US caused more deaths in Iraq than Saddam: WTI

[brettdale]

ISTANBUL: The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), a grouping of NGOs, intellectuals and writers opposed to the war in Iraq, yesterday accused the United States of causing more deaths in Iraq than ousted president Saddam Hussein.

“With two wars and 13 years of criminal sanctions, the United States have been responsible for more deaths in Iraq than Saddam Hussein,” Larry Everest, a journalist, told hundreds of anti-war activists gathered in Istanbul.

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+Africa&month=June2005&file=World_News200506252425.xml

[Kraklen]

1. US caused all the deaths in Iraq.

Saddam was a U.S. puppet. He gassed the Kurds under our watch and with our gas.

[madeline_con]

3. Absolutely...

Mass Graves: Theirs or Ours?
Will Van Wagenen, Electronic Iraq, 11 June 2005
http://electroniciraq.net/news/2006.shtml


"The US let Saddam's regime do what it did and therefore the massgraves are also the responsibility of the United States. For this reason we don't believe the US came to bring freedom to Iraqis."

[FloridaPat]

5. Sadam didn't gas the Kurds. Iran did. The gas that killed the Kurds had

not been sold to Iraq by US firms. Iran had the gas though.

[Kraklen]

8. No, that's what the CIA said.

Back in the 1980s as a cover story. Back when we wanted Saddam to be the good guy.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Hey.... didn't Bush I tell the people either in the south or in the

north (perhaps in both) that if you rise up against this evil doer (our former golden boy)we will get your back... and then kinda let them get clobbered??? This was after gulf war (massacre) I... if memory serves.....

[madeline_con]

6. yes.

IRAQ AND OCCUPIED KUWAIT
...
U.S. Policy
The manner in which the Iraqi government suppressed the Shi'a revolt in the south and the Kurdish revolt in the north produced some of the most extensive and severe violations of human rights in 1991. Although Human Rights Watch is highly critical of the role of the Bush Administration with respect to these abuses, we do not espouse the view that military intervention was required for humanitarian purposes. Iraq was not the only country in which it might be argued that such intervention was required during 1991 to avert human rights disasters of great proportion.

Yet there are many arguments against military intervention even in such urgent circumstances. Without attempting to set forth those arguments here, it should be noted that the difficulties that attend this question are so great that Human Rights Watch has not yet adopted a policy on this question.

.....

After Iraqi military forces crushed the uprising, senior Bush Administration officials adopted a self-consciously low public profile about the situation in Iraq.129 On April 3, the president picked up the theme that what really was at issue was simply an internal conflict. "I feel frustrated," he said, "any time innocent civilians are being slaughtered. But the U.S. and these other countries with us in this coalition did not go there to settle all the internal affairs of Iraq."130 One senior Administration official told The Washington Post: "Engaging on this issue gains us nothing....This is not a crusade. It is a somewhat painful acceptance of a certain reality. You manage it in as low-key a way as possible and hope you get through it."

more: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/WR92/MEW1-02.htm

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. "I feel frustrated," he said, "any time innocent civilians are being

slaughtered<<


So... if I take up a gun and decide to change the leadership in D.C. I am a "innocent civilian".

Riddle me this... again I say, if Pennsylvania decided that it was going to take out this current administration.... do you think that any "innocent civilians" might end up in harms way??

Karl Rove is a spinless asshole btw.

[madeline_con]

10. "... if Pennsylvania decided ..."

If armed fighters tried to take over, perhaps Washington wouldn't raze entire towns the combatants came from.

[reBel_gyrl]

4. So.... what happens then?

If the International Criminal Court does find Bush, Blair etc. guilty.. what are they going to do? The US doesn't recognize the power or authority of the ICC, so... what can they do? Half of America thinks BushCo is guilty, and WE have yet to do anything, so what can a court with no power (in America's eyes) possibly do? And does anyone wonder about how this is adversley affecting the worlds view of America? More and more nations and peoples HATE us. An impeachment might give us brownie points to other nations, but how much damage has already been done? How many people are going to recognize our athority as the last great super power, and who will care?

[madeline_con]

7. They won't be found guilty.

I think the whole push to get Bolton to the U.N. is to "fix" that body so that nothing can be done about the admin's war crimes.

Bribes and coercion to the right people can make them adopt a resolution, maybe something with some Washingtonese language about how noble it was to crush Saddam because of 9/11 or something equally 'logical'.

[zbdent]

11. Well, the death toll of Iraqis is going to be (soon) more than the number

killed by Saddam - just in this war alone . . .

Besides, weren't the righties spinning (at the time) that it wasn't really his own people that he gassed, since he was still the Republicans' buddy then?

[leftchick]

12. it will end up being many thousands of deaths more than saddam

many years down the line once all the Depleted Uranium deaths and other assorted atrocities have been accounted for.

:(