« Hide the Credit Cards | Main | Open Discussion: One Year Later »

Never Again

Clutching pictures of relatives they lost, survivors of Saddam Hussein's 1988 chemical weapons attack gathered in this northern town Tuesday to remember the thousands who died. .... "This day reminds us of our grief ... (But) it's also a day of happiness because the dictatorship has collapsed," said Drakshan Kakasheik, who lost her husband, brother and three children, including a 5-month old son who died in her arms. "We smelled a foul smell and my brother went out and said: 'We're doomed. These are chemical weapons,"' she recalled tearfully. An estimated 5,000 people were killed and another 10,000 injured by the poisonous bombs Iraqi forces dropped on Halabja on March 16, 1988. "For those in my country and elsewhere who ... still wonder if the war was worth fighting, I say, 'Come to Halabja,"' Bremer said. "Look in the faces of the survivors here today. See how a peaceful village was turned into a hell overnight by evil."
Saddam will never be able to murder like that again. But, you know, the world isn't any safer since he's been locked up. Right? Tell that to the survivors in Halabja.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Never Again:

» BLOGROLL ADDITIONS from The Galvin Opinion
The following are sites that I have added to my blogroll. Friends, make sure you check them out, they are quite good, informative and entertaining. A Small Victory knows how to explain why went to Iraq better than anyone [Read More]

» Anniversary from Cold Fury
Read it and wonder; nay, marvel. I’ll tell you why in a moment: HALABJA, Iraq — Clutching pictures of relatives they lost,... [Read More]

» Kurds Mark Chemical-Attack Anniversary from Silent Running
Fox news is carrying the story about the chemical attack in Halabja, Iraq that killed at least 5,000 Kurds. "We smelled a foul smell and my brother went out and said: 'We're doomed. These are chemical weapons,"' she recalled tearfully.... [Read More]

Comments

Hmm... Who gave him the chemical weapons again? I'm just checkin.

Best of the Web noted today that only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted in favor of considering House Resolution 557. Number of Dems opposing: 194.

What is House Resolution 557, you ask?

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq;

(2) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime;

(3) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; and

(4) commends the members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.

RAWB... Someone gave me a rifle a few weeks ago... What's your point, creep?

I vaguely remember that Russia sold him the lion's share.

Hmmm, the world has been safe?

Was Rumsfeld there for the photo-op this time?

Since when did effectively combatting terrorists require that we forego intelligence and reason in favor of emotional exhibitionism and political posturing?

who gave him the BC weapons? russia and france. what's your point? who gave NK their nuke capability? sh we break out the pix of Maddie Halfbright and the midget dictator?

hey mork i had no idea that these victims of Saddam's terror attacks were substitutes for intel and reason in fighting terrorists, but weren't you one of those that cried how their are no links to Iraq and terrorism?

What the heck, is Mork doing here?

Sorry, Mork, only one blog per troll.

Removing our former ally Saddam was a good thing. He would have built weapons that might have been targeted at U.S. cities.

Is the World safer? I don't think so. I fear for the next generation of American's as it seems too becoming easier and easier to kill Americans (or innocent people in a broader sense). Are we trying to make it safer? Yes, but without help from the rest of the World I don't see how.

Street Vendor – America sold Hussein chemical weapons in the 1980’s.

Homer – That’s good!

Street Vendor – Hussein used chemical weapons on his people.

Homer – That’s bad.

Street Vendor – But we don’t know if the chemical weapons he used were the ones America sold him.

Homer – That’s good!

Street Vendor – But America knew he’d probably use them, otherwise why would America sell them to him?

Homer – That’s bad.

Street Vendor – Hussein was evil, and needed to be taken out.

Homer – That’s good!

Street Vendor – The US fully backed Hussein when he was evil in the 1980’s…

Homer – That’s bad.

Street Vendor - … but not when he was evil in the 90’s.

Homer – That’s good!

i actually wasn't making a point. I didnt' know who sold them ;)

It seems to me the big problem is corporations of any nationality doing stupid things like this... like Halliburton setting up an off-shore subsidiary to do work with nations we're forbidden to do work with.

Companies putting profit ahead of national security. Needs to be fixed in ALL countries.

Street Vendor: And the US removed Saddam from power.

Vince: ....

Street Vendor: That's good.

Vince: Can I go now?

Vince, you're a child. If Saddam's evil is even partly our responsibility, then we owed the Iraqi people to get him out of there. Appraently you think it is morally superior to sit around and feel guilty but do nothing....

Vince, the weapons thing has been beaten to death. The reader's digest version is from 1983-1988, the US and Britain combined sold Iraq less conventional arms than Brazil. Top 3 nations were Russia, France, China.

