Their parents are going to be so upset to find out Bush and Blair conned the world into thinking Iraq had WMDs.

Damn, Damian. You beat me to the same line!

To be honest, though, their parents are probably in another mass grave.

And we're still hearing from people who question any and all aspects of the liberation of Iraq? Is this somehow accetable to them? After all, we really shouldn't intervene, even when children are slaughtered!

This makes me so angry ... in part at the continued press coverage of increasingly delusional nay-sayers, but also with GHWB, who shouldn't have left the Kurds and other freedom fighters to die by allowing Sadam Hussein to live.

Do you think this or the Laci Peterson case will get more air play tonight on the news?

Another mass grave? Bummer dude, but since the WMD's haven't been found yet, I guess the USA should pull out and put the Ba'athists back in power. The sooner the children's prisons and people shredders are back in business, the better. That, at least, seems to be the position of the left.

"Ah don't see why we need to rush to war, Ah mean, you can always kill someone next week, but you can't bring 'em back."
Bill Clinton 2003

Tell it to the parents, Bubba.

Robo #4

Do you think this or the Laci Peterson case will get more air play tonight on the news?

No contest, sadly. Can someone 'splain to me why Laci Peterson, or the abduction of that Mormon kid command so much attention? People are killed and abducted every frickin' day, fer Chrissake.

#2 Robert Crawford

Damn, Damian. You beat me to the same line!

Don't you mean "That's a really good line and I wish I'd thought of it."

j/k.

brianstein- Since the the left-leaning media lost the war on Iraq, they have to re-group until the next battle. So, they focus on Laci or OJ or shark attacks, whatever will pass the time and keep their ratings up.

It said dolls were even found buried with the children.

I feel like I've been punched in the stomach. That is one of the saddest things I've read. Poor things.

First a childrens prison and now a childrens mass grave. What a world , what a world.

Slightly OT: a former "human shield" has returned to Iraq, and writes that most Iraqis support the American presence. So why are the news reports full of angry people saying they want the infidel occupiers to leave? Because they fear Shi'ite extremists will rape and kill them if they say otherwise.

[Link: www.upi.com...]

Maybe Saddam was the Weapon of Mass Destruction?

I can't stand the Lacy Peterson coverage either. O'Reilly said last night that the case has an emotional connection for women, though, because the victim was "All-American" and so was the husband, and there are millions of women in America with husbands they think they can trust but can't really know about for sure.

Still, the coverage sucks. The Lacy Peterson case is just media spin. I suspect their ratings are tanking.

The LLL has no soul! It has been co-oped by the Devil himself. There can be no other reason for their .....

Screw it.... there's nothing to say... this is just sad...

Mike

[saracasm]

Baghdad Bob: Move along. Nothing to see here except the remains of the young heroes of the Iraqi people who died at the hands of the US sponsored sanctions.

[/sarcasm]

Keep count of how many mass graves are uncovered. The numbers keep rising as the sites are found.

Notice that those mass graves show the utter inhumanity of the Ba'athist regime and that they were not discovered in one day or even one week or one month. Months after the regime was eliminated, we're still finding mass graves containing hundreds of bodies.

In other words, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that WMD will not be found. I doubt you'd hear that the mass graves would stop being uncovered because they're all found by now. Why the quick rush to judgment on WMD? Is it because of politics? [note to self: of course it's always about politics at some level]

Apparently it is somehow easier to come to grips with uncovering the horrors of genocide or mass killings or however you want to term the systematic killing of Kurds or Shi'a simply because they were not party to the Ba'athist way than to wait around for uncovering the weapons of mass destruction - or even signs that the Iraqis destroyed them for us before we went to war.

These kinds of revelations show why the Bush administration didn't need to lie or deceive about WMD to justify invading Iraq.

This (and the other mass graves) ALONE, represent all the justification we need to do what we did.

I second Zulubabe. Where is the outrage? Where is the international support for what the US has done? Once again, the world proves that an entire people can be exterminated in the most brutal fashion while the rest shrug their shoulders.

