Abuse in Iraq as bad or worse than in Saddam's day: Allawi

for enjoying blood so much that it never came into the equation.

sent the UN in. Once they knew there were no WMD. They should have let the inspectors hang out for another half year - and then insisted on Saddam leaving or elections. Or taken Saddam to a third country like he asked. And then started ICC proceedings. Yes - they should not have gone in with their neocon lab experiment. Saddam was an issue but a few more months and they would have known how well he was contained and they could have insisted on UN missions to feed the people that were not getting fed.

Tragic for the people there. I hope - U.S. dialing down its numbers will mean the insurgency finally deals.

I recall Saddam was "overwhelmingly re-elected". I suspect if he had held elections again, the result would have been the same.

about to prove without a doubt that Saddam had no WMD - the fear he had over the west & the UN would have been gone. And everyone would have showed up to monitor that election.

It is downplayed just how much knowing Saddam had reconstituted NOTHING would have emboldened the UN and like groups.

There's no reason for him to allow anyone to monitor the elections. International organizations would either leave or be kicked out, and he would be free to terrorize his people into an overwhelming reelection again. Just my opinion, though...

And could have insisted that he allow continued inspections. Saddam was a terror but only when he had the monopoly on information about his arms programs. After he kicked the UN out.

The UN would have had the upper hand. If Saddam and broken another deal - the UN could have gone in 1) with enough troops 2) with UN procurement laws that would have seen contracts go to Iraqis & Sunnis too if they were not too bathist - and the insurgency would not have started (who would they make the enemy? The UN?) and abu Ghirab would not have taken place.

"the UN arms inspectors were about to prove without a doubt that Saddam had no WMD's" then there would have been no reason for them to remain. At that point, the sanctions would end, and the inspectors would leave, their job being done. Once Hussein was "in compliance" with the UN resolutions, it would be wrong for the UN to remain.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you were saying, but if you were suggesting that the UN was about to prove that there were no WMD's in Iraq just before the war started (and I'm not sure how they would prove the negative), why would the UN have any leverage against him after that? He would be in compliance. It's not the UN's place to force elections in sovereign nations, or to remove leaders who are not violating UN resolutions. If it was wrong for the US to go into Iraq, why would it have been okay after another UN resolution? If there was no valid reason for the US to invade, why would be there be any valid reason for the UN to invade?

And once he renegged on that deal he had broken UN law #10 or so. The UN could have insisted on continued inspections as part of the deal. Saddam was willing to deal. For sure he would have tried to get out of it - but the UN would have had the power and the balls to go in. If he didn't hold elections within a year.

"the UN arms inspectors were about to prove without a doubt that Saddam had no WMD", isn't it rather dishonest to pass a resolution requiring Hussein to get rid of weapons they know he doesn't have in order to try to force regime change? If they knew he didn't have the weapons, or at least believed that he didn't have WMD's, wouldn't they be going to war based on a lie?

Also, how would requiring elections have removed him from power unless they prohibited him from running? I'm not sure if they have the authority to do that (prohibit a candidate from running in an election).

of his aggresive war and human rights violations. They had had that authority for ten years already. Why would that authority just vanish into thin air?

Obviously he could not run. Obviously free & fair elections could not take place with him in power. Who would allow that in any discussion?

He was being monitored for his war crimes and his use of WMD and attempt to acquire nukes already. He would have had the UN on his tail till he was deposed. They could have waited till the inspectors reported back with a final report. He had already broken many UN sanctions.

Fact is the UN - had they had the results of the latest inspections - would have had lots of cards.

We wanted the oil. Sadaam could have proven he was descended from Jesus Christ and it wouldn't have made any difference.

The reason this argument continues and never gets resolved is because it's a specious argument to begin with.

It wasn't about WMDs or about bringing democracy blah blah, or about Sadaam trying to kill Bush's daddy. Georgie doesn't care who dies, as long as it isn't him. It's the oil.

horrid. So why they have an obsession. Human Rights groups also have an obsession with Saddam (or they did).

