hey YerArseInParsley; sorry it's taken me a wee while to reply to you, but with a new issue of TWIP (The Week In Petroleum) coinciding with new stuff from Oil & Gas Journal and a new set of reserve estimates from the US Geological Survey, i've been almost completely buried in energy research of late (sad, sad, sad man that i am)... also; anyone see the stuff about the Australian Solar Tower plan? It's a pretty far-out project that could make or break the solar industry.
Anyways, all that aside, i'm a little confused about exactly what point Tam Dayell was making regarding the Kurds. Is the point that Saddam may have *only* gassed 200 Kurds? Jeez... that's only 199 more than it takes to become a savage murderer. Or is the point that 200 is actually not too bad... and that Saddam would be horrified at the idea that 8,000 had died, but - of course - doesn't need to worry about only 200.
The thing is, i'm not going to claim that Dubya Bush is any better than Saddam (how many innocent Afghans have already died as a direct result of US bombs? And how many Iraqis are dying due to US-led sanctions?). Nor that Saddam's vile acts against his own citizens and those of other nations in any way justify launching a massive war against the people of Iraq (which is really only about grabbing oil reserves anyway).
However, i have a real problem with people who adopt a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" attitude (and there's plenty of them). People who see a legitimate foe in the increasing imperialism of the USA, and decide that everyone who opposes it must be OK really, and if they don't seem OK it's all down to US propaganda.
I had a long email argument with someone just after the WTC attacks who basically decided that the US "deserved" such attacks because of the effects of its foreign policy. It brought me to the edge of despair that there were so many people (apparently switched on people) willing to basically ignore (even justify) the hateful violence of islamic extremism simply because it was aimed at the USA.
My view is very simple. If you use a position of power to cause uneccessary suffering to those who fall within it's scope, then you should non longer hold that position of power. This applies to Dubya Bush, no question. But it also applies to Saddam Hussein, even if *only* 200 Kurd murders are an acceptable number in the eyes of Tam Dayell.
Incidentally, i recall reading somewhere (and i could be wrong on this); perhaps on this very forum; that when UN inspectors took the soil samples in the mid-90's which confirmed that mustard gas had been used against the Kurds; that they had to carefully date the samples to rule out the possibility that the gas was left over from the last time the British gassed the Kurds earlier this century.
Puts things into perspective regarding Saddam... but it doesn't make 8,000 or 200 or 1 Kurdish murder irrelevant.
(i think)
|