"One hundred dead are a catastrophe, a million dead are a statistic." - Adolf Eichmann

I encourage everyone here to find a local indymedia outlet and post this news story.

Its things like this that might get through the fashionable left that there were many reasons to dispose the previous Iraqi government.

Here is my posting in Atlanta

Pardon my ignorance on the matter, but is this just a children's graveyard, or is this evidence of a mass killing? Maybe such a gravesite is a cultural thing. A little more information on cause of death would be helpful.

These kinds of revelations show why the Bush administration didn't need to lie or deceive about WMD to justify invading Iraq.

Which they didn't do, anyway, Gordon, and no amount of left-wing loony lying will make it so.

Bugs (#20)

A little more information on cause of death would be helpful.

Please let us know what you find out, and also if it's a cultural thing for children to be buried with their dolls.

Did you read the article?

A mass grave containing the remains of 200 Kurdish children has been discovered in the northern Iraqi province of Kirkuk.

Pardon my ignorance on the matter, but is this just a children's graveyard, or is this evidence of a mass killing? Maybe such a gravesite is a cultural thing. A little more information on cause of death would be helpful.

Yes, it's Kurdish custom to throw 200 children into one hole, some of them still holding their dolls. And then, years after the mass burial, it's their custom to "find" these gravesites and report about them in their local newspapers.

Ah Bugs, This isn't the first mass grave to be discovered and the ones that have are buried with those that have been missing for years, not died of natural causes and buried after their death.....murdered.
And the relatives have identified the bodies and confirmed their murders.

#13 Abe's got it right. And only the second person I've ever seen make the observation. As they say in golf, "it ain't the arrow, it's the Indian."

Sadly, none of this stuff matters much to the left. The end all be all for their argument as it pertains to situations like these is "But the U.S. supported the Ba'ath regime!." followed by an image link to Rummy shaking hands with Saddam..

#& - IMHO, several factors are involved:

1.Laci - like Nicole Brown Simpson - was a good looking white woman who was brutally murdered by a good looking man. There are murders that are just as brutal every day, but most involve minorities and/or inner city violence and do not involve good looking middle class white people or celebrities (remember all the time wasted on Winona Ryder? It's no wonder we had our guard down on 9/11)

2. The Petersons are the folks next door. The audiences the TV networks want to attract - middle class white people ages 25 - 45 - don't want to hear stories about minorities: remember, that horrible couple in Chicago that murdered a pregnant woman and tore out the fetus a few years ago? That hardly got any national press after the first day.

3. Americans have tired of the war and mass graves lack "human drama." Yet, Americans love crime and punishment stories - as John Waters once wrote, everyone looks better under arrest, and even the dirtiest criminal takes on an aura of glamour when he is handcuffed and dragged before a crime-hungry American public. For many, this is just like watching a real-life "Lifetime" TV movie.

Sadly, it shows that the potential for WMD is more of an incentive than mass murder. Are you surprised at these mass graves? Why? That Saddam is as bloodthristy as Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin was well known and well documented before DSII -- but yet we cringe in horror.

We who read about this, anyway. I seriously doubt that most of the european media would be interested in covering this -- the Senate investigation into intelligence about WMD is more to their taste. (Waxman will have a field day, regardless of what is presented.)

David S.-
Well said.

Zee what the US impozed sactionz did? We, zee French were against theze sactionz, to say the least...

Noo? I got it wrong? Saddam did zis?

Well, its only a few hundred kidz...could be more! Zilly Americans, overeacting az usual!

#20 Bugs

Wait to buy into the Left's (never will I give them the compliment of calling them "liberals") cultural relativism. Your statement is an absolute textbook case of allowing the PC, respect-their-culture tenets of the tranzi's blind you to the existence of true evil.

Darn it, they keep digging up these mass graves and they haven't yet come up with any weapons of mass destruction. I mean, all these bodies just got there on their own, right?

Hate to rain on everyone's party, but where was the United States when Hussein was killing these people?

