A headscratcher from the WaPo
Washington Post head and sub-head, at least as the wire version has it:
Security Council formally frees Iraq from Saddam-era sanctions
Vice President Biden reflected on how far the Iraqis have come in two decades.
Yes, ever since that Gulf War in 1990 he voted against. The piece continues:
The 15-nation council voted to end restrictions on Iraqi's rights to develop a civilian nuclear program, agreed to restore Iraqi control of its oil revenue within six months and brought an end to the vestiges of the controversial $64 billion oil-for-food program . . Vice President Joe Biden presided over the session, which provided the Obama administration with an opportunity to highlight progress in the long, hard political transition in Iraq.
Speaking on behalf of the council, Biden said Wednesday's action marked a recognition of how much Iraq has improved its relations with the rest of the world.
The passage of the resolutions "brings an end to the burdensome remnants of the dark era of Saddam Hussein," he said.
The article gives no specifics about how the dark era of Saddam ended, or when this happened, or why, or who was involved. Can anyone fill me in? Thnx!
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
Well, at least under Saddam, Iraqi Christians weren't being slaughtered by their Muslim neighbors, as they are now.
i went to a tailor here in Marin County recently - Iraqi Christian immigrant. She told me that under Saddam, the Iraqi government stationed soldiers in her Christian neighborhood and installed telephones in every Christian home so that the Christians could call for help when they were threatened by Muslim extremists.
Now that we've done our nation-building, Iraqi Christians look back to the Saddam era as the good old days.
Jul '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
I'm not entirely sure, but I think it ended with the destruction of the second Death Star above the forest moon of Endor, unless it was when Indiana dropped the Grail down in the fissure . . .
Bush? Bush who?
Nov '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
Kenneth, congratulations. I thought I'd seen everything, but your take is a whole new POV for me.
"Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment, that was known as Saddam's Iraq".
It doesn't exactly soar, does it?
Jul '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
Starve the Beast: Kenneth, congratulations. I thought I'd seen everything, but your take is a whole new POV for me.
"Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment, that was known as Saddam's Iraq".
It doesn't exactly soar, does it? · Dec 15 at 8:54pm
If you are an Iraqi Christian, yes it does soar. That woman bitterly complained that George Bush removed Saddam's protection of her community, but then did nothing to keep them from being slaughtered by their Muslim neighbors. And still, we do nothing.
Dec '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
I note that Mike Farrell didn't fly to Baghdad to hold a candlelight vigil the night before Saddam's execution. I wonder why?
Dec '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
Kenneth: Well, at least under Saddam, Iraqi Christians weren't being slaughtered by their Muslim neighbors, as they are now.
i went to a tailor here in Marin County recently - Iraqi Christian immigrant. She told me that under Saddam, the Iraqi government stationed soldiers in her Christian neighborhood and installed telephones in every Christian home so that the Christians could call for help when they were threatened by Muslim extremists.
Now that we've done our nation-building, Iraqi Christians look back to the Saddam era as the good old days. · Dec 15 at 8:15pm
Could it have had something to do with the fact that the most prominent Iraqi Christian of Saddam's era was the regime's foreign minister?
And while Saddam didn't slaughter Christians, he massacred Kurds in the north and swamp Arabs in the south. The plight of Iraq's Christians in the post-Saddam era is not a reason to mourn Saddam's fall.
Jul '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
Stuart Creque
Kenneth: Well, at least under Saddam, Iraqi Christians weren't being slaughtered by their Muslim neighbors, as they are now.
i went to a tailor here in Marin County recently - Iraqi Christian immigrant. She told me that under Saddam, the Iraqi government stationed soldiers in her Christian neighborhood and installed telephones in every Christian home so that the Christians could call for help when they were threatened by Muslim extremists.
Now that we've done our nation-building, Iraqi Christians look back to the Saddam era as the good old days. · Dec 15 at 8:15pm
Could it have had something to do with the fact that the most prominent Iraqi Christian of Saddam's era was the regime's foreign minister?
And while Saddam didn't slaughter Christians, he massacred Kurds in the north and swamp Arabs in the south. The plight of Iraq's Christians in the post-Saddam era is not a reason to mourn Saddam's fall. · Dec 15 at 9:13pm
Easy for you to say. You're not an Iraqi Christian.
Dec '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
Kenneth
Easy for you to say. You're not an Iraqi Christian. · Dec 15 at 9:19pm
Nor are you a Kurd or a swamp Arab or a Kuwaiti. Are Christians the only people whose lives count?
Jul '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
Stuart Creque
Kenneth
Easy for you to say. You're not an Iraqi Christian. · Dec 15 at 9:19pm
Nor are you a Kurd or a swamp Arab or a Kuwaiti. Are Christians the only people whose lives count? · Dec 15 at 9:22pm
No, but when we invade a country and destabilize it, we have an obligation to protect its oppressed minorities. At the present time, the American-installed Iraqi government isn't slaughtering the Kurds or the swamp Arabs. But it does stand aside and do nothing to protect Iraqi Christians.
From the viewpoint of my tailor - and she is much closer to the reality than you are - life under Saddam was better than it is now.
Be as snotty as you wish, but have some respect and concern for people who suffer under the current reality.
