Saddam's Killing Fields

[dalmations202]

This is the reason I believe the US did the right thing with Iraq. Even if we lost 2000 hero's in the process. The article seems to be a month old, and somehow I missed it. LINK

By Greg Palkot
BAGHDAD, Iraq — The images were shocking.

A trench with piles of clothed bodies packed tightly together. Men, women, little children. Even unborn children. Some blindfolded. Some with their hands bound. All slaughtered in cold blood by the henchmen of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

All of this horror was discovered in another mass grave in the desert wasteland of northwestern Iraq, near the town of Hatra. It was discovered a year ago, and only now is it being carefully and scientifically excavated by the Regime Crimes Liaison Office. This agency, part of the U.S. Justice Department, is working with the Iraqi interim government to map out the horrors of the Hussein past.

The head of the unit, Greg Kehoe, who has seen more than his share of horrors in places such as the Balkans, couldn’t believe what he saw.

"I’ve never seen women and children executed, defenseless people executed in this fashion," he said. "I mean, you look at a young woman holding her 2-year-old child with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. I can’t find any reason to justify that."


When I saw the images I could only think back to Hilla, a town south of Baghdad where I went in the spring of 2003, just after the fall of Saddam. A mass grave of Iraqi Shiites was discovered there.

I will never forget it for as long as I live. Thousands of bodies. Thousands of families swarming over piles of clothing and flesh. Earth-moving equipment digging through the raw humanity. Digging up the past.

Some of these people were opponents of the regime, gunned down after an uprising against Saddam in 1991 and then dumped in big trenches. Women and civilians were also among the victims.

Beyond the visual impression, though, it is the smell that I will never forget. The bodies had been underground for over 10 years, but you could still feel the rot of the past. The remainder and reminder of life, snuffed out by a horrendous regime.

The scene was pure chaos. People were running from pile to pile, looking for loved ones long lost. With so much emotion built up you could imagine and understand why no one was carefully going about the business of sorting through the human debris.

And the lucky ones were satisfied enough to bring away their family members in crudely made coffins for long-postponed burials.

There was only one problem with that scene: Saddam got off the hook. It didn't seem that enough could have been done to carefully record who was killed, how they were killed and where they were found. And so no real evidence could have been gathered that might be used in, say, a war crimes trial against Saddam Hussein and the thugs who took his orders.

That is what the team at this <u>latest mass grave</u> is trying to rectify. It is believed these bodies came from Sulamaniyah, one of the major cities of Kurdistan. The Kurds were one of the mass groups of people in Iraq that the Iraqi leader despised. At the time of one of the Kurdish uprisings against Baghdad in 1987-88, these people were shuttled over to this desolate spot and killed.

But thanks to this isolated location of horror and the team's organization, this "war crime" scene has been preserved and can be handled in a proper way. Body locations are mapped, and then the bodies are exhumed from the location and taken to a moveable morgue where the corpses undergo more scrutiny.

All of that information and evidence will then be provided to the Iraqi Special Tribunal, which is preparing the case against Hussein and others. Here’s how archaeologist Sonny Trimble put it:

“Our real, ultimate goal is to get evidence that’s so tight that when they bring certain regime leaders to trial, it’s very tight, just like any trial you would have in the United States or anywhere else in the world.”

It’s thought that there are as many as 3,000 bodies at this one site alone, but the workers will only unearth 200 to 300. There is not enough time for more, but there are <u>many more sites</u> to examine.

By one estimate, <u>300,000 people were slaughtered</u> during Saddam's rule and dumped in 40 different mass grave sites around the country.

There is something else that will come of this: Once the legal value can be obtained from the site, the emotional worth can be salvaged, too. It is said that photographs of all of those found, including just the remains, will be brought to their former home for possible identification by families. Maybe these and other victims of the now long-gone regime can get a proper burial, not just a killing field.

[dude1394]

No one in the blue states really gives a **** about them.

[#1MavsFan]

Originally posted by: dude1394
No one in the blue states really gives a **** about them.

Don't be a idiot..

Sadam did kill tons of people during his regime but we have almost killed a 1/4 of how many people he killed in just 1 year. Iraq is in much more chaos than it ever was before, thousands of innocent people are killed daily while thousands more are severely injured. And not to mention the fact most of them can't even provide for their families anymore since its all just a riot there and thats leading to many of them dying from starvation. Here's a site that has some pictures that clearly show this: http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com and if you're one of those people that actually believe the Iraqians want us there and that the war actually has a purpose you're way to much fox news.

[dude1394]

No one in the blue states game a **** about them before and don't now.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: dude1394
No one in the blue states game a **** about them before and don't now.

