Epistle to Foudroyaume - Installment II
Following are the next five statements from Foudroyaume's comments on John Murney's blog together with my response. Again, Foud's remarks are in bold italics. The reason I have dealt with all five of them is the single unifying thread in all of them is what appears to be Foud's complete lack of awareness of what life was like for Iraqis under Saddam Hussein.
"SH had his victims, (some, like the Kurds, haven't been treated any better in supposedly free countries, like Turkey), but it's not like the country was subject to constant feuding between thugs and fanatics."
Yes, there was no feuding between thugs and fanatics. Any one in opposition to the regime was murdered. Simple as that. Estimates vary as to the number of Iraqis killed by the regime for political activity, but I'll pick 300,000 as a reasonable middle ground. If you include the number of war dead from the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait that number soars to well over a million.
And about the Kurds, I presume you have heard of the Anfal Campaign and other incidents of oppression and brutality, and yes, Kurds in Turkey and elsewhere are treated badly, but only Hussein used chemical weapons, killing tens of thousands. His Regime was responsible for arbitrary arrests and assassinations, disappearances, and for sending thousands to seek asylum in other countries and need I mention the mass graves. Only 270 of them. Perhaps that's not enough.
"Also, unlke (sic) Afghanistan, where the mass of hardship was caused by the ruling regime and their opponent factions, Iraq's biggest problems were due to American sanctions."
Here's some reading for you Foud. Here, here, here , here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. This one has a segment of the film by Iraqi Kurd, Jano Rosebiani, who is a member of a panel discussing the war. You'll notice toward the end that Rosebiani is critical about the job done by the media. No. Iraq's biggest problem was it's tyrannical government. I have lots more on that theme below and can give you even more, if you want it.
I agree that regular Iraqi people were the principal victims of the sanctions, but Saddam Hussein had the capacity to end that. He didn't, of course. Rather, he made it worse and exploited it, creating propaganda out of his distorted depiction of their effects. When the impact became known, the sanctions were modified with the introduction of the Oil-for-Food program in 1995, and I'm sure you must know how that turned out.
But why folks persist in calling them "American" sanctions needs some explaining. The fact is, they were imposed by the UN Security Council when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Americans did impose their own sanctions, as well and while they may have been instrumental in getting the UN to impose sanctions, they were UN sanctions. Lifting the sanctions was, in fact, one of the reasons for the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. It was the United Nations that lifted them on May 23, 2003, two months after the invasion.
"I think the people of Iraq on average would have benefitted (sic) more from lifting sanctions (which would have helped foster a friendlier attitude to the west--"
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, Foud but I presume you think the attitude of Iraqis toward the West would have improved had Saddam Hussein been left in power. I'm not sure we could ever know that, since that's not how it turned out. But I would state unequivocally that Iraqis are far less likely to be unfriendly toward the West than other Arabs now, especially since they can now speak without fear and have no compelling reason to repeat the nauseous rhetoric of Arab Nationalism, which is so common in the rest of the Arab world. An illustration of that fact is documented here.
Iraqi opposition groups were consulted prior to the invasion. They all agreed that Saddam Hussein must be removed. It's hard to understand how anyone would think that leaving him there would be in Iraq's better interests.
"SH, unlike Taliban leaders, cared about public opinion and mayb (sic) have been willing to enter into mutually beneficial negotions (sic) if he sensed a pro-western attitude growing in Iraq--he was an opportunist, not an ideologue."
Saddam Hussein cared nothing about public opinion, other than that he be adored and obeyed. Opinions of the West about him were irrelevant. He was offered the option of going into exile. He accepted on condition that he be given $1 billion and all the information he needed on weapons of mass destruction. In other words, he would leave if he could take the means of building a WMD program in exile. That link, by the way, provides a nice summary of the decade long cat and mouse game that Saddam played with the West and with the UN. Here is another summary. This is not a man who would negotiate anything. A study of his rise to power easily shows the only thing he knows is brute thuggery. The notion that he would respond favourably to a "pro-western attitude growing in Iraq" is ludicrous on its face. No such "attitude" would be allowed to grow. Foud, you have no concept of the depth and breadth of his iron grip and the ruthlessness of his apparatus of terror.