Sep '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
Two thoughts - it's interesting how liberals hide the dots when talking about how much better Iraq is now compared to the pre-Saddam days. They fought tooth and nail to maintain the Saddam status quo, and now they conveniently forget the courage of our President to stand up to the world and remove the monster from this earth.
Kenneth, you bring up a point that could be would be worth debating. What responsibility do we have to protect ALL minorities within Iraq? How far do we take our nation-building efforts? At what point does the US - like a parent - turn Iraq loose and allow them to determine their future, even if that future is one we don't agree with and actually violates our values?
I'll admit, I'm not sure the right answer.
Sep '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
Two thoughts - it's interesting how liberals hide the dots when talking about how much better Iraq is now compared to the pre-Saddam days. They fought tooth and nail to maintain the Saddam status quo, and now they conveniently forget the courage of our President to stand up to the world and remove the monster from this earth.
Kenneth, you bring up a point that could be would be worth debating. What responsibility do we have to protect ALL minorities within Iraq? How far do we take our nation-building efforts? At what point does the US - like a parent - turn Iraq loose and allow them to determine their future, even if that future is one we don't agree with and actually violates our values?
I'll admit, I'm not sure the right answer.
Aug '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
Ah, yes, the good old days. When Iraqis, Christian and Muslim alike, were fed into wood chippers feet first, for the crime of displeasing the great man.
Dec '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
Kenneth
Stuart Creque
Kenneth
Easy for you to say. You're not an Iraqi Christian. · Dec 15 at 9:19pm
Nor are you a Kurd or a swamp Arab or a Kuwaiti. Are Christians the only people whose lives count? · Dec 15 at 9:22pm
No, but when we invade a country and destabilize it, we have an obligation to protect its oppressed minorities. At the present time, the American-installed Iraqi government isn't slaughtering the Kurds or the swamp Arabs. But it does stand aside and do nothing to protect Iraqi Christians.
From the viewpoint of my tailor - and she is much closer to the reality than you are - life under Saddam was better than it is now.
Be as snotty as you wish, but have some respect and concern for people who suffer under the current reality. · Dec 15 at 9:28pm
Really? "Easy for you to say" isn't snotty? Difficult to have a discussion with someone who invariably plays the "poor injured me" card.
I hope the world's attention will pressure Iraq's government into protecting Iraq's Christians. Let's hope they're less immune to appeals to human decency than Saddam was.
Dec '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
Tariq Aziz, as the great man's right-hand man, was able to use his influence to protect his fellow Christians. Other minorities were not so fortunate.
Jul '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
So a brutal despot butchers and slaughters several other sects, but leaves one sect alone. "He may be a murderin' sot, but he's our murderin' sot".
The atrocities committed against Christians (and I am but a poor example of one) in Iraq are contemptible. More effort should be applied to correcting the abuse of all people in Iraq.
The effort to topple Saddam was multifaceted: Stop a looming threat to ourselves and the world. Give democracy, or at least a taste of liberty, a toehold in the heart of the Middle East, and pray that it is contagious. Provide ourselves a checkmate to the Iranian threat. Sure all those things, & much more.
Do we have a responsibility beyond the framework we established in Iraq? We spent blood treasure in securing the country, & overthrowing a brutal dictator. The rest is up to the Iraqis. They need to earn it.
That paragon of subtlety, Ted Nugent, suggested:
You don't have to worry
Help is on the way
We don't need no "thank you", ma'am
We know what they're gonna say
They say Hey, hey, Damn Yankee
Smile, when you say Damn Yankee.
May '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
I think that, irrespective of the atrocities committed against various ethnic and religious groups within Iraq, the Iraq campaign can only be justified if it can be proven that it was a war of self-defense, that it contributed to the defense of the rights of Americans against foreign aggression. There are millions of people around the world who are subject to repression by millions of other people. Unpleasant as Iraq was, its no justification for invading if its detached from self-defense.
Oct '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
I believe the regime collapsed due to strongly worded non-binding UN resolutions. The nation has indeed come a long way (although as Kenneth points out it isn't there yet)...it will long be remembered as one of the great achievements of this (Obama's) administration.
Naturally there were some tough times, but luckily the country was partitioned into 3 distinct self-governing regions that allowed the three major groups in the country (Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites) the freedom to govern themselves. This shaky coalition was saved at the last minute when a proposed "troop surge" was called off - it certainly would have torn the country apart and it's proponents were dead, flat wrong.
So sayeth the Gospel of Joe.
Aug '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
Kenneth I don't think that buying a couple of dozen phones is going to make Saddam anything other than we all know him to be
the eyes of the people in iraq is a sight to behold, or to behold their sight is to see fear and despair and as you kiss them goodbye it lightens momentarily because there's hope in what we've brought
and besides I heard Biden beat Saddam up behind the Home Depot. didn't even wrinkle his orange apron.
good joke though, anytime you can combine biden and the un is , as Bannion would say , Gold !
Edited on Dec 15, 2010 at 11:19pmDec '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
When you take your Induction Oath, you may want to check those attitudes before you get on the bus to boot camp. You will find the US military looks with disfavor on service members who second-guess the lawful missions assigned to them by the Federal government.
May '10
Re: A headscratcher from the WaPo
Stuart, I've been "in" as they say for almost 6 years. I took my oath in 05'. I've been second guessing them for a few years now.