Did we know about it? Yes.

Did we do anything about it? No.

Did President Bush say anything about it at the time? No.

Did President George Herbert Walker Bush do a damn thing when Hussein gassed 49 Kurdish villages with Sarin? No.

So, yeah, of course we're going to find dead bodies -- Saddam was an evil man. Everybody knows that, and the longer we're in Iraq the more evidence we're going to find.

Not to dogpile on Bush -- Carter let the Cambodians muder their people without even breaking relations with the Khmer, President Woodrow Wilson refused to break relations with the Turks (even though they were allied with Germany) while they killed Christian Armenians, and Clinton blew off Rwanda until it was time for him to apologize for not acting. (Bush and Clinton ignored Bosnia for years)

But Pres. Bush watched all this happen without even firing harsh words at the Iraqi president. God knows what he could have done or said, but saying and doing nothing is not the kind of response I had hoped for.

The point is -- these dead kids didn't make any difference to the United States government when saving them could have been done. Now they're being dug up to provide post hoc evidence that the war was a good idea (which it was, btw, but dead kids aren't WMD).

P.S. They'll find the WMD. I just hope we find it before it finds us, if you know what I mean.

Strange, where were the human shields when they may have actually been useful? (sarcasm off)

#19 Kelly—

Indymedia will only be interested in stories like this if the blame can be pinned on Israel or the U.S. While I do not underestimate the creativity of people who come up with ways to blame Israel, this one is definitely a blame-the-U.S. story.

President George H.W. Bush called upon the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in the wake of the first Gulf War, and then gave Hussein's Republican Guards carte blanche to crush rebellions in the Kurdish north and Shi'ite south. Two hundred child victims of President Bush's treachery were unearthed on May 30 . . . .

Isn't that easy? The key is to remember that Saddam Hussein was created and sustained by American imperialism, and so America is responsible for his every action.

But overthrowing him violated Iraqi sovereignty.

#33

Hate to rain on everyone's party, but where was the United States when Hussein was killing these people?

George Eykyn:
Dr M.V. Diboll, United Arab Emirates asks: Why is it that in the 80s, when it was no secret that he had and was using chemical weapons, Saddam was a tyrant we were more than happy to do business with? Why did Britain and America suddenly decide that Iraq's alleged possession of WMDs was a casus beli - a reason to go to war?

Simon Henderson:
Well I think the questioner there is rewriting history. It's not the way that I remember the 1980s. The 1980s - and I ended up writing a biography of Saddam Hussein in 1990 - I did a lot of work in Iraq in the 1980s and the people who were supplying military equipment to Saddam's Iraq were noticeably the Soviet Union and the other parts of the Soviet bloc - China, France. And Britain and the United States supplied extremely little military equipment to Saddam because we realised what a diabolical regime it was. And so your questioner is pointing his finger in the wrong direction in terms of blame.

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

OT, but WTF? "Family photo?"

King Abdullah II of Jordan, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah, President Bush (news - web sites), Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (news - web sites), King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of Bahrain, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, from left, pose for a family photo after their meeting Tuesday June 3, 2003 in Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

[Link: story.news.yahoo.com...]

Why be surprised, or shocked, that the lefties and freaks don't feel stopping Saddam's mass murdering was a good (sufficient, valid, moral) reason for taking out Saddam?

They didn't have a problem with Stalin.

They didn't have a problem with Mao.

They didn't have a problem with Pol Pot.

They didn't (though they'll claim otherwise) have a problem with Hitler.

They sure don't have a problem with Arafish.

You see, they'd love to see the revolution come to "Amerika" and have some mass murdering marxist crackpot ship many millions of us nasty boozwahzeee off to some gulag to be liquidated.

You see, that's OK, because the people calling for it are sure that they are all going to be commissars.

Assholes

#21: I suppose all of those outraged intelligence analysts in Washington are "loony left-wing liars."