"The Taliban, on the other hand, are whackos with guns who maintained a state in which constant terror was the norm for most. As a result of their religious-centerd (sic) governance, Afghanistan is decades behind in infrastructure and services (Iraq, by contrast, is quite modern)."
First of all, Foud, you describe the Taliban regime as one which maintained a state in which constant terror was the norm for most, as if the same was not true of Saddam Hussein. While you may be right about the Taliban, you couldn't be more wrong about Saddam Hussein. I would recommend you read "The Republic of Fear" by Kanan Makiya or "Saddam: King of Terror" by British journalist Con Coughlin or the copious writings and interviews given by Christopher Hitchens. Read the testimonies of legions of Iraqi exiles and families whose members have disappeared, whose testimonies have been collected here and here and here and here, to name only a few.
The last of the four links above describes a massive file of documents discovered in an underground labyrinth containing "three million files with new insights into the regime's repression and depravity". You'll note that among those files "(t)here is a blacklist of schoolchildren, a register of every schoolchild in Iraq, listing their relatives and their supposed political affiliations. If a file recorded that a brother or an uncle had been executed for political reasons, that child was blighted." I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I read that particular one, as likely you would too. But mine was a little different, because I was able to recall a conversation I was once privy to when I would have been in my late 20s or early 30s (late 1970s or early 1980s, I believe). My ex-husband's cousin visited us from Iraq and told us of what was happening. Saddam Hussein or his henchmen would visit schools and ask the children to tell him what their parents said about him. The little innocents, too young to know better, would sometimes reveal that their parents opposed his regime. Within days, the adults in the family would be arrested, murdered or disappeared. When I read about this registry, I felt certain that that story must be connected.
If that's not enough for you, read though the archives of agencies like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. Read the reports and testimony of the UN Special Rapporteur, Max Von der Stoel, on the gravity of the situation in Iraq under the Butcher of Baghdad in the 1990 and again in 1999. Von der Stoel described the atrocities committed by the Ba'athist regime as "the worst since World War II". Your perception of pre-war Iraq is tragically devoid of even the most rudimentary facts. What a shame that someone with your level of intellect would pass judgments on one of the most horrific regimes of the 20th century with such a paucity of knowledge.
"SH had his victims, (some, like the Kurds, haven't been treated any better in supposedly free countries, like Turkey), but it's not like the country was subject to constant feuding between thugs and fanatics."
Yes, there was no feuding between thugs and fanatics. Any one in opposition to the regime was murdered. Simple as that. Estimates vary as to the number of Iraqis killed by the regime for political activity, but I'll pick 300,000 as a reasonable middle ground. If you include the number of war dead from the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait that number soars to well over a million.
And about the Kurds, I presume you have heard of the Anfal Campaign and other incidents of oppression and brutality, and yes, Kurds in Turkey and elsewhere are treated badly, but only Hussein used chemical weapons, killing tens of thousands. His Regime was responsible for arbitrary arrests and assassinations, disappearances, and for sending thousands to seek asylum in other countries and need I mention the mass graves. Only 270 of them. Perhaps that's not enough.
"Also, unlke (sic) Afghanistan, where the mass of hardship was caused by the ruling regime and their opponent factions, Iraq's biggest problems were due to American sanctions."
Here's some reading for you Foud. Here, here, here , here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. This one has a segment of the film by Iraqi Kurd, Jano Rosebiani, who is a member of a panel discussing the war. You'll notice toward the end that Rosebiani is critical about the job done by the media. No. Iraq's biggest problem was it's tyrannical government. I have lots more on that theme below and can give you even more, if you want it.
I agree that regular Iraqi people were the principal victims of the sanctions, but Saddam Hussein had the capacity to end that. He didn't, of course. Rather, he made it worse and exploited it, creating propaganda out of his distorted depiction of their effects. When the impact became known, the sanctions were modified with the introduction of the Oil-for-Food program in 1995, and I'm sure you must know how that turned out.
But why folks persist in calling them "American" sanctions needs some explaining. The fact is, they were imposed by the UN Security Council when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Americans did impose their own sanctions, as well and while they may have been instrumental in getting the UN to impose sanctions, they were UN sanctions. Lifting the sanctions was, in fact, one of the reasons for the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. It was the United Nations that lifted them on May 23, 2003, two months after the invasion.