Really? Even the ones that voted for George W. Bush?

[#1MavsFan]

Originally posted by: dude1394
No one in the blue states game a **** about them before and don't now.

lol.. and let me guess you think bush does since he destroyed THEIR country into pieces?

[sturm und drang]

I looooove the oh-so-altruistic "we invaded Iraq to save Iraqis" argument.

Sure, Saddam killed his own people by the thousands. But if you think that's the reason we invaded Iraq...

If we're so humanitarian - the great caped rescuer for the persecuted millions - then why aren't we doing anything in the Sudan, where thousands are dying as we speak?

Or North Korea, where Kim Il Jong has killed/starved MILLIONS of his own people?

[dude1394]

As usual all talk and no action. So what's the leftists plans for those two countries.

Oh yea,

Darfur - Nothing.
N. Korea - Bribe him some more.

[#1MavsFan]

Originally posted by: dude1394
As usual all talk and no action. So what's the leftists plans for those two countries.

If you remember correctly Dubya let the N. Korea situation go on when he could have solved it easily without a war or anything. But now its too late for that since they've devolped a lot of nukes and other weaponry in the time our amazing president just sat there and went to war with random countrys and KILLED our economy.

Also if you watched the debates you would notice Kerry had a plan for N. Korea which would involve talks with them on a peace settlement thus hopefully avoiding a war in which we'd lose millions thanks to Dubya. And Bush's plan for N.Korea was: (45 second silence) (turns head) (doesn't know where he is) (say's some pointless crap like "rrhrewi I'll lead this nation to blah blah").

[sturm und drang]

Nice dodge, Dude.

Let's try it again. If we invaded Iraq to save Iraqis - halos firmly in place, our altruisim knows no bounds - what's the story on Sudan? North Korea? Do those people not count?

All I'm asking for is honesty here. We did NOT invade Iraq to save Iraqis. That's just pretty ex post facto posturing...

[dude1394]

If you remember correctly dubya inherited the darling of the democrat lefts' position of bribing n. korea to stop building a nuke. I'd like to hear the "easy" solution to N. Korea that dubya overlooked. Kerry's plan was to do exactly what N. Korea wanted done again (bribe me please) and I'll promise to not do it, all the while doing it. Sort of like the same promise Iran is shoving up the EU's backside.

No you are not asking for honesty sturm, you are just trying to score poilitical points. I'm not dodging anything. I've never said we invaded iraq to JUST save iraqi's, it is a positive by-product of over-throwing sadaam and trying to bring some modernity to the middle east. You above all others should understand nuance.

All I said and still stand by is that the blue states (for all their talk of peoples rights, goodness and the rest ...er. bosnia for example) don't give a crap about the iraqi people.

[sturm und drang]

"All I said and still stand by is that the blue states (for all their talk of peoples rights, goodness and the rest ...er. bosnia for example) don't give a crap about the iraqi people."

I find it disingenuous in the extreme to insinuate that "red staters" – to borrow your us vs. them language – care any more for the Iraqi people than "blue staters." The only way in which they care more for them is as collateral, as a convenient justification for a misguided invasion of their countyr.

People who supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq did not do so because of Saddam's mistreatment of his own citizens. This "freedom of the Iraqi people" is nothing more than a feel-good excuse for invading a country.

When all our other reasons fail – WMD, anyone? – we turned to another reason to justify the invasion.

The incident with Bush and the Iraqi Olympic soccer team is the only example you need of just how these "freed" people feel about their American occupier...

[FishForLunch]

Iraq was surely better off, with it kids and civilians being killed by Saddam. Atleast it was done discretely by its native son and not by some evil occupying force. Attacking Iraq was not the lefties favorite cause, there was no proof of genocide like in Serbia.

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Nice dodge, Dude.

Let's try it again. If we invaded Iraq to save Iraqis - halos firmly in place, our altruisim knows no bounds - what's the story on Sudan? North Korea? Do those people not count?

All I'm asking for is honesty here. We did NOT invade Iraq to save Iraqis. That's just pretty ex post facto posturing...

HONESTY:
1. Saddam was a terrorist and sponsored and harbored terrorists - like Zarqawi (who set up a terror cell in Dec 2001 in northeast Iraq).
2. According to the world community, Saddam possessed (prior to invasion) WMD - and never complied with disarmament.
3. Saddam was a Hitler-esque dictator: a danger to his own peoples, the region, and indirectly the United States.

So, your right, saving Iraqis wasn't the main objective - but establishing a free Iraq was a motivation for military intervention.

Instead of finishing the war of 1991 after the chemical attacks on the Shiites & Kurds - we waited until we were afraid those same chemical attacks within our borders. So, yes, we acted in our own interests first.