I repeat, the Bush administration didn't need to make up WMD stuff - getting rid of evil Hussein and finishing the job we started 12 years ago was reason enough, as evidenced by gruesome atrocities such as this and other mass graves.

It's just like Watergate; Richard Nixon didn't need to authorize dirty tricks to beat George McGovern.

#14 saw this on my bloomberg terminal in the morning. just checked other major news sites: cnn, nytimes, mscbc, others... no news about children's mass grave, plenty of coverage for martha, lacy, and rudolph.... strange how these names do quickly become household names and without the last names... 200 iraqi children will remain nameless. middle class white american women will have a hard time to identify with, i guess.

Wasn't it Lileks who said Children's / Prison
two words that should not go together
I believe this fits as well
not to diss any non- parents but I am sure all of us who have kids can feel that extra pang

very ,very sad

HG

Gordon voted for Bush
...or so he says.

The audiences the TV networks want to attract - middle class white people ages 25 - 45 - don't want to hear stories about minorities:

Actually, I'd state that as "TV networks don't want to report stories about minorities".

BTW
#18
That was Stalin also famous for asking how divisions the pope had

HG

I regret to say that these things don't phase me anymore. There are too many and I'm running out of outrage.

Even worse I suspect that this is the case in the country in general.

This is apparently still an improvement on those against the war who were never outraged.

I am confused however, as I recall almost any excess of the left could be excused as being "for the children". I take it that it is not allowed to use it on the right.

It's just like Watergate; Richard Nixon didn't need to authorize dirty tricks to beat George McGovern.

BRAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAA!!! OH SHIT! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

We need to parade the democrats(socialists) through these disgusting sites in iraq

the same way the post WWII german people were made to look at the death camps.

Why be surprised, or shocked, that the lefties and freaks don't feel stopping Saddam's mass murdering was a good (sufficient, valid, moral) reason for taking out Saddam?

Well, neither did Bush 41.

According to the article, these children were killed following the gulf war in 1991 -- clearly Bush and Schwarzkopf have to take some responsbility for this.

Bush promised the Kurds and Shiites that he would support them if they rose up; Schwarzkopf agreed to let Hussein keep his helicopters (which he used to deadly effect in putting down the Kurd/Shiite revolt).

But Hussein began murdering the Kurds wholesale in 1987. The Defense Department knew as soon as 1988 that 700 villages had been cleared and 1.5 million Kurds had been resettled in camps. The men were separated from the women and killed.

The entire world knew that Hussein used chemical weapons against the village of Halabja (and 48 others) in March of that year.

What was the Reagan-Bush response? To stress to the world press that Hussein was punishing the Kurds for aligning themselves with Iran, while opposing a sanctions measure that passed the Senate 87-0 before dying in the House.

But remember this the next time another government kills thousands of it's own people. The default U.S. response is silence, inaction and deliberate obfuscation of the facts to justify silence and inaction. And believe it, there will be a next time.

We can feel horror that another episode of Hussein's brutality has been literally unearthed. And we can take comfort in his disposal. But preventing these massacres has never been, and probably never will be, a diplomatic priority for the United States. And to be fair, not for any other country, either.

#20 Bugs:

Pardon my ignorance on the matter, but is this just a children's graveyard, or is this evidence of a mass killing? Maybe such a gravesite is a cultural thing.

Uh yeah, and it was "cultural" that all 200 children died on the same day and of the same cause.

#36 Ben F

If we don't try to correct the often repeated in accuracies on indymedia outlets then we are not good net citizens.

The arguement that you quoted is one that the liberal left often refer to and they are right to refer to it. The easy response is that since the a previously elected US government was responsible for supporting Hussain and his thugs it was the US government's responsibility to remove him. I have used this justification before and left the fashionable lefty speachless.

Robert Crawford (#23):

Ouch!

#48

The differnece is that some of the German suicided after being forced to look at the death camps. I bet the leftists wouldjust keep screaming "It is about oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil!". Repugnant people who wouldn't blink at millions of third world people dying provided the killer is anti-american. I am beginnng to wonder if hating America is something they need for performing in bed. That is why they don't care about third world children.

