Fun Facts

• John, if you'll read my first two comments, I stated the FACT that Saddam claimed the civilians were not deliberately targeted. You could claim that Saddam is an untrustworthy liar, and I would agree with you. Unfortunately, I believe that our own government leaders are, at times, also untrustworthy liars. They will tell you that "painstaking measures were taken to avoid killing civilians" (and apparently you'd go for it hook, line and sinker!) but the truth is that the most painstaking measure to avoid bombing civilians would be by NOT INVADING IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE. And please don't compare apples to oranges - this isn't WWII, Saddam isn't Hitler, we were not attacked by Iraq, and the WMD were not there - more actual, honest facts, no longer even disputed by the White House. You say that you can't debate somebody who won't be honest with the facts, yet you show your factual dishonesty by comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany. I suspect that you simply can't debate somebody who is right when you're so horribly wrong.

• Frank- if you can't make the distinction between civilians killed by deliberate, targeted gassing vs. civilians killed in a war in which painstaking measures were taken to avoid killing civilians (yet, it's a fact of warfare - millions of civilians were killed in WWII in Germany and Japan...should we not have fought the Nazis and imperial fascist Japanese because of that), then i really have nothing further to say to you, because I can't debate somebody who won't be honest with the facts.

• John, you assume that our killing is moral and Saddam's is immoral. I believe that neither is moral. Perhaps you should take off your red white and blue blinders and examine your own "fundamentally flawed" logic.

• No Frank, I don't see. It's not the least bit morally equivalent. I'm sorry you think I'm on my high horse. Just because Saddam claimed a similar thing that we claimed doesn't mean his actions are morally equivalent to ours. Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

• John, the point I made, which you were obviously unable to catch from the lofty position on your high horse, was that Saddam claimed that the civilians were not deliberately gassed. Much like the way we claim not to target civilians in our own military actions. SEE: collateral damage.

• No Frank, it doesn't sound familiar, despite your obvious implication that the US and Israel are no better than Saddam. The US and Israel never deliberately gassed civilians. Point not made, at all.

• Hussein claims that the gassing of civilians was the result of a military action in which those civilians were not targeted. Sound familiar? Go Twins. Pitch for peace.

• man, i was hoping to inspire a thread i've never seen before. i guess i will start, i am spending my freedom on Thursday living a childhood dream i never knew i had, seeing Sonic Youth and the Flaming Lips at my own MN State Fair! i am so excited that i am not even bitter at the Fair for turning down my painting in the Fine Arts Building for the second year in a row!! is anyone else spending their freedom that way tomorrow night?

• Joe, Speaking of clich?s, isn't it a laughable clich? to assume that because I truthfully stated that the US government has helped dictators, especially Saddam Hussein, that you assume I and other "leftists" say the US has no right to act in world affairs? Now what is NOT a clich? is that time and time again we help/and or are partially or completely responsible for the deaths of humans which have little if not nothing to do with any threat to the citizens of the US. In regard to your naming of one country that hasn't had a horrible past, I'm sure that there are many countries (probably island countries) that don't/didn't have a mission of pre-emptive war. But this is not a history class. I would like one Republican (just one) to stand up against these corrupt thugs in the executive office and tell them that democracies don't just happen without the will of the people. I have yet to see the will of the Iraqi people. It appears that you are under the impression that you can buy democracies like you can buy dictators. Why is it that so many people (you're in this party) are willing to trash the UN? Have you forgotten that the United States is primarily responsible for this noble organization? Please don't bring up the so called "oil for food" scandal. I mean is that it? One slightly tainted program and suddenly the UN should be dismantled. By that rationale then we should dismantle the US government because the Iraq war has been rife with corruption and malfeasance. Speaking of volunteering, have you signed up to fight the great big Iraqi menace? I'm sure the department of defense could use a man of your abilities. I'll tell you what. I give you a pat on the back and drive you to the airport when you need to depart for your tour of duty.

• Fred- you're correct - the US shamefully supported Saddam for many years. But nobody pushed Saddam to torture and kill his own citizens. He did that all by himself, and would have done so even without US support during the Iran-Iraq war. What I see in your argument is what has now become a Leftist cliche - that because the US has done wrong in the past (no argument there) we have no right or moral authority in the world to try to undo wrongs, depose dictators, liberate people from tyranny, etc. I think that's just bull. Name me a country that doesn't have a horrible past. Just one. You can't. America has done many bad things, but it also is a beacon for freedom and democracy - just ask one of the millions of people who immigrate here, legally or illegally, every year. They come to America because, warts and all, it's still a better place to live than any other country on earth. If we can't try to right the wrongs of the world, who will? China? Russia? Europe? None of them seem willing or able to lift a finger. So, by your logic, because we've done wrong in the past, we shouldn't do anything now - but then, who would? Shouldn't someone? Don't tell me the UN should...their record is simply abysmal. With the UN's "help", millions have been slaughtered in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Cambodia, and Darfur. Wow, what an effective international body! So, in the absence of any leadership in the world, it's left to us to try to do what we can to rid the world of brutal dictators and murderous Islamist radicals. If anybody besides the US would like to volunteer, I'd be glad to hear from them.

