"What if you had a mass grave day"

Exactly!

Oil for Food scandal helped make some of those graves possible.

Another ignominy heaped on waves of disgrace.

very sad .....and the mike duffy shows old men who milking us for $$$$

"Oil for Food scandal helped make some of those graves possible."

As did Reagan/Papa Bush support of Saddam Hussein. Where was it that I read something about a father's admiration for fascist dictatorships?

Many more have been killed by the UN and its so called peace keepers why should we have anything more to do with this corupt world body of tyrants,crooks,hoods,terrorists and the like? Time to get ourselves out of this wretched UN the UN would make the phillastines lok nice

Saddam Hussein; So-damn-insane.

How many years were these crimes allowed to continue ?

How many years was the-oil-for-food scandal allowed to continue ?

A thousand days, perhaps?? And no one at the United Nations spoke out. Was someone muzzling them ?

Some people must have forgot the Iran-Iraq war.Iraq was armed by the Russians with Russian equipment and the Shaw of Iran was backed by the US with American equipment.When the Shaw was overthrown then the US had no allies in the area and when Desert Storm took place it was Russian equipment against American equipment.The Russians relied on sheer force where as the Americans relied on technology and fought mostly at night and obliterated the Iraqies with their Russian machines.The Brits built some hard bunkers for airplanes for Iraq but they also knew how to destroy them.

The post from Gateway Pundit is factually inaccurate:

"The US found the remains of 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves instead."

There is no source for this. There is an apparently an *estimate* by unnamed "human rights" groups that as many as 300,000 may have been buried in mass graves, but to say that the US "found the remains of 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves" is, well, pretty much what I expect from the average warblogger: outright fabrication. Shame on you for not fact checking.

Mass Graves? What the hell have you done for me todaY!???!!

This isn't off topic, but it will take a bit to establish relevance, so please bear with me.
I recently read an essay 'Why Art Became Ugly' by Stephen Hicks, having found it linked through one of the blogs I read nearly daily - and my memory is bad enough that the link very well could have been on SDA. It was the author's well-supported contention that in the 20th century, art became one long artistic deconstruction experiment, an attempt by artists to systematically remove from their work everything that made it Art, and then proclaim it art nevertheless.
But this is the peculiar disease of the Left (although not limited to the realm of modern art): the belief that one can actually change reality by changing the definition of the words that describe it. Marcel Duchamp hung a urinal on a wall in 1917 and called it art; in 2002 a gallery in Britain paid about US$40,000 for a can of human excrement. Both acts are, at their core, voodoo: if the world can be made to believe that blatantly fifth-rate, puerile non-Art is Art nevertheless - then who knows, or can limit, what else can change? The incompetent can rule the able, the ignorant can defeat the learned, the uncreative, the stolid, small-minded, fearful and the petty can grind down the visionaries, the successful, the confident and the brave.
If the shamans of the Left are sufficiently jaded, the act of voodoo is not necessarily intended to change reality. Rather it is to allow the self-deluded the luxury of one more moment of believing that such change is possible: a sane person wouldn't waste their time in futile actions so the very fact that we do this thing proves it's not futile, because we're sane, aren't we?
So at last I come to the worldwide non-event of Mass Grave Day in Iraq. Of course the left-leaning media will not note this day: no good can come of Chimpy McOilblood's War, so no good ever has. There's no news here, or it would have been covered; if it isn't mentioned, it didn't happen - it's your definition of 'good' that is wrong.
Voodoo.

Mr. Wolfram, a unique perspective that I only wish I could shuttle from brain to fingers.

Andrew, re: "fabrication" - I believe your beef is with the International Herald Tribune.

"Shame on you for not fact checking."
"I believe your beef is with the International Herald Tribune."
Exactly. Shame on you for not checking the link.

AndrewNS: "Shame on you for not fact checking."
Kate: "I believe your beef is with the International Herald Tribune."
multirec: Exactly. Shame on you for not checking the link.

Google "iraq mass graves estimate guardian observer" (no quotation marks) and follow the first six or so hits. Perhaps the reason the "left-leaning media" has chosen not to report on Mass Graves' Day is because they understand the event to be founded on false pretenses.

Nobody disputes that Suddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, and that millions suffered--and many thousands died--under his rule. But this post (and indeed, one of the central concerns of SDA) is the warping of information in the public realm to further partisan agendas. Folks here are quick to rebuke the "left-leaning media" for publishing unsubstantiated data presented as fact -- when that data is perceived as biased in favour of "anti-war" interests. Now, the 300,000 figure is an example of unsubstantiated data presented as fact, in support of "pro-war" interests. As a matter of principle, rather than simply diverting blame to the IHT, should you not also criticize those within your fold -- folks like the US State Department, PM Blair, Mark Steyn, and many pro-war bloggers out there -- who've actively perpetuated these inflated numbers?

Look at the left today, as exemplified by some of the commenters here.

Defending Saddam Hussein.