#49

blame scowcroft

#49 andre,

Is there some other country who did act on behalf of the Kurds and Shiites? Maybe I missed it.

Lively:
1. Who said they all died on the same day?
2. Exactly what WAS the cause of death?

#53

I'm starting to wonder about this too.

The democrats(socialists) seem to have made a new snap with reality. And I think we will ultimately be fighting them after the terrorists. They are enabling the terrorists now, for the most part.

Andre-
The US is not perfect and doesn't claim to be but, is there any other country that would do or has done like the US? The answer is NO.
We cannot be the police force for the world, we have to pick and choose our battles that most effect us. There was a clear danger to the US via Iraq and WMD and an all around dangerous Middle East. The threat had to be dealt with so the US did.
No other country would have done it.

and just to followup....There were no terrorists with the capability of Al Qaeda during Gulf War I. This made all the difference.

#55 No, nobody acted on behalf of the Kurds. Nobody at all.

Read "A Problem from Hell" by Samantha Power. For all the hand-wringing after the bodies are dug up, nobody lifts a finger while the killing is going on. It's politically safer to stay out of the fight (Rwanda, Bosnia) and assign blame when the dying is done.

Nobody in the Reagan or Bush 41 admins said a goddamned word to Saddam Hussein when it as clear as crystal he was killing the Kurds. And there's nothing new about the U.S. standing back while this happens -- this country has been ignoring genocide since 1915.

The thing that gets me is when Bush 43 cited the gas attacks against the Kurds as justification for the war -- all I could think was, 'where the hell was this desire to stop Hussein when it could have done them some good?'

All this newfound moral outrage over Hussein coming from Washington sounds pretty hollow to me.

Please join me in the nomorelaciuntilverdict.com website. Give until it hurts. We must fight this tragedy before it becomes another O.J. For gosh sakes, it'll be two years before the final outcome, our sanity is more important than that!

Joking aside- I really do turn the channel every time I hear "Peterson" or "Laci".

#58 robo

Nah, you've got me all wrong. The war was good, the war was just and the war was right.

Hussein would have kept on doing this until his dying day. And with nukes, there would have been no stopping him. No more sanctions, no more arms control, no way of containing him.

I firmly believe that Hussein was behind the Oklahoma City bombings and both the WTC attacks (unless it was Iran) as well as the anthrax letters. I think it politically expedient for him to let Bin Laden take credit for those attacks.

If he remained in power, we could have expected more of the same. And once he got nukes, he could have start taking credit for it.

#60 So no other country has a better track record than the US - yet the overwhelming majority of the blame comes our way. And where were all the peace protesters when Saddam was doing his killing? They only can be bothered when America is doing the killing. So excuse me if I don't share your disdain for our crocodile tears. It is still more than most other people are doing.

andre (#60),

Nobody in the Reagan or Bush 41 admins said a goddamned word to Saddam Hussein when it as clear as crystal he was killing the Kurds.

Also, isn't it just a crying shame how hard the US has fought the UN from going into Iraq to solve the problems.

#56 Bugs:
1. The term "mass grave" means that everyone died at the same time. What do you think, the kind Iraqi authorities went all around the country gently collecting dead children that day?

2. The link to the story says the children were "victims" from the repression of the Kurds. It is well-documented that the Iraqi government has killed thousands of Kurds....it is not a stretch that they would kill Kurdish children, too. However, your "maybe it's just their culture" is more over the top than my explanation of things.

remember, that horrible couple in Chicago that murdered a pregnant woman and tore out the fetus a few years ago? That hardly got any national press after the first day.

Now do you suppose that's because folks called up threatening to find other outlets if they didn't stop covering the story? Or could it be that in the peecee liberal newsroom, stories where the bad guy happens to be one of the "annointed" tend to get buried?

