18 December 2006

Who gives a krap about Kurds?

The loony-left is too busy screaming about George Bush and Stephen Harper to waste any time on a little genocide...

Mr. Hussein and six co-defendants have pleaded innocent to charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for their alleged roles in the 1987-88 military offensive against the Kurds, codenamed Operation Anfal.

The prosecution estimates that 180,000 Kurds were killed when Mr. Hussein's army waged a scorched-earth campaign against Kurdish separatist guerrillas, allegedly destroying hundreds of villages, and killing residents or forcing them to flee.
If anybody actually needs additional justification for taking down Saddam, might I suggest this could be it?

Nah... too much work, let's get back to vilifying that monstrous Stephen Harper.

UPDATE: ISG Report - Did they forget something?
Barzani is right to be suspicious of the ISG. Given how much more safe the Kurdish areas are than the Green Zone, one has to wonder why the ISG never bothered to meet with the Kurds of the region. An American failure puts the Kurds in a fatal squeeze between the Turks and the Shi'a and Sunni -- setting up yet another genocide.

Technorati Tags: , ,


9 comments:

Anonymous said...

and always thought that wasting tax dollars on krappy Kurds was a complete waste.

By the way, who's better at providing death and destruction?

Hussein's army = 180,000
Bush and Friends = 650,000

It's time the USA does some housekkeeping in Canada too, you quasi liberal idiots.

There's nothing neo-conservative about wasting money for the good of Kurdish idiots.

Neo Conservative said...

sure robert... you go ahead and tell yourself whatever you want. have another hit on the bong , while you're at it.

wonderdog said...

That happened on Reagan's watch, using US-supplied equipment. And after Halabja came to light, Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to assure Hussein that he was still in America's good books.

But why let historical perspective interfere with perfectly stupid rhetoric?

Neo Conservative said...

the usa has a history of tolerating repugnant regimes in the interest of maintaining "regional stability".

i liken that sort of tolerance to the liberals freaking out about harper pushing china on human rights... "who cares about murder and torture as long as it ain't in our back yard," says bill graham.

bush decided to take saddam out this time and despite the problems with the insurgency, it was the right decision. his mistake was not coming in initially with overwhelming force and crushing the bad guys.

the day they hang saddam, you can go into mourning.

i'm gonna celebrate.

RGM said...

neo conservative, wondering if you've ever read Ralph Peter's excellent essay, "Stability, America's Enemy," in which the author suggests that the US forgo that awful policy of seeking stability in the region (which, of course, brought us 9/11) and go for a little destabilization of the region.

Neo Conservative said...

rgm... i'll have to check that out.

i think, in theory, bush had the right idea. identify a bad guy, take him out... repeat as necessary.

and yes, we use our values... fuck moral relativism.

start with mugabe and work your way up the scrotum pole.

wonderdog said...

Actually, moral relativism is your driving philosophy, as you demonstrated in your response to me.

It's fairly clear that you don't actually understand what moral relativism is.

While we're on moral relativism, perhaps you could comment on the earlier history of the region, of which you're apparently also ignorant -- the way the US supported a Kurdish resistance against Hussein until the Iranian revolution came along, and then pulled the rug out from under the Kurds and let Hussein overrun them.

Better luck next time.

Neo Conservative said...

lemme repeat what i said above...the usa has a history of tolerating repugnant regimes in the interest of maintaining "regional stability".

that was obviously not a good thing to do. but when bush jr does the opposite and takes a stand... the screechy left-bots loudly proclaim that this is also a crime against humanity.

liberals... you might as well try to reason with a cat.

RGM said...

The article's a great read, and helped pave the way for his book in 2005, New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy. Another highly recommended read.

Doing the about-face when it came to Middle Eastern dictators was one of the best things that the Bush Administration has done. We're finally starting to turn the corner on the idea that a friendly dictatorship in better than an unfriendly democracy. Such a stance leaves us and the US open to charges of hypocrisy and undermines the strength of the message of democracy promotion. If we can sever ties with Egypt and the Saudis, we'll be even better off.