• Testimony in American courts still means something if you're credible. Same goes in Iraq. I note that because I suppose the following will be seen as propaganda. Saddam's WMD August 23, 2006; Page A10 Wall Street Journal Opinion Page Saddam Hussein's second trial is up and running before an Iraqi judge in Baghdad, albeit relegated to the inside pages of American papers. The proceedings are nonetheless instructive, not least for showing once again that the dictator used chemical weapons even if U.S. forces never found "stockpiles" of WMD after his ouster in 2003. The current case concerns his Anfal ("spoils of war") military campaign of 1987-1988 against the Kurds, in which tens of thousands are alleged to have been killed and some 2,000 villages razed. The charges include genocide because of the targeting of a specific ethnic group, making Saddam only the second world leader in our recollection to be so formally charged. The first was the late, and unmourned, Slobodan Milosevic. The court heard yesterday from eyewitnesses who claimed that poison gas was dropped on their villages. "Birds were returning to their nests. I saw eight to 12 jets patrolling the sky. There was greenish smoke from the bombs. There was a smell of rotten apple or garlic," said Ali Mustafa Hama, about an April 16, 1987 attack on the Kurdish villages of Basilan and Sheik Wasan. "People were vomiting. We were blinded. We were screaming. There was no one to save us, only God." One of Saddam's co-defendants is his cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, also known as "Chemical Ali" for allegedly leading chemical attacks against the Kurdish village of Halabja in March 1988. Saddam himself was more subdued than usual yesterday, though he did manage to declare that he remains "president of the Republic of Iraq and commander in chief of the heroic Iraqi armed forces." This is more than a deluded or nostalgic boast, and is probably intended as a message to his Baathist remnants in the insurgency that they will all return to power one day. That claim remains all too plausible to many Iraqis who are pleased that Saddam is gone but are wary of helping the new democratic government because they remember how the Baathists dealt with opponents in the Saddam years. The horrifying testimony is also a reminder that, despite the current problems in Iraq, the U.S. decision to topple Saddam was an act of pre-emptive global hygiene. The habit of many American liberals is to deplore the thugs of the world from afar but then never do anything about them (see encyclopedia entries under Rwanda, Darfur), or to pass the buck to the U.N. (see multiple entries; in particular Lebanon, current crisis). In the case of Saddam, the U.S. and its allies finally did act to rid the Middle East of a megalomaniac who had invaded Kuwait, attacked Iran, gassed his own people, tossed out U.N. weapons inspectors, harbored terrorists including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, retained the infrastructure for making WMD even if he lacked stockpiles (see the Duelfer report), plotted to kill a former American President, and harbored a grudge against the U.S. that could have played out in many ways to harm Americans. Saddam was convicted in his first trial for the massacre of 148 Shiites in the town of Dujail in the 1980s. Sentencing in that case is set for October 16, with the death penalty possible, Inshallah.

• Hey Joe, How many of those so-called Saddam Hussein's "executions" were done with the help of American Government? Donald Rumsfeld paid at least one visit to old Saddam. He even had time for a photo op shaking the leader's hand. How about you look at how many countries the United States has invaded and caused the deaths of civilians. By your rational, president Lincoln murdered x number of Americans. Speaking of our civil war, did France invade us to remove Lincoln? How about England? That's right our civil war was a home brewed thing, but apparently Iraqis need our help to start their civil war.

• The losses are sad and real and horrifying. However, I believe that in the interest of full disclosure, it should also be noted that the total number of Iraqis killed during the reign of Saddam Hussein is estimated to be about 1.1 million. This includes 600,000 "civilian executions", including the 100,000 Kurds; the other 500,000 are specifically from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

• When America became the only super-power we were corrupted.This happens every time in history. I admire the President's resolution.I disagree with his neocon policy. He says this a war that will last the rest of your lifetime. I don't expect people marching in the streets because most of us are not personally afffected by the death and suffering of others. But every one of us in our own way can protest the wrongheadeness of violence. Talk to your enemies,try to understand why they hate us.We may learn something. In "the Godfather Part II",Michael Corleone sees people in Havana Cuba blowing themselves up to destroy the Batista regime. He's asked"What does this mean? He answers"It means they can win." I strongly urge the writers in this town to pay some attention to the albums I put out over the past 4 years.And read the lyrics. I'll get you free Twins tickets.

• hey Jim, by the looks of it you must've been sitting just a dozen or so rows back from us. what a great game! you hear about "freedom" a lot lately. especially from the President. i guess it's because a lot of people have died for it through the years and will for years to come. but what i always wonder about is how most people spend their time, ie: their "freedom"?

• This JIM WALSH is perfectly correct!!! I am from france and i am visiting your state right now and i discovered city pages downtown in Minneapolis an i love it... leave these people alone! bonjour de Marseilles Patrick

TotalComments: 16