Choosing to advocate for the rights of the Taliban instead of our brave soldiers.

So quick to believe ridiculous stats on "civilians" killed by our democratic allie in Iraq - the US forces being the most disciplined, well trained, and heavily regulated by 'rules of engagement' military force in the history of the world,

and equally quick to dismiss stats on the results of the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. As if the man who would sack a small neighbor, drain the marshlands, poison gas the Kurds, summarily murder his political opponents, send his sons out on weekend rape binges, ect. ect. ect. is somehow "misunderstood" on this whole mass murder thing.

Pathetic.

Kate said: "Andrew, re: "fabrication" - I believe your beef is with the International Herald Tribune."

Here are the factually inaccurate words from the blogger "Gateway Pundit":

"The US found the remains of 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves instead."

and here is the relevant IHT quote:

"Human rights organizations estimate that more than 300,000 people, mainly Kurds and Shiite Muslims, were killed and buried in mass graves before Saddam was overthrown by U.S. forces in 2003."

Notice how the IHT article writes that the 300,000 figure is an estimate from unnamed human rights groups. Now, notice how Gateway Pundit's post differs from the IHT article in that it claims, falsely, that the US "found" 300,000 bodies in mass graves. The US did no such thing.

This is a nontrivial error. I suppose it is very clever of you to cover up by blaming the IHT when you know full well they are not to blame. Very, very clever.

Exactly, T. Robert Wolfram: The disease of the Left is exactly their "...belief that one can actually change reality by changing the definition of the words that describe it."

It's called magical thinking. I used to have a boss of a highly successful business which was hanging by a thread because of this particular kind of voodoo, who would say to me during the course of any given day, "that wall over there is pink" when any clear-seeing/thinking person could see that it was dark brown.

She made up her day, her scenarios, others' faults, her perfect Utopia, as she went along. I'd never experienced anything like it and soon left her employ, not because I could afford to but because, for my sanity, I couldn't afford not to.

Her mindset is a microcosm for much of what passes for Leftie "thought." Working for her gave me a deep and chilling insight into the dark, devious, and labyrithian machinations and obfuscations of individuals who cannot and will not face difficult realities. It IS a pathology.

If it's news that doesn't fit the Lefties' worldview, bury it. If it's dark, say it's sweetness and light--and get rid of anyone or any evidence to the contrary. Sadly, our body politic and the left-leaning MSM seem to be full of this particular cancer, and one can only protest, most often as a voice crying in the wilderness. But protest one must.

T. Robert Wolfram: "Marcel Duchamp hung a urinal on a wall in 1917 and called it art; in 2002 a gallery in Britain paid about US$40,000 for a can of human excrement. Both acts are, at their core, voodoo: if the world can be made to believe that blatantly fifth-rate, puerile non-Art is Art nevertheless - then who knows, or can limit, what else can change?"

And nearly a century on, Duchamp's Fountain continues to epater la bourgeoisie.

I did several googles and Yahoo searches on the keywords and it is indeed a news item blacked out by the North American MSM. World Net daily had a small section on it..this was the exception.

I guess this news item just doesn't slot into the agenda and image the MSM are propagating....seems clear enough.

BTW There was a similar MSM blackout on the Kyoto/GW defectors item from the day before as well...Am I alone, or does anyone else see a pattern here ;-)

wlmr the pattern continues.

Yeah, wmlr, and the pattern's called serial denial and obfuscation.

In other words: damned lies.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#sadhus

# Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000

* Human Rights Watch: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis" [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm]
* 8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
o New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
o US Government estimates a total of 300,000 murders
+ 180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
+ 60,000 Shiites in 1991
+ 50,000 misc. others executed
o "Human rights officials" est.: 500,000
o Iraqi politicians: over a million
* [These don't include the million or so dead in the Iran-Iraq War.]

Anybody trying to suggest that Saddam was a 'nice guy' needs to adjust the electrodes applied to their brain.

"Human Rights Watch: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis" [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm]"

This figure is taken from HRW's 2004 World Report on Human Rights and Armed Conflict. Within this report, HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth states the following:

Over time, the principal justifications originally given for the Iraq war lost much of their force. More than seven months after the declared end of major hostilities, weapons of mass destruction have not been found. No significant prewar link between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism has been discovered. The difficulty of establishing stable institutions in Iraq is making the country an increasingly unlikely staging ground for promoting democracy in the Middle East. As time elapses, the Bush administration’s dominant remaining justification for the war is that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be overthrown—an argument of humanitarian intervention. The administration is now citing this rationale not simply as a side benefit of the war but also as a prime justification for it. Other reasons are still regularly mentioned, but the humanitarian one has gained prominence.