Remember when the press was seething with indignant rage at the "angry white man" doing the DC sniper murders? Remember how quickly that rage turned into quizical sorrow after Mohammed (whoops, somebody dig up his Christian (wink) name, even though he's had it legally changed) was caught dead-to-rights?

There are countless other examples. Like how the NYT Paris edition is running the "Muslims hate America and Israel" poll. Why would this international story be news overseas, but not in the USA? That should scream volumes. Remains to be seen if they'll run it here, but I won't hold my breath.

So, Bugs, what part of "mass grave" isn't clear to you?

Bugs, if you found something like this, wouldn't you assume foul play?

[Link: www.usd.edu...]

O.T.

Judeophobia - not your parents' anti-Semitism

article exerpt...

“....The book challenges the
impression given by many
commentators - especially in
the United States - that a
singular, pan-European virus of
anti-Semitism has infected
European countries. Yet scratch
the surface of that notion and
even a cursory analysis of the
problem shows a different

picture: what's happening in Britain is not the
same as it is in France, in Germany, or elsewhere
in Europe for that matter.”

Any comments from LGFers on this article by By Barry Kosmin and Paul Iganski

[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

Also, isn't it just a crying shame how hard the US has fought the UN from going into Iraq to solve the problems.

Good God, the UN has killed more people than second-hand smoke ... with their blue helmets and empty promises of "safe havens."

Another good thing about the war -- it destroyed the UN's unearned credibility.

#18 Solomon X

He may have said that, but I think the original quote was Stalin: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."

---------------

Mass graves of children. Prisons of children.

And Belgium has the fucking gall to try to charge our guys with war crimes.

Hey, andre's saying some painful things, but they appear to be truthful. And he did say

But preventing these massacres has never been, and probably never will be, a diplomatic priority for the United States. And to be fair, not for any other country, either.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me, minor quibbles aside.

Also, to be fair, our liberals were beginning to raise a hellish stink as the Iraqis were being routed in the Gulf War. It seems that retreating, but not surrendering, armed forces, looters and rapists were no longer an enemy we should be targeting (the old "Bush Sr. didn't finish the job!" screed). The last thing the NYT wanted, then as recently, was for Saddam to be out of power. Of course, we did want Iraq to have some military integrity left over to prevent the Iranians from acting up.

And there was pressure from coalition partners to leave Saddam in place. The UN/coalition was a wonderful, beautiful story, but it came with an unforseeable price in diluting moral clarity and hindering US aims based on the wishes of jackals like Syria, etc. We saw the dark side of this process and school of thought quite clearly over the last several months.

Andre's points evoke memories of time-travelling liberals, but I don't think that's likely his tack. "But, but, the US didn't do something right/did something wrong X years ago, therefore we can't do the right thing now!" The idiots that say things like this are welcome to loan us their time machines, or praise someone for doing what they claim is right in the present.

Bugs, please stop being so lazy and do a little reading and googling on your own. Or are you merely arguing for the sake of it?

I have not even read the posts yet, I'll scroll back up after I say this. To all you bleating phony leftists: FUCK OFF.

Mass graves of children --- children --- as if the prisons of living children were not enough; nor the mass graves of adults... I hope you are proud of your little "Bushhitler" placards you bunch of pathologically mis-informed idiots.

And don't you dare call yourselves "liberal"!!!

Lively:
Actually, mass grave means that they were just buried in very close proximity. It's not unusual for the same grave site to be used over and over. For example, in "Hamlet" there is a scene in which a gravedigger is digging Ophelia's grave and unearths the bones of Yorrick. Also, in many cultures the paupers cemetery is crammed with bodies. Such examples are not unusual; in areas where arable land is scarce it is common.

The "cultural" aspect I refer to is whther the Kurds prefer to bury children separately. For instance, if you told me that they have separate graveyards for men and women, I would believe you. Why not children as well?

One thing I find curious is the presence of children's toys in the graves. Mass-murdering psychos don't usually include personal effects with their victims (other than what they're wearing at the time of execution). However, parents frequently do add a favorite toy. But then, parents wouldn't bury their children in a "mass grave".

