us consider for a moment that this resolution was passed. Do you think Iraq would comply? If we consider statistics, this would be the 4th UN resolution in an unending series. How do we justify the need to pass another resolution? Is that to be our only diplomatic action? Are we to let saddam continue to play tap dancing with the UN while their inspection teams continue to chase false leads and half chances?
D. How is rejecting a resolution requiring use of military force a thwart to diplomatic efforts? "The war for peace," is that not an oxymoron? Diplomacy does not involve military action, according to the United States, as they said so themselves, edging an effort to end the North Korea crisis using "diplomacy."
If you follow documented history, palestine is a disputed land. No one can claim it as their own. Neither the Israelis or the palestinians. Israel's actions are questionable but given the fact that they have been threatened militarily and economically by their muslim neighbours and fought 2 large scale wars in the space of 10 odd years, not to mention the entebbe raid.
E. The US is also breaking resolutions by the UN from making a unjust attack on Iraq, no? It is acting like Israel, in many terms. Accusing another state of breaking resolutions and distrupting peace when they are doing it themselves. If you do not know, Israel has been breaking international law for a great amount of years by settling in Palestinian land, yet refusing to give it back, and they say they are doing all they can for a "peaceful solution" for the Palestinian people.
A nation surrounded by hostiles can ill afford to be generous. They may have broken international law or bent it several times in the name of self-preservation. Then what do you call the intifada launched by arafat (which the imbecile has totally no control over now)? Are you gonna fault just israelis because you only see one side of the picture? Dun suicide bombers contravene humanitarian laws that protect civilians?
Iraq maintains that they are cooperating with UN inspection teams and adhering to UN resolutions while they continue to mislead them and target coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone imposed after the gulf war.
Finally, ask yourself this then: if Saddam truly is a man of peace, why didn't he come clean over 12 years of WMD inspection? -
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20030323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_us_military
U.S.: No Sign of Iraq Bio-Weapons Yet
1 hour, 34 minutes ago
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON - U.S. special operations troops combing Iraq (news - web sites) for Scud missiles and chemical or biological weapons have found none so far, a senior American military officer said Saturday.
Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the vice director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon (news - web sites) news conference that the Iraqis have not fired any Scuds and that U.S. forces searching airfields in the far western desert of Iraq have uncovered no missiles or launchers.
Iraq denies having any Scuds, which have sufficient range to reach Israel, but Gen. Tommy Franks, who is running the war, said Saturday that Iraq has yet to account for about two dozen Scuds that United Nations (news - web sites) inspectors have said were left over from the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites).
Iraq also denies it holds any chemical or biological weapons. McChrystal said the United States will either bomb any such weapons it should find or seize them with ground forces, whichever is safer. He and other officials refused to say where in Iraq those searches are happening.
Also Saturday, the U.S. military abandoned plans to open a northern front against Iraq that would have sent heavy armored forces streaming across the Turkish border.
Two U.S. defense officials said dozens of U.S. ships carrying weaponry for the Army's 4th Infantry Division will head to the Persian Gulf after weeks of waiting off Turkey's coast while the two countries tried to reach a deal.
McChrystal said that even without the 4th Infantry, "there will be a northern option." He would not say what that might be. Other officials said Army airborne troops might join small numbers of U.S. special operations forces already on the ground in northern Iraq, where American officials fear clashes between Turkish forces and Iraqi Kurds.
Although U.S. officials on Friday said all 8,000 soldiers in Iraq's 51st Mechanized Division in southern Iraq has surrendered, McChrystal said Saturday that only the unit's commanders gave themselves up. The rest simply left the battlefield or were "melting away," he said.
McChrystal said the number of Iraqi prisoners of war was between 1,000 and 2,000.
In describing overall progress in the war, McChrystal said American and British forces have hit Iraq with 500 cruise missiles — 400 launched from ships and submarines and 100 launched from Air Force bombers — and several hundred precision-guided bombs over the past day. The use of air-launched cruise missiles in Friday's attacks was the first since the war began.
Warplanes flew 1,000 missions from aircraft carriers and air bases in the region, he said.
Iraqi soldiers, "including some leadership," are surrendering and defecting in large numbers, Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke said.
"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region ... is ended," she said.
Northern Iraq is an important battleground because of the Kurdish presence in enclaves not controlled by the Iraqi government. Turkey fears the Kurds will seize the northern oil fields or establish an independent state, thus complicating Turkey's conflict with its own Kurdish minority.
The Pentagon wanted to put a heavy armored force into northern Iraq and had designated the 4th Infantry for that mission. The only feasible avenue for them to reach northern Iraq was from bases in Turkey, an option foreclosed by the Turkish government.
With U.S. ground forces advancing toward Baghdad, Pentagon officials expressed concerns the troops might come across Republican Guard troops armed with chemical weapons.
"We would be hopeful that those with their triggers on these weapons understand what Secretary Don Rumsfeld said in his comments yesterday: `Don't use it. Don't use it,'" Franks, the top U.S. war commander, said Saturday at a news conference at his Persian Gulf command post.
The administration had once believed it could count on NATO (news - web sites) ally Turkey to support the creation of a northern front against Iraq. But after weeks of wrangling over financial compensation and arrangements for Turkish forces to join the Americans in northern Iraq, the Pentagon has given up.
The Turkish military on Saturday denied reports that 1,000 of its commandos had crossed into northern Iraq. On Friday a military official had said soldiers in armored personnel carriers rolled into northeastern Iraq near where the borders of Turkey, Iraq and Iran converge.
But on Saturday that was denied, and Pentagon officials said they saw no sign of a Turkish incursion.
About 40 ships carrying the 4th Infantry Division's weaponry and equipment were to begin moving through the Suez Canal on Sunday, said one U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The 4th Infantry's soldiers, who remained at Fort Hood, Texas, after their weaponry and equipment went to the Mediterranean last month, are likely to go to Kuwait, the officials said.
The redirected cargo ships are to begin arriving off the coast of Kuwait about March 30, one official said. All the ships would arrive by about April 10.
From Kuwait they could move into Iraq to serve as reinforcements if the ground war lasts more than several weeks, or as occupation forces after the Iraqi government's collapse. -
-
farni....but wad if is true....Originally posted by CX: -
What if the "hard stuff" is finally found ?
Still early days yet, Baghdad still has not been entered, and the neighborhood of the southern Iraqi city of Basra has yet to be secured.
It will be interesting when the many scientists, who are still in Baghdad, are finally "freed" from being "protected" by Saddam's Secret Service Agents.
Wait till these Scientists start talking, and the other Iraqi Generals start to talk to save their own skins.
Keep in focus the unaccounted stocks of raw materials and finished products of WMD - chemical and biological - that the Iraqi had been caught with during the First UN Inspection.