Unconventional weapons aren't tracked by SIPRI (is anyone surprised by that)?

Purpose being Iraq was engaged in a war with Iran, who the United States considered a far greater national threat than Iraq (go figure). I'm not sure it still isn't true today, but I digress.

By the way, Bush addressed this point in his speech to Congress when he called buying off dictators a "failed policy". It doesn't work.

So yes, the US sold them weapons - for a reason I can't argue with. Michelle makes an excellent point on it not working out - if their suffering is our fault, we have a moral obligation to change it.

Allah, I'm with you on HR 557, and I haven't done the research, but I gotta ask myself - this could be, I'm just sayin, could be an underhanded way for Republicans to get some Democrats on the record with "nobody's safer because Saddam is out of power". Just trying to score some political points.

Like I said, I dunno. But if it were, and I were a Dem (I'm not), it would piss me off.

your thoughts, oh maker of worlds?

Atta boy Dave in Texas.

Lets not make this a DEM./REP. issue.
So much ill thought rambling on this topic.

The US government supported Saddam for many years because it suited their purposes to do so. Then they turned on him when it suited their purposes to do that. What he was doing to his subjects never entered into the equation at any time.

In 2003, the American right suddenly developed consciences about the Iraqi people. You'll excuse me if I'm not impressed.

Thlayli, and in 2003 the left abandon their conciences because they'd support anything, even a holocaust before they'd side with a right wing hawk on any issue.

Excuse me if this refugee from the Green party isn't impressed.

Another thing. GWB has been president for less than FOUR years. Believe it or not, he isn't responsible for his father's missteps or Regan's misteps or even Torquemada's crimes - no matter how much you'd prefer to hallucinate that they are all somehow indistingushable members of the Christian right.

I think Torquemada still gets Christmas cards from Pat Robertson..

Thlayli, we are the US government. You're right, in a sense, about the US 'supporting Saddam when it suited us'. We had this little distraction called the Cold War going on, if you recall. So yes, we played smaller enemies, like Iraq and Iran, against each other. Ugly, but I think it would have been far uglier for us to continue to ignore the problems in that region. A little cynicism about the government is a healthy thing, but I think it's a bit condescending to snark about how 'the American right suddenly developed consciences about the Iraqi people'. Isn't that what you wanted??? Heck, if it was me, I'd be having a field day: "Way to go guys, what took you so long to come over to our side?"

Gosh, Thlayli, Vince, and BSTI (Butt Stinking Trolling Idiot?), I wish that we all could be as morally pure and perfect as you. But gosh darn it, we're just human. If only you had come down from planet PeaceLoveHarmonyCandycane with your words of great wisdom decades ago and we might now all have had our 72 raisins.

XXXXHmm... Who gave him the chemical weapons again? I'm just checkin. XXXXXX?

Czech police seize hundreds of tonnes of plastic explosives

PRAGUE (AFP) - The police have charged two Czechs with importing over three hundred tonnes of plastic explosives into the Czech Republic, police said on Wednesday.
The explosives had come from the arsenal of a foreign army and had not been properly marked as plastic explosives, breaching an international agreement, police Spokeswoman Blanka Kosinova said.

She refused to say where exactly the material had originated from or to confirm a report that the explosives came from Sweden.


Sweden?

Wheres Hans Blix's bloodhound nose when you need it?

Evil Otto, that was quite clever.

Michele, you're sounding more and more like the chickenhawks in Washington. There, there, sit behind your computer (in bed, no less) and sound the release the dogs of war, as long as you don't have to fight it, of course.

Ah, the "chickenhawk" argument. You've got nothing else left, Vince? Whenever I see someone using it, it tells me that the person has run out of ideas. You don't refute Michele's arguments, you simply imply that she's somehow not allowed to be in favor of this war if she didn't serve or isn't serving in the military and fighting it herself.

It's lazy and self-serving, and I'm not impressed.

Vince, that is a tired argument. Only people in uniform can determine our foriegn policy? We'd be in Syrian and Iran right now if that were the case - not to mention Saudi. How about only doctors can sit on malpractice juries? Or only police officers can write criminal laws? Being in uniform doesn't give any more expertise about overall policy than someone not in uniform. We don't have the draft - that means that ALL of our uniformed people are there because they volunteered. Regular troops can leave when their hitch is up if they like, reservists can resign at any time. What these folks who you call "chickenhawks' are doing is exercising their brains and are thinking ahead. Calling names doesn't actually advance your arguments, but rather, indicates a lack of argument. By the way, I'm a veteran.

Cry halva and loose the trolls of "Paz"

last time I checked, the Constitution placed the military under civilian authority.