He was a monster.

Oil was part of the war.

But not all of it.

And nobody cared that Saddam made himself "god" before he attacked & gassed the villages. And his human rights record showed a pattern of murder of civilians in retribution for any political acts and the odd assasination attempt. Afterwards - they didn't like him. And then he attacked Kuwait.

had the WMD's issue gone away, as politicians from member nations were already demanding that sanctions be lifted. Article from 2002

From "Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction Originally from Harper's Magazine, November 2002. By Joy Gordon."
"Although support for the sanctions has eroded considerably, the sanctions are maintained by “reverse veto” in the Security Council. Because the sanctions did not have an expiration date built in, ending them would require another resolution by the council. The United States (and Britain) would be in a position to veto any such resolution even though the sanctions on Iraq have been openly opposed by three permanent members—France, Russia, and China—for many years, and by many of the elected members as well. The sanctions, in effect, cannot be lifted until the United States agrees."

http://www.harpers.org/CoolWar.html?pg=1

but given the previous resolutions( I had to look these up) 661 (1990), 678 (1990), 686 (1991), 687 (1991), 688 (1991), 707 (1991) , 715 (1991), 986 (1995), 1284 (1999), 1382 (2001), 1441 (2002), why is there any reason to believe that the UN should pass ANOTHER resolution and THIS TIME, they'd have the authority and the determination to back it up. Look, I guess here's what I'm saying, there was no reason FOR ANYONE to go into Iraq, not the US, not the NATO, not the UN. This was all about the oil. * invaded to get it.

arms inspectors on the ground who dismantled or made sure all programs were dismantled. What happened was that Saddam just closed the doors one day.

Authority never went away.

Under your scenario, the UN would pass another resolution, presumably about WMD's, to force him to disarm and allow inspectors back in. According to your statement "the UN arms inspectors were about to prove without a doubt that Saddam had no WMD".

So, lets say the resolution is passed (presumably it would be written and passed after March 18, 2003, when the weapons inspectors actually left). And lets say that Hussein accepts it. There is no US invasion... How long until UN announces what it already knew, that Iraq has no WMD? Shortly after that happens (whenever it happens), the UN has to pull out. It's objective has been met. Does the UN finish up the job quickly because there's almost nothing left to do? If so, then Hussein gets his country back before elections ever take place. Does the UN drag their feet, and although they know there are no weapons, they keep saying "the job's not done yet" so they can stay in Iraq for as long as they feel like, base on false pretenses? Isn't that sort of like what * is doing now?

Were Hussein not to accept this new resolution, let's say the UN were to go to war. Why would they be going to war? Would it be because Iraq has WMD's? The UN has no evidence of that, in fact, they were about to PROVE the opposite, according to your statement. So the UN would be going to war because Hussein violated a UN resolution, and didn't allow inspectors back in. Troops would be sent to Iraq to die not because of any WMD's (which there is no evidence of), but because of another in a long line of violated UN resolution.

The war is about oil. There's no justification for it, you can pass all the resolutions you want, but it won't make it right. Just my opinion, anyway.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There are all manner of people doing all kinds of things with and without our consent. Human rights abuses could be happening over there completely out of sight and out of control of our military, which I believe does respect the Geneva conventions.

believing side.

...but Allawi seemed to be referring to Iraqi troops, not American troops. Which is still pretty alarming, considering we're supposed to be training them.

using what worked so well in El Salvador.

NCFUBAR

I for "Ignoble".

The criminals in charge are without any sense of nobility.

2 1/2 years into our Oil Theft.