And Sudan & North Korea? - First, why bargain with Kim Jong II? Do you really expect us to play nice with them after they pulled the wool over Clinton's eyes? We are playing the hand were delt - without the cooperation of the UN. And unless they act we will probably have to intervene in Sudan becuause Kofi Annon and the rest of Europe could care less what happens to black Christians at the hands of militant muslims.

As was the case in Iraq, we must focus on security first before we can effectively address the humanitarian issues. That isn't callous- its good sense. There is a valuable lesson to be taken from the Oil-for-Food scandal.

Do you not remember we stopped humanitarian disasters and genocide in Kosovo, Rawanda, Somalia, Haiti? Other than altruism - what motivated our actions there?

[Evilmav2]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang

People who supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq did not do so because of Saddam's mistreatment of his own citizens.

My, that's an awfully crass statement...

I sure as heck supported the American-led liberation of Iraq, and I find it greatly insulting that you, or anyone else would cast ill-informed, insidious aspersions against the reasons for my aforementioned support. I believe in American exceptionalism, and in the traditions of individual freedom that spawned that exceptionalism; I believe that the United States is the 'Last, Best Hope of Mankind'; And I darned well believe that the spread of freedom and individual rights around the world is as strong a guarantor of our, and our children's future as can possibly exist, and furthermore, I believe that those freedoms should be the inherent right of any human being.

And as far as Iraq is concerned, I believe that the dauntless strivings and deep sacrifices that have been made by our brave servicemen, along with those of our brave allies, and of the newly awakening, liberated, free-Iraqi forces, have effected a momentous good in turning back the dark tides of Mohammaden madness and murder that killed thousands of American mothers and fathers 3 1/2 years ago. That said, I also believe that those sacrifices would have all gone for naught if the American people had been craven and cowardly enough to retreat from Iraq after we had put paid to the Baathist criminal regime (that was a decision that they happily made last Nov. 2), without helping to foster the democracy and freedoms that we here in the West take for granted, and as I said, I find it absolutely crass that you evidently feel fit to throw out blanket statements indicting any folk's who supported the coalitions' liberation of Iraq as being unconcerned with the freedom of ordinary Iraqi's, or about the murderous practices of the Baathist thugs who for so long held the Iraqi nation cowering under their iron staves of tyranny and blood.

I personally believe that Iraqi's, as all peoples, have the capacity and indeed the right to live in freedom, and I found the depredations of the Saddam torture-state to be horrifically abhorrent, and I would bet that I am not alone amongst folks who supported the liberation of Iraq in holding to that belief. You may choose to adhere to a cynical, leftist cant, declaring that the 'invasion' of Iraq was an action brought about by corporatist, American oil-lust and through sheer, warmongering, evil-chimp, neo-con, Bush Jr. madness- and that the 'red-state', 'Jesusland', under-educated folks of the South and Midwest certainly don't (and didn't) care about ending the excesses of Baathist tyranny, and the terrible conditions and plight under which normal Iraqi's were forced to live in the Saddam police state- but if you do, I say more fool you. More folks than you know optimistically hope for the health, and world-wide propogation of American democracy and freedom, and I would consider it a shame if you, and folks who might hold similar views to your own, could be dark-minded enough to not realize that....

[sturm und drang]

Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Haiti. I'll buy altruism when the US intervenes as but one member of international coalition (often UN) forces. With the support of – and often at the behest of – the rest of the world, yes.

But as reverse-justification of an invasion that the majority of other nations denounced? Um, no. And then to claim that "red staters" care more for the Iraqi people than "blue staters?" Please.

[Evilmav2]

Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Haiti. I'll buy altruism when the US intervenes as but one member of international coalition (often UN) forces. With the support of – and often at the behest of – the rest of the world, yes.

How about Haiti? We helped to facilitate Mr. Aristide's removal from power, we continue to ship enormous amounts of material aid to the beleagured country, and the situation on the ground is slowly improving. The island nation was on the verge of a mass-bloodletting and civil war last year, and the prudent actions of the Bush administration helped to prevent that tragedy from occuring, much as they did in Liberia the year before.

As for Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia... That blood is on the well-manicured, "foreign policy by poll", hands of the Clinton administration...

But as reverse-justification of an invasion that the majority of other nations denounced? Um, no. And then to claim that "red staters" care more for the Iraqi people than "blue staters?" Please.

