1
   

Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein's Shop of Horrors

 
 
au1929
 
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 04:22 pm
Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein's Shop of Horrors
by Jeff Jacoby  (November 15, 2002)

Summary: The Arab world is replete with dictators, many of them ruthless. But for for sheer unbridled cruelty, none of them can touch Saddam. And for hellish and sadistic brutality, no other Arab state -- perhaps no other state in the world -- can compare with what Saddam has created in Iraq.
[www.CapitalismMagazine.com] As a boy, writes Kenneth Pollack in his masterful new book on Iraq, "The Threatening Storm," Saddam Hussein would heat an iron poker until it was white-hot, then use it to impale cats and dogs. Years later, when he had boys of his own, he would take them into prisons so they could watch -- and get used to -- torture and executions. The Arab world is replete with dictators, many of them ruthless. But for for sheer unbridled cruelty, none of them can touch Saddam. And for hellish and sadistic brutality, no other Arab state -- perhaps no other state in the world -- can compare with what Saddam has created in Iraq.
Writing in The New Republic, foreign correspondent Robert Kaplan recalled the treatment meted out some years back to Robert Spurling, an American technician working at a Baghdad hotel. Spurling "had been taken away from his wife and daughters at Saddam International Airport and tortured for four months with electric shock, brass knuckles, and wooden bludgeons. His toes were crushed and his toenails ripped out. He was kept in solitary confinement on a starvation diet. Finally, American diplomats won his release. Multiply his story by thousands, and you will have an idea what Iraq is like to this day."
Spurling was one of Saddam's luckier victims: He survived. Many thousands of others have been executed outright or tortured to death -- or forced to witness the torture or murder of their loved ones.
In June, the BBC interviewed "Kamal," a former Iraqi torturer now confined in a Kurdish prison in the north. "If someone didn't break, they'd bring in the family," Kamal explained. "They'd bring the son in front of his parents, who were handcuffed or tied and they'd start with simple tortures such as cigarette burns and then if his father didn't confess they'd start using more serious methods," such as slicing off one of the child's ears or amputating a limb. "They'd tell the father that they'd slaughter his son. They'd bring a bayonet out. And if he didn't confess, they'd kill the child."
Horror in Saddam's Iraq takes endless forms. In 1987-88, Iraqi Air Force helicopters sprayed scores of Kurdish villages with a combination of chemical weapons, including mustard gas, Sarin, and VX, a deadly nerve agent. Scores of thousands of Kurds, most of them women and children, died horrible deaths. Of those who survived, many were left blind or sterile or crippled with agonizing lung damage.
But most of the Kurds slaughtered in that season of mass murder were not gassed but rounded up and gunned down into mass graves. Those victims were mostly men and boys, and their bodies have never been recovered.
In one village near Kirkuk, after the males were taken to be killed, the women and small children were crammed into trucks and taken to a prison. One survivor, Salma Aziz Baban, described the ordeal to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, who reported on Saddam's war against the Kurds in The New Yorker in March.
More than 2,000 women and children were crammed into a room and given nothing to eat. When someone starved to death, the Iraqi guards demanded that the body be passed to them through an window in the door. Baban's six-year-old son grew very sick. "He knew he was dying. There was no medicine or doctor. He started to cry so much." He died in his mother's lap.
"I was screaming and crying," she told Goldberg. "We gave them the body. It was passed outside, and the soldiers took it."
Soon after, she pushed her way to the window to see if her child had been taken for burial. She saw 20 dogs roaming in a field where the dead bodies had been dumped. "I looked outside and saw the legs and hands of my son in the mouths of the dogs. The dogs were eating my son." She was silent for a moment. "Then I lost my mind."
Horror without end. Amnesty International once listed some 30 different methods of torture used in Iraq. They ranted from burning to electric shock to rape. Some governments go to great lengths to keep evidence of torture secret. Saddam's government tends to flaunt its tortures, leaving the broken bodies of its victims in the street or returning them, mangled and mutilated, to their families.
For the second time in a dozen years, America is preparing to go to war against Iraq, this time with "regime change" as an explicit goal. The case for military action is being made primarily in the name of international law and stability: Iraq under Saddam egregiously violates UN resolutions, attacks other countries without cause, aids terrorists, uses and stockpiles biological and chemical weapons, actively pursues nuclear weapons, and purposely creates environmental catastrophes.
Saddam has successfully resisted every form of outside pressure short of war. Neither economic sanctions nor UN inspections nor limited missile strikes have subdued his aggressiveness. There is no question that his regime is profoundly dangerous and will grow even more so if it is not destroyed once and for all.
It is all true. But let us not forget something equally true: Above all else, Saddam has been an unspeakable evil for the people of Iraq. In crushing him and his dictatorship, we will be liberating the most cruelly enslaved nation on earth and performing an act of nearly incalculable mercy.

WMD's or not wasn't this suffiient reason for the world to demand a regime change?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,059 • Replies: 32
No top replies

 
Violet Lake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 04:25 pm
Sure, it was sufficient reason, but the Bush Posse's hamfisted approach is wrong.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 04:49 pm
Were it not for Bush's hamfisted approach Saddam would still be in charge in Iraq. Torturing people and building bigger and better palaces.
Why does the UN do nothing? And why are they an impediment to those who would take action?
0 Replies
 
Violet Lake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 05:01 pm
Were it not for Bush's hamfisted approach, we could have achieved all of the above without putting ourselves at such a disadvantage around the world.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 05:13 pm
Violet Lake

Were it not for Bush's hamfisted approach, we could have achieved all of the above without putting ourselves at such a disadvantage around the world.