Mohammad cuts in and begins his plea. He is from the Julan district of Fallujah, where much of the heaviest fighting occurred, and continues to occur. "They call us terrorists when we live in the city. We own the city. We didn't go to fight the Americans – they came to our city to fight us. Fallujans are defending our city, our houses, our mosques, our honor. Iyad Allawi says we are his family – can you attack your family, Allawi? Do you attack your own family, Allawi?"

http://antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=4039

Citing both the shutdown of al-Jazeera's Baghdad office last weekend and a series of recent policies enacted by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, critics fear that Iraq's media environment is in danger of becoming as stifling as it was under former dictator Saddam Hussein.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/shumway.php?articleid=3275

we found that Prime Minister Iyad Allawi imposed a law that gave the Americans the right to detain any Iraqi any time they want. Now we are seriously trying to change this law, so the Americans will not be allowed to detain any Iraqi, and if they want to detain someone, they should ask for permission from the Ministry of Interior or Defense."

http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=6750

Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has ordered everyone except Iraqi and U.S. troops to observe a strict curfew in Fallujah and nearby Ramadi, though it is unclear how well the directive has been conveyed to residents, or if an exemption has been made for medical personnel, in accordance with international law. It is also unclear how noncombatants will be able to observe a strict curfew when much of the city's running water and electricity has been cut off, according to several witnesses including Fadhil Badrani, a Fallujah resident who is issuing regular reports to the BBC. There is not a single surgeon in Fallujah. We had one ambulance hit by U.S. fire and a doctor wounded." "There are scores of injured civilians in their homes whom we can't move," al-Jumaili continued. "A 13-year-old child just died in my hands."

"Human rights abuses in Iraq now are as bad, or worse, than they when Saddam Hussein was in power"

We should duct tape those words to every thing the GOP does, or tries to do, for the next 20 years.

DON'T PLAY NICE!

this horrible dirty mess?

What have we had so far?
I know of 'Shock and Awe' and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Certainly we're beyond those. I know that they had a quaint name for the Falluja massacre. I just can't remember what it was.

Can anyone help me here. Surely some of you have better memories that I do. By the way, what do we call the 'Mission Accomplished' phase? Operation OOPS?

or something like that

This is the reality and it is endorsed and condoned by American cold war operators of El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Columbian experience.

Without any sort of trial. He's in no position to talk, methinks.

Here's the story.

http://ww1.sundayherald.com/43458

is reported to have carried out extra-judicial executions of six people at a Baghdad police station.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/16/1089694568757.html

The allegation was first raise by Paul McGeogh of the Sydney Morning Herald and confirmed by Jon Lee Anderson in the New Yorker on January 17 in an article entitled “A Man of the Shadows

An investigation on execution claims were promised.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/16/1089694568757.html

Does anyone know if there was an investigation?

Those were the words of a man on the street of Baghdad. ANN news had a cameraman there.

That sent a chill through my body. What has my government done to my country's image?

I wouldn't consider myself a Democrat or a Republican, I take more left-wing stances on issues than I do right-wing...

Right here, I'm taking the 'right-wing' stance. I have just completed a tour of duty in Iraq. And let me tell you something. Saying that we are torturing Iraqis worse than Saddam is a crock of bullshit! When I was there, I saw what the enemy was really like. I was involved in several combat situations, and saw those bastards fire at civillians.
I helped uncover the mangled and tortured corpses from mass graves that were created by Saddam.
A friend of mine is a guard at Guantanamo Bay Prison, and told me of the 'torture' they practiced. And let me tell you something, it is rare to even see any physical harm done to a prisoner.
My dad was in the Gulf War. He had told me stories, of men hacking eachother with machetes. And now, I've seen the evil of these terrorists personally. My friends, these people do not deserve your sympathy. And do not take in this crap... It just isn't the truth.

"A friend of mine is a guard at Guantanamo Bay Prison, and told me of the 'torture' they practiced."

yeah, lets believe some anonymous friend of some anonymous guy on the internet instead of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and the DOD's own friggin' reports.

You might as well pull a Duncan Hunter and start bragging about lemon chicken and rice.

"And let me tell you something, it is rare to even see any physical harm done to a prisoner"

And you base this on WHAT, exactly? Never having been there? Talking to a possibly imaginary friend who may or may not have been there at some undetermined time? You have no basis for making that statement.