You were the one who insisted the children all died from the same cause. Yet it isn't mentioned in the story. For all we know they died from an outbreak of cholera. Tell me that they died from pistol shot at close range and all doubt is removed.

But having said that, do I think that Saddam's goons killed them? Of course. The man was the Devil incarnate. I just think this is a story that needs the 48 hour rule. After all, if we're wrong and the children died from some natural disaster then the lefties will crow about it for decades.

Okay, still have not read the entire thread, but.. oh...my...God:

"Pardon my ignorance on the matter, but is this just a children's graveyard, or is this evidence of a mass killing? Maybe such a gravesite is a cultural thing. A little more information on cause of death would be helpful."

Speechless, I am.

One thing I find curious is the presence of children's toys in the graves. Mass-murdering psychos don't usually include personal effects with their victims (other than what they're wearing at the time of execution)

And your evidence for this is, what, exactly?

#75 Bugs:

It's not unusual for the same grave site to be used over and over. For example, in "Hamlet" there is a scene in which...

I cannot believe you would use a piece of fiction to support one of your ludicrous arguments.

17 Gordon -

This (and the other mass graves) ALONE, represent all the justification we need to do what we did.

'we" ?

thanks for the chuckle in an otherwise horrific story.

weep for the children who are no longer here, hold those that are very close to your heart.

#78 -- what's particularly pathetic about that is that the difference between a mass of graves and a mass grave is clear.

#80: Robert; yes my views have evolved over the past few months on the Iraq invasion.

Have yours evolved on the phony perils of immigration yet?

Sincerely,

Gordon

Excuse me, wrong Robert, that should be #79.

"When G-D calls little children to dwell with Him above,
We mortals sometimes question the wisdom of His love.
For no heartache compares with the death of one small child
Who does so much to make our world seem wonderful and mild.

Perhaps G-D tires of calling the aged to His fold,
So He picks a little rosebud before it can grow old.
G-D knows how much we need them, so He takes but a few
To make the Land of Heaven more beautiful to view.

Believing this is difficult, still, somehow we must try,
The saddest word mankind knows will always be "goodbye."

So when a little child departs, we who are left behind
Must realize G-D loves children..........Angels are to find."

May He Bless the Children.

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one sick to death of Laci coverage. I'm a woman of the appropriate demographic yet I don't see anything particularly newsworthy of this case. Don't husbands kill their wives every day? At least OJ was famous so I somewhat understand the interest. I don't think it is a case of the news outlets giving the people what they want, I think the news people are interested in this so this is what we get.

And I also don't think the murdering bastards put dolls in with the children. I think the children were clutching them in terror when they were shot/gassed/etc. and the SOBs didn't take the time to pull the toys from their hands.

I think I can pinpoint the exact moment when I quit dismissing the looney-left-power-to-the-people-free-Mumia-up-agai nst-the-wall-we-want-a-revolution-death-to-Amerikk ka crowd and turned against them with a pure hate. When I head of the death of Stompei Seipe at the hands of Winnie Mandela and her "football club"
My son was Stompei's age, and I looked at him and something snapped. Nothing is worth the death of an innocent child, and to kill for ideology - no way, no how and not in my name.

#60 andre -

Nobody in the Reagan or Bush 41 admins said a goddamned word to Saddam Hussein when it as clear as crystal he was killing the Kurds. And there's nothing new about the U.S. standing back while this happens -- this country has been ignoring genocide since 1915.

Umm - it was known as the "no-fly zone"- American and Brittish pilots have been protecting kurds for 11 years, numbnuts.

vdare.com...]>

And that's exactly what Mr. Colapinto finds no encouraging about them. The kiddy-cons may swagger on about the "free market," "patriotism," and even the oppressiveness of the multiculturalist speech and behavior codes that prevail in their schools, but what Mr. Colapinto has detected is that these kids present no serious threat whatsoever to the kind of culture he, Rolling Stone, and the New York Times have striven so hard to impose on the country. He's probably right that the kiddy cons will be "shaping the Republican Party in the years to come." He has every reason to hope so.

