No humanitarian case for Iraq war, says rights group

[Czar]

Interesting turn

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=485143&host=3&dir=508

The United States and Britain had no justification for invading Iraq either on the grounds of alleged threats from illicit weapons and terrorism, or as a humanitarian mission, an international civil rights group said yesterday.

The failure to find Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction has left President George Bush and Tony Blair claiming that the invasion was on humanitarian grounds, said a hard-hitting annual report of Human Rights Watch. It said that the West had done nothing when Saddam massacred Kurds and Shias in the past, and there was no evidence of any continuing mass killings at the start of the war in March 2003.

The report claimed that the US and British occupation forces had "sidelined human rights... as a matter of secondary importance. The rule of law has not arrived and Iraq is still beset by the legacy of human rights abuses of the former government, as well as new ones that have emerged under the occupation." The reasons given for war by Mr Bush and Mr Blair - WMD and Saddam's alleged links with international terrorism - hadnot been proved, said Kenneth Roth, executive director of the organisation.

He pointed to recent statements by David Kay, the departing head of the Iraq Survey Group, that WMD were unlikey to be discovered, and said it was unlikely that the Hutton report into the death of David Kelly would say anything different. The document praised the American and British forces for striving to minimise civilian casualties during the air campaign, and also for being much more careful in the use of cluster bombs than in previous conflicts. It condemned the Iraqi resistance for indiscriminately bombing public areas.

The report maintained that it was "irrelevant" that the US had "unclean hands" in its support for Saddam in the past, or that there were other countries which suffered worse internal repression. Neither were good enough arguments against military intervention on proper humanitarian grounds.

However, Human Rights Watch said the US-British attack on Iraq failed to qualify on a number of grounds normally used as a test of justified humanitarian military action.
...

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Go figure. I expect nothing less from the Human Rights Watch Organization.

 

[Moonbeam]

Maybe the war was illegal and maybe it was immoral but we got the oil and that's what counts.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Go figure. I expect nothing less from the Human Rights Watch Organization.

Curiously, the Bushies took to quoting Human Rights Watch during their prelude to war.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Go figure. I expect nothing less from the Human Rights Watch Organization.

Curiously, the Bushies took to quoting Human Rights Watch during their prelude to war.

If what you say is true, that was pretty stupid...the HRWO reminds me of PETA...worthwhile ends, retarded means.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

How the Bush machine will spin:

This part is accurate . . .

The document praised the American and British forces for striving to minimise civilian casualties during the air campaign, and also for being much more careful in the use of cluster bombs than in previous conflicts. It condemned the Iraqi resistance for indiscriminately bombing public areas.

The report maintained that it was "irrelevant" that the US had "unclean hands" in its support for Saddam in the past, or that there were other countries which suffered worse internal repression. Neither were good enough arguments against military intervention on proper humanitarian grounds.

There's no reason to read anything else . . . :Q

 

[MovingTarget]

Hmmm...considering Saddam Hussein's track record of abuses against his own people (kurds, shiites, etc.) and his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait), how much worse would he have to have done to for this group to believe that it would be justified in a humanitarian sense?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Hmmm...considering Saddam Hussein's track record of abuses against his own people (kurds, shiites, etc.) and his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait), how much worse would he have to have done to for this group to believe that it would be justified in a humanitarian sense?

read the article please

 

[Moonbeam]

Did you hear any mention of how we were going to war for humanitarian reasons. Bush campaigned against such idealism.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Hmmm...considering Saddam Hussein's track record of abuses against his own people (kurds, shiites, etc.) and his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait), how much worse would he have to have done to for this group to believe that it would be justified in a humanitarian sense?

read the article please

I did read the article. It just seems more of a political "you should've done this" kind of article. It does say that "there was no evidence of any continuing mass killings at the start of the war in March 2003." But does make mentioin in that statement that these things had occured in the past. We have mentioned those very things many times here on ATPN. It seems more to justify their pov by stating "the West had done nothing when Saddam massacred Kurds and Shias in the past" and that since we hadn't (and probably should have), then we had no business to even take humanitarian reasons into consideration. It just seems more of a political peice then one based on what people were really thinking when justifying the war to themselves. I don't want to jump in that debate, but I don't think that human rights abuses committed by the Hussein regime have a statute of limitations that has passed.

 

[alchemize]

I didn't realize that approval was needed from Human Rights Watch...is there a link to the application form GW needed to fill out?

Or perhaps maybe just maybe Human Rights Watch has something political in mind...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Did you hear any mention of how we were going to war for humanitarian reasons. Bush campaigned against such idealism.