Guantanamo is a stain on our nation, a horrible monstrosity that's against all this so-called freedom you're supposedly fighting for.

"I helped uncover the mangled and tortured corpses from mass graves that were created by Saddam. "

where were these graves? how many corpses? and how did you spot signs of torture on long-decomposed bodies?

and how exactly did you uncover these graves? They assigned troops to randomly dig holes all over the place? No wonder chaos reigned, looters ran rampant, and security was non-existant.

No need to get pissed now, just because someone claims that America isn't the evil one. I will answer your questions.
I was in Baghdad at the time. The site was located at a southern location in the city. And we recieved no orders to dig up randomly. After Saddam had fled office, it was the citizens who had reported missing relatives who decided to dig. Once a couple of skeletons were found, we were put into action to professionally excavate the area. We uncovered around 5,000 or so skeletons. We did have a lack of men able to perform forensic studies, but some accounts of beatings were obvious by looking at fractures in the bones.

And we did have problems with security. Many civillians came to see the site, which was a problem, because we had to focus our security towards oncoming insurgents. And it's not easy when you have hundreds of people coming to either mourn or loot.

Also I might add about the torture. If what you're saying is true, then the Red Cross and the other orginizations are misguided on what they think torture is. All forms of interrogation are approved by a medical proffessional to assure no long-term physical harm.

Why is it so hard to believe that America isn't what is evil in this world? We are fighting people who behead civillians for god sakes!

Fucking SICK! Torture is torture, there is no goddamn wiggle room. There are no gray areas, despite what Gonzales would like. Or do you want to get strapped to a board, get nearly drowned, and let us know how nice it all was?

"All forms of interrogation are approved by a medical proffessional to assure no long-term physical harm. "

short-term physical harm is just fine, right? and somehow not torture. Its only torture if its long-term?

So you say 5000 skeletons in Baghdad, huh? Funny how the only place 5000 were found was in Basra, from the 91 uprising. Not Baghdad torture victims.

If security was so light, you'd think some of them had cameras. You'd think at least FOX News would've reported it. But no mention of 5000 skeletons in Baghdad.

Did you do a quick google, and somehow misread "southern city of Basra" as "southern part of Baghdad?" Honest mistake or complete hogwash? Someone who served in Iraq would never mistake Basra for southern Baghdad - its like saying that Miami was the "southern part of Atlanta."

I knew your story smelled fishy... but go on, prove me wrong.

"Why is it so hard to believe that America isn't what is evil in this world?"

who the hell said that? Who are you arguing with, me, or some madeup Michael Moore of the Mind? Stick to what I actually said.

"We are fighting people who behead civillians for god sakes! "

yeah, and we cluster bomb 'em, dump white phosphorous on 'em, beat em, rape em, and take pictures. Clearly they are the subhuman barbarians, and we have the moral high ground.

The whole thing was based on a lie, and brought nothing but pain, misery, and death. Its not going to go away by pretending only the "enemies" are the brutal ones.

All you have to do is look at the few pictures of Al Gharaib that they have released to know this is fact. Ignoring evidence of our own guilt does not make it go away.

Sometimes, when you're in the middle of something, you don't really see the full picture because you get caught up in the action. Time and space can provide a better perspective of the real picture.

If we're not doing anything bad, then why are there tons of pictures and videos that they refuse to release to the public and allow us to see?

And do you honestly believe that the Red Cross knows less than you do about what constitutes torture? Do you really think that it isn't possible to torture someone without inflicting long term physical harm? I mean, I could strap some electrodes to your genitals and zap you with enough electricity to cause you extreme pain, and still not leave you with long term physical damage.

From right here, it sort of looks like you're colluding with the Bushies in there attempt to redefine what torture is, and it isn't very attractive.

thank you for sharing your observations.

I am curious as to your feelings about the mercinaries in Iraq, contracted by our government (Blackwater et al).

I realize that you are most likely not at liberty to discuss very much, but can you tell us what our troops on the ground think of their activities?