How would it have been achieved? As for putting ourselves at a disadvantage on the contrary. For once we put our power where our mouth was. Have you noticed that the North Koreans are softening their stance. And Syria has become quite uneasy and IMO they will be putting a squeeze on the terrorist organizations operating out of that nation.
0 Replies
 
Violet Lake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 05:20 pm
We'll have to see what happens. I hope things continue to go well.

As for how it could have been achieved...

A more savvy group of politicians could have achieved the same in the same timetable (possibly faster), by bringing the world with us. If you've forgotten, we had overwhelming support around the world after 9/11. That was currency that the Bush Posse squandered (and this from a guy that prides himself on spending his political currency wisely!)
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 05:40 pm
Violet Lake
I am afraid you miss my point. Without the removal of Saddam {a regime change} the torture would have still been the order of the day. The UN and the rest of the nations were not interested in a regime change. I too was against the preemptive attack and for further inspections. However, after hearing and reading about the torture of people by the regime, I have become convinced that it was the only way.
0 Replies
 
Violet Lake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 05:51 pm
It's not that they weren't interested in regime change... we weren't interested in bringing them along for the ride. Every move we made was calculated to send this message, beginning with the massive military buildup while the inspectors were still there. We shoved our way in, and shoved the rest of the world out of the way.

Since torture & murder are such horrible things we should stop supporting torturers and murderers around the world. Our track record makes the moralizing sound hollow.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 06:05 pm
Violet Lake
The UN never even considered a regime change. I should point out that without the threats and massive US buildup in the region there would never have been inspections of any type.
0 Replies
 
Violet Lake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 07:03 pm
The US considered, but decided against regime change when it could have made a huge difference - during Gulf War 1.

The military buildup could have been achieved multilaterally, and with the blessing of the UN.

Would haves and could haves aside, the issue for me is the preemptive doctrine. I don't believe that any nation has a right to invade another nation because of what it MIGHT do someday (That was the reason we went to war, remember?) We have acted against one of our long-cherished principles. That could do more damage to humanity in the long run than Saddam Hussein could have ever done.

I'm happy for the folks that consider themselves liberated, but I refuse to reward a criminal for murdering another criminal.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 07:43 pm
Violet Lake
Please note that my question was.
Quote:
WMD's or not wasn't this sufficient reason for the world to demand a regime change
?

Was that the reason for the attack? No. However, IMO it should have been and the UN knowing of these atrocities should have been urging it. If not what does the UN stand for, or rather what are they a high priced debating society?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 07:50 pm
au,

I do not believe that it is academically honest to assert that this was the only way to get rid of Saddam.
0 Replies
 
Violet Lake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Apr, 2003 08:02 pm
What do we stand for, au? It's a question that many people around the world are asking.

We helped create the UN, and if I'm not mistaken we had a good reason to do so. The fact that we couldn't bludgeon the UN into submission doesn't make it irrelevant. On the contrary, our behavior makes it more relevant than ever.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 06:26 am
Craven
Quote:

I do not believe that it is academically honest to assert that this was the only way to get rid of Saddam.


By what other circumstance would Saddam have relinquished his grip as leader of Iraq?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 06:34 am
Violet Lake
We all know what the UN stands for. And we also know it's been an abject failure. There is murder and genocide ongoing throughout the world and the UN is either, deaf, dumb and blind or just does not care. The organization should either come to grips with it's purpose in being or it will go the way of the league of nations. Lofty ideals not acted upon are just empty promises.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:04 am
I was going to post this in the jokes forum, as it is a fake article, but I think a good point is made:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3914/saddam_proud.html
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:12 am
cavfancier
The article may be a fake but the facts are not.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:16 am
I think, sadistic proclivities of Saddam or his sons are secondary to the faulty system that exists in any totalitarian state. Neither Stalin nor Hitler were sadists, but their secret police services used the same way of treatment toward the enemies of regime (in case of the USSR in '30s-'50s, majority of the latter were in fact loyal citizens having done nothing against the regime).
The problem is that if the Western civilization has created in the post-WWII period conditions that do not permit appearance of regimes similar to these of Hitler or Stalin (regime of Brezhnev, while being Stalinist by its ideologic fundamentals, was absolutely "vegetarian"); Arab political culture and tradition has not yet worked out an antidote to barbarism of rulers, therefore the transitional period of direct American/British ruling in Iraq is necessary to prevent emerging of the new dictator after the previous one was toppled.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 07:24 am
au, I agree...I posted it here, as opposed to some of the other political forums, because I agree with your position on this matter. I also agree with steissd...a transitional period of American-British rule in Iraq is a neccessary evil.
0 Replies
 
Violet Lake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2003 10:02 am
au, what makes you say that the UN is an abject failure? Perhaps like many Americans you expect more from it than you're willing to give. Should we work on fixing its flaws? Should we just throw it away? Back off and let the rest of the world have it? Relocate it to Paris? Replace it with the coalition-of-the-month club?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein's Shop of Horrors
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 03:39:50