It's pure socialism as Bush strives to reallocate our hard-earned tax dollars and spread it around in Iraq. Those lazy, apathetic Iraqis couldn't even get off their own asses to overthrow that loser Saddam. What business do we have now giving them free stuff?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Hmm

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent ? that is, a cyanide-based gas ? which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

 

[sandorski]

Hmm, if Saddam committed atrocities against Iran, I wonder if Rumsfeld and other US officials would be considered complicit in the act? They supported Saddam in the war and tried to protect him from the growing International calls for action against him.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Hmm

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent ? that is, a cyanide-based gas ? which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

I've read that before, but there are so many sources claiming Iraq gassed its own people, I was never comfortable that the contrary report was credible.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I didn't realize that approval was needed from Human Rights Watch...is there a link to the application form GW needed to fill out?

Or perhaps maybe just maybe Human Rights Watch has something political in mind...

Preventing unjustified deaths and preserving human rights, perhaps?

 

[Moonbeam]

Was there anything political is stopping Hitler? (Brought to you by alchemize reality.)

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Was there anything political is stopping Hitler? (Brought to you by alchemize reality.)

Hitler got politically greedy. He could have gotten away with a lot and avoided conflict. Chamberlain was dense and Roosevelt was in isolation mode as demanded by most Americans so I guess it was all political when the effort to stop him started. Everything is always political, I think.

edit to add.. Same with all wars..

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Was there anything political is stopping Hitler? (Brought to you by alchemize reality.)

Hitler got politically greedy. He could have gotten away with a lot and avoided conflict. Chamberlain was dense and Roosevelt was in isolation mode as demanded by most Americans so I guess it was all political when the effort to stop him started. Everything is always political, I think.

edit to add.. Same with all wars..

If Hitler had left Russia and England alone, he would have had all of Europe and N Africa.

England was a visible thorn in his side, they were re-armed by the US after Hitler went after them. Same goes with Russia.
Stalin knew that he could not defend against Germany with the current technology and his army was weak due to his purges.
A treaty was a stall for time. Germany to consolidate Europe without worry about the bear, Stalin to try to start a rebuild.
Whether, Stalin would have come after Germany on his own is debateable. The US would not have started the Atlantic conveys to Russia without Russia being attacked.

N Africa was good for the oil. the British armies were unable to stand up to Rommel, it was the politcal control that Hitler imposed on the N African army that started causing problems. He was diverting supplies needed to the European front to worry about England .

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Maybe the war was illegal and maybe it was immoral but we got the oil and that's what counts.

What oil have we gotten from Iraq? Seems like most of it is not able to be pumped and/or refined due to the Iraqis. Oil products are being imported due to continual sabatoge.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Maybe the war was illegal and maybe it was immoral but we got the oil and that's what counts.

What oil have we gotten from Iraq? Seems like most of it is not able to be pumped and/or refined due to the Iraqis. Oil products are being imported due to continual sabatoge.

Don't that just tick you off, too, and after we stole it fair and square.

 

[LunarRay]

Moonbeam,

Don't that just tick you off, too, and after we stole it fair and square.

That is too funny...

 

[tcsenter]

It said that the West had done nothing when Saddam massacred Kurds and Shias in the past, and there was no evidence of any continuing mass killings at the start of the war in March 2003.

lol! "Because all Iraqis who might harbor discontent with the regime were completely and utterly terrified into submission, and all opponents of the regime were either dead or exiled to the North, there was no pressing humanitarian issue in Iraq."

Some "human rights" organization.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

It said that the West had done nothing when Saddam massacred Kurds and Shias in the past, and there was no evidence of any continuing mass killings at the start of the war in March 2003.

lol! "Because all Iraqis who might harbor discontent with the regime were completely and utterly terrified into submission, and all opponents of the regime were either dead or exiled to the North, there was no pressing humanitarian issue in Iraq."

Some "human rights" organization.

Your mocking of this obvious conundrum is only relevant when the context is not about war and whether you kill thousands of innocent people who are oppressed but alive in order to free the lucky ones who survive your mass murder. It takes a special kind of elite to say, "Give them liberty or give them death."

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

It said that the West had done nothing when Saddam massacred Kurds and Shias in the past, and there was no evidence of any continuing mass killings at the start of the war in March 2003.

lol! "Because all Iraqis who might harbor discontent with the regime were completely and utterly terrified into submission, and all opponents of the regime were either dead or exiled to the North, there was no pressing humanitarian issue in Iraq."

Some "human rights" organization.

did anyone invade congo on humanitarian grounds?
no ofcorse not because there is nothing happening there compared to what was happening in Iraq