I don't believe there should be any mercenaries in Iraq. I never met any while I was there. But to my understanding, they get in the way of real soldiers and are difficult to regulate. The job is more effecient without them.

and I find it hard to believe you never met a "civilian contractor."

they are all over the place, driving the trucks, serving the rotten food, protecting high level functionaries, etc.

where were you stationed that you somehow didn't see a single contractor/merc?

in Baghdad, you never saw a single one of these taxpayer-fattened hogs?

Will be headed there in February.

:sarcasm:

Stay safe and come home in one piece.

I'll trust an Iraqi before someone who went to Iraq carrying a gun.
They were there before you arrived. And they'll be there after you leave.

Well, the article is talking about the ministry, not American troops.

And there have been many recent allegations of abuse (read: Abu Ghraib).

I know they kill civilians, and that's why I think they're shitfucks.

But I don't believe in any form of torture. For anyone.

I stand by our troops, but I don't believe in torture.

look for the RW pundits start to tone down their anti-Saddam rhetoric.

Look for Cheney to say in a Fox News interview, "No one ever said Saddam was a bad guy" and watch the interviewer nod his head.

And, looking at my calander the sign is correct. The election is almost two weeks away.

Saddam never tortured and killed them in the name of "freedom and democracy".

:banghead:

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

And There Are Weapons of Mass Destruction
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

And They Hate Our Freedom
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

just makes me think Bush and co are dumber than I thought?

Meet the new boss,
same as the old boss.


- The Who

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday November 27, 2005
The Observer


Human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein and are even in danger of eclipsing his record, according to the country's first Prime Minister after the fall of Saddam's regime.
'People are doing the same as Saddam's time and worse,' Ayad Allawi told The Observer. 'It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things.'

In a damning and wide-ranging indictment of Iraq's escalating human rights catastrophe, Allawi accused fellow Shias in the government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centres. The brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Saddam's secret police, he said. <snip>

'We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated,' he added. 'A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Sharia courts based on Islamic law that are trying people and executing them.' He said that immediate action was needed to dismantle militias that continue to operate with impunity. If nothing is done, 'the disease infecting will become contagious and spread to all ministries and structures of Iraq's government', he said. <snip>

Responding to the former prime minister's comments, Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, said: 'It is inconceivable in the higher reaches of the command of the multinational forces that there was not an awareness of what is being done by some Iraqis to their own countrymen. 'The assertions by Mr Allawi simply underline the catastrophic failure to have a proper strategy in place for the post-war period in Iraq.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1651789,00.html

This is just his "reach out to the Sunni" campaign speech. He's hoping that he can get enough secular Sunni-Shiite votes to get back into office as PM again.

He is kind of undercutting the last rationale that Bush had for this war, though.

What are you trying to do, re-write history?!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

From an international viewpoint, he's slamming the last nail into the rational for war coffin: Saddam was a bad, bad man & we (the US) can do better.

But his comments are aimed at the domestic audience: Iraqis voted Allawi out of office and voted in the Da'wa-SCIRI coalition and what they got was basically a Shiite version of the Saddam Ba'ath regime.

As they say in Iraq, vote Allawi - vote early, vote often

I see no reason not to believe it. In every other respect , the Iraqis are worse off then before the war. Why should this be any different?

handcuffed prisoners shortly before taking the reins following the punting of sovereignty...
Allawi shot prisoners in cold blood: witnesses

Not to mention the same Allawi who had torture at the Interior Ministry occurring on his own watch.

And now he says things are bad?

I'd say in that case it must be several orders of magnitude beyond bad.

He's doing the same thing as Saddam while criticizing others. We continue to put these monsters in power - this is so disgusting it makes me sick.

:puke:

It makes no difference that these atrocities are being committed by Iraqis. They have the sanction of the Occupying Military Forces.

They can vote out their government.

And I assume he means what he says.......

In every war people die. Both sides hurt and kill. This is the nature of war.

days. Someone remind me why we are there again.