There's no reverse justification going on here. As many long-time afficianados of this site could attest, long before the 3rd ID went rumbling across the Kuwaiti border, I became engaged in some pretty heated arguments concerning the legitimacy of crushing the Baathist fascist state for precisely the reasons that you say supporters of the invasion, "did not do so". I argued then that we should crush the Iraqi snakes because they posed a developing danger to the United States and quite specifically, because Saddam and his Baathist cabal were mass murderers and criminals who were guilty of perpetrating the worst kinds of tortures and criminal depredations upon the peoples of Mesopotamia- and any rudimentary search of posts on this site would show that.

And as far as the red-state/blue-state stuff... I never said that 'red staters' cared more about the liberation of Iraq than 'blue staters', and I personally find those terms to be somewhat offensive, as I think they are simplistic, insulting generalizations that have become tony for snide folks on the coasts, in academia, and in the media to use as a subtext in their continual disparagement of folks who live in the South and the Midwest as being 'Jesusland', gay marriage-banning, undeducated, anti-abortion yahoos .

[sturm und drang]

We agree on one point, Evilmav. Dude was the one who proclaimed that "red staters" care more for the good of the Iraqi people than "blue staters." I, too, find this to be a contrived and overly-simplistic lens through which to view the world generally and this issue specifically.

But if the invasion of Iraq was undertaken on behalf of the mistreated Iraqis under Saddam, then why have we done nothing in the Sudan - a massacre so nefarious that even Colin Powell called it (gasp) "genocide?" If the invasion of Iraq was undertaken on behalf of the mistreated Iraqis under Saddam, why are we doing nothing in North Korea - a country in which MILLIONS have died due to starvation alone because their insane despot refuses Western food aid?

I'm not saying you and other Americans don't care for the welfare of Iraqis. No, indeed. I am, however, saying that the Bush administration did not invade Iraq to save helpless Iraqis. If that were the case, then why haven't we done anything in these other countries - countries in which, many could argue, the situation is far more dire?

[Usually Lurkin]

I'm sorry Sturm, but that's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard.
Do you give to charity?
Do you give to all charities?
If your answer is yes to the first, and no to the second, does that mean that you give to charity out of powerlust and a need to monopolize world oil markets?

[Evilmav2]

Now, the North Korean problem is a dreadfully difficult beast, but I would be remiss to not admit that I have been disapointed in the lack of US action in the Sudan. In my opinion, the despicable, slave trading, organized-rapist bands of 'Janjaweed', North-Sudanese Muslims have for too long been allowed a free hand in wreaking havoc and death amongst Black Africans in the South of that immense territory, and one of the few foreign policy points that I can fault the Bush administration with, is the fact that we have left the impetus to salve this matter in the shaky and mildly corrupt hands of the UN and EU.

Although American arms have been stretched very thin by our continued war against Jihadist fanaticism, I would be very happy if the US assumed the onus of ending genocide in the Sudan- either through a strong, concerted exertion of diplomatic pressure (which would assuredly have to be backed by the threat of military intervention), or by selectively unleashing the powers of American revolutionary intervention- an intervention perhaps consisting of the judicious supply of a couple of thousand surplus assault rifles and rocket-grenades to the oppressed Christian, South-Sudanese Africans, along with the kind of nastily effective 'De Oppresso Libre' military training that American green beret's specialize in offering. I would confidently imagine that an execution of the latter option might well exert a far more substantial effect in suppressing and punishing the murderous, Mohammaden Janjaweed militia's than any conceivable UN or EU diplomatic or humanitarian initiatives could hope to do...

[sturm und drang]

One of the worst arguments you've ever heard, UL? Really?

I didn't specify which ulterior motives we might've had for invading Iraq, now did I? No. All I said was that it's disingenous to claim that we invaded Iraq to free the Iraqis. (And, subsequently, that "red staters" care more for the rights of Iraqis than "blue staters" do.)

If you argue the opposite - that we did invade Iraq to free the Iraqis - then I have to question why such lofty humanitarian goals do not apply to the Sudan or North Korea. If our motive is purely altruistic, then why does that altruism NOT apply to other countries, other people?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
One of the worst arguments you've ever heard, UL? Really?

yes.

this is faulty:

If you argue the opposite - that we did invade Iraq to free the Iraqis - then I have to question why such lofty humanitarian goals do not apply to the Sudan or North Korea. If our motive is purely altruistic, then why does that altruism NOT apply to other countries, other people?

You're implying that since we haven't invade the Sudan and North Korea, we weren't motivated in Iraq to liberate Iraqies. It's nonsisical. I might as well ask you if your condributions to a few charities are altruistic, then why don't you contribute to all charities?
If you give to the heart hospital of dallas, but not to the american heart association, does that mean that you didn't give to the hospital for altruistic reasons?

If you want to argue that there were other motives for invading Iraq, then do so. Just be rational.