Does that claim hold up to scrutiny? The question is not simply whether Saddam Hussein was a ruthless leader; he most certainly was. Rather, the question is whether the conditions were present that would justify humanitarian intervention —- conditions that look at more than the level of repression. If so, honesty would require conceding as much, despite the war’s global unpopularity. If not, it is important to say so as well, since allowing the arguments of humanitarian intervention to serve as a pretext for war fought mainly on other grounds risks tainting a principle whose viability might be essential to save countless lives...[N]ow that the war’s proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention. [emphasis mine]

Hans, that doesn't change the fact that the claim that "The US found the remains of 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves instead." is an outright fabrication. Anyone suggesting that fact-checking is an endorsement of Saddam as a "nice guy" is an enemy of the American taxpayer.

"We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention. [emphasis mine]"
So you think a madman who killed over a 1/4 million, plus a million or so in the Iraq/Iran war should have been left to continue on his merry way killing and torturing?

...interestingly, I didn't see any pictures of the green helmeted guy around...

Alan: So you think a madman who killed over a 1/4 million, plus a million or so in the Iraq/Iran war should have been left to continue on his merry way killing and torturing?

From the linked HRW document:

In considering the criteria that would justify humanitarian intervention, the most important, as noted, is the level of killing: was genocide or comparable mass slaughter underway or imminent?...

There were times in the past when the killing was so intense that humanitarian intervention would have been justified -- for example, during the 1988 Anfal genocide, in which the Iraqi government slaughtered some 100,000 Kurds...But on the eve of the latest Iraq war, no one contends that the Iraqi government was engaged in killing of anywhere near this magnitude, or had been for some time. “Better late than never” is not a justification for humanitarian intervention, which should be countenanced only to stop mass murder, not to punish its perpetrators, desirable as punishment is in such circumstances.

But if Saddam Hussein committed mass atrocities in the past, wasn’t his overthrow justified to prevent his resumption of such atrocities in the future? No. Human Rights Watch accepts that military intervention may be necessary not only to stop ongoing slaughter but also to prevent future slaughter, but the future slaughter must be imminent. To justify the extraordinary remedy of military force for preventive humanitarian purposes, there must be evidence that large-scale slaughter is in preparation and about to begin unless militarily stopped...

That does not mean that past atrocities should be ignored. Rather, their perpetrators should be prosecuted. Human Rights Watch has devoted enormous efforts to investigating and documenting the Iraqi government’s atrocities, particularly the Anfal genocide against Iraqi Kurds. We have interviewed witnesses and survivors, exhumed mass graves, taken soil samples to demonstrate the use of chemical weapons, and combed through literally tons of Iraqi secret police documents. We have circled the globe trying to convince some government -- any government -- to institute legal proceedings against Iraq for genocide. No one would. In the mid-1990s, when our efforts were most intense, governments feared that charging Iraq with genocide would be too provocative -- that it would undermine future commercial deals with Iraq, squander influence in the Middle East, invite terrorist retaliation, or simply cost too much money...

In stating that the killing in Iraq did not rise to a level that justified humanitarian intervention, we are not insensitive to the awful plight of the Iraqi people. We are aware that summary executions occurred with disturbing frequency in Iraq up to the end of Saddam Hussein’s rule, as did torture and other brutality. Such atrocities should be met with public, diplomatic, and economic pressure, as well as prosecution. But before taking the substantial risk to life that is inherent in any war, mass slaughter should be taking place or imminent. That was not the case in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in March 2003.

Out of curiosity, Andrew - have you ever suffered a brain injury?

I'm trying to meet you half way here.

From the linked HRW document:
so the answer is YES, from both you and the idiots at HRW how caring for the Iraqi people of you and the HRW

Alan: "so the answer is YES, from both you and the idiots at HRW how caring for the Iraqi people of you and the HRW."

Um, that's not even a sentence, Alan.

In any case, nevermind that HRW had called (in vain, as it turned out) for international condemnation of Saddam Hussein's regime during the worst of the atrocities (in the 80s and early 90s), when humanitarian intervention would have been both legally and ethically justifiable. And nevermind that US foreign policy in most of the decade post-Persian Gulf War was content to settle for containment rather than deposition, even as groups like HRW and Amnesty International continued to expose human rights abuses. And nevermind that the current Bush administration and many of its pro-war supporters began pointing to this "humanitarian intervention" argument as their justification for the invasion of Iraq only after their previous two main justifications -- the presence of WMDs, and links between Hussein and Al Qaeda -- were proven to be untenable. And nevermind that the US-led occupation has created a military quagmire, sparked a sectarian civil war, and done nothing to diminish the global threat of terrorism.

Nevermind all these things, Alan -- who needs nuanced analyses, anyway. Saddam is evil, so invasion is justified, right? Simple arithmetics.

I'm sure your unwavering support for the Iraq War derives entirely from heartfelt empathy for the plight of the Iraqi people.

You guys need to stop listening to government propaganda and do your own thinking for a change. Nobody in their right mind believes that the war in Iraq was motivated out of concern for the welfare of Iraqi people.

The majority of Iraqis and their elected officials want the occupation to end. At what point do you stop pretending that you're "helping" them out.