"I think the people of Iraq on average would have benefitted (sic) more from lifting sanctions (which would have helped foster a friendlier attitude to the west--"
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, Foud but I presume you think the attitude of Iraqis toward the West would have improved had Saddam Hussein been left in power. I'm not sure we could ever know that, since that's not how it turned out. But I would state unequivocally that Iraqis are far less likely to be unfriendly toward the West than other Arabs now, especially since they can now speak without fear and have no compelling reason to repeat the nauseous rhetoric of Arab Nationalism, which is so common in the rest of the Arab world. An illustration of that fact is documented here.
Iraqi opposition groups were consulted prior to the invasion. They all agreed that Saddam Hussein must be removed. It's hard to understand how anyone would think that leaving him there would be in Iraq's better interests.
"SH, unlike Taliban leaders, cared about public opinion and mayb (sic) have been willing to enter into mutually beneficial negotions (sic) if he sensed a pro-western attitude growing in Iraq--he was an opportunist, not an ideologue."
Saddam Hussein cared nothing about public opinion, other than that he be adored and obeyed. Opinions of the West about him were irrelevant. He was offered the option of going into exile. He accepted on condition that he be given $1 billion and all the information he needed on weapons of mass destruction. In other words, he would leave if he could take the means of building a WMD program in exile. That link, by the way, provides a nice summary of the decade long cat and mouse game that Saddam played with the West and with the UN. Here is another summary. This is not a man who would negotiate anything. A study of his rise to power easily shows the only thing he knows is brute thuggery. The notion that he would respond favourably to a "pro-western attitude growing in Iraq" is ludicrous on its face. No such "attitude" would be allowed to grow. Foud, you have no concept of the depth and breadth of his iron grip and the ruthlessness of his apparatus of terror.
"The Taliban, on the other hand, are whackos with guns who maintained a state in which constant terror was the norm for most. As a result of their religious-centerd (sic) governance, Afghanistan is decades behind in infrastructure and services (Iraq, by contrast, is quite modern)."
First of all, Foud, you describe the Taliban regime as one which maintained a state in which constant terror was the norm for most, as if the same was not true of Saddam Hussein. While you may be right about the Taliban, you couldn't be more wrong about Saddam Hussein. I would recommend you read "The Republic of Fear" by Kanan Makiya or "Saddam: King of Terror" by British journalist Con Coughlin or the copious writings and interviews given by Christopher Hitchens. Read the testimonies of legions of Iraqi exiles and families whose members have disappeared, whose testimonies have been collected here and here and here and here, to name only a few.
The last of the four links above describes a massive file of documents discovered in an underground labyrinth containing "three million files with new insights into the regime's repression and depravity". You'll note that among those files "(t)here is a blacklist of schoolchildren, a register of every schoolchild in Iraq, listing their relatives and their supposed political affiliations. If a file recorded that a brother or an uncle had been executed for political reasons, that child was blighted." I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I read that particular one, as likely you would too. But mine was a little different, because I was able to recall a conversation I was once privy to when I would have been in my late 20s or early 30s (late 1970s or early 1980s, I believe). My ex-husband's cousin visited us from Iraq and told us of what was happening. Saddam Hussein or his henchmen would visit schools and ask the children to tell him what their parents said about him. The little innocents, too young to know better, would sometimes reveal that their parents opposed his regime. Within days, the adults in the family would be arrested, murdered or disappeared. When I read about this registry, I felt certain that that story must be connected.
If that's not enough for you, read though the archives of agencies like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. Read the reports and testimony of the UN Special Rapporteur, Max Von der Stoel, on the gravity of the situation in Iraq under the Butcher of Baghdad in the 1990 and again in 1999. Von der Stoel described the atrocities committed by the Ba'athist regime as "the worst since World War II". Your perception of pre-war Iraq is tragically devoid of even the most rudimentary facts. What a shame that someone with your level of intellect would pass judgments on one of the most horrific regimes of the 20th century with such a paucity of knowledge.
posted by Louise at 9:23 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home