OT, but there's a lot of "St. Pancake" and related BS over on IdiotMedia (main site) today.

#84 Renna

Don't husbands kill their wives every day?

Well... No.

#87 Frank IMC

That's because Israel's PM Office released a statement condemning the ISM for supporting terrorism -- first step before banning the whole lot from entering Israel, I guess. What you are seeing is a sorry attempt at damage control.

Bugs 75

One thing I find curious is the presence of children's toys in the graves. Mass-murdering psychos don't usually include personal effects with their victims (other than what they're wearing at the time of execution). However, parents frequently do add a favorite toy. But then, parents wouldn't bury their children in a "mass grave".

Gravediggers have led our forces, and British forces, to other graves before. Those who did the killing weren't necessarily those who buried the children, although the killers probably ordered it done. In Saddam's Iraq, burying the children with their toys may have been the only safe gesture of common humanity, much as people here pile up teddy bears to show their sympathy when a child dies needlessly. What would your options be if Saddam's goons showed up with a truckload of children to bury?

Renna #84

Don't husbands kill their wives every day?

I can only speak from experience: no.

Damn, Caton got there first.

For all the hand-wringing after the bodies are dug up, nobody lifts a finger while the killing is going on.

Andre, you are being a bit simplistic.

Much of the world is a chaotic mess; America cannot fix the whole world. But when it comes to national security, the US will act aggressively on its behalf.

To equate Iraq with say, Sudan, is a bit absurd.

If a Sudanese regime posed a threat to the people of the United States, that regime would quickly come to an end, and so would the ongoing massacres of the Sudanese people.  But simply because the US would be acting on behalf of its own people, does not mean it couldn't claim to have benefitted the people of Sudan.

America does what it can, when it can.

If the UN wasn't such an impotent organization, there would be less tyranny and massacres in the world.  Problem is, the tyrants and actors responsible for such massacres, all have membership at the UN.

Such is the way of the world, and those who care, do what they can, when they can.  America cannot fix the whole world.
 

Hyperbole, guys, hyperbole. "Every day" was admittedly hyperbole for "quite often." I’ll try to be more clear since words mean things. The point was that the case doesn’t seem unique enough to justify the coverage.

I think it's safe to assume there has been at least one or two murders of wives by their husbands since the Peterson murder. Anyone got a recent US spousal homicide rate, husband killing wife? We won't even include wives killing husbands, ex-spouses, or dating couples. Not that I subscribe to the "panic" stats touted by some activist groups like 3 out of every 2 women will be killed this year by an evil man they know.

One thing that does not happen every day is that I hear about a mass grave of children. Thank God for that. Oh that I didn't have to hear it one time.

OT - on the subject of immigration Europe says zero immigration policy not an option.

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

Kelly (51), I've used that on a couple of my antiwar friends who used that argument. It DID floor them.

An echo of personal responsibility? They'd never even thought of such a thing... didn't quite comprehend how that had anything to do with the situation.... THAT floored me.

#95 snopes-

From the article-

With the working-age population in Europe widely expected to contract from 2010, immigration will become "increasingly necessary", according to the European Commission (EC).

The WSJ ran an article on it last week, Friday I think. The reason is is that they are nearly at a point where 2 workers pays for the retirement of 1 aged person. The unions will not give on the socialism, even as one company after the other leaves France, and Germany, for greener pastures. Let them take all the immigrants they can, it will not stave off the collapse of the Western Socialist State- which is being engineered by hard working Orientals in Asia, not by muslims from the middle east. The orientals work hard, produce good qaulity products and don't ask for socialistic programs- hence low tax rates.

France is dead, they just haven't been buried yet.

Agreeing with Zulubaby #10

This is so sad....how can we not weep for these poor babies?

And if this is not all over the evening news, I am going to be really pissed. Somehow, I feel I'm going to be really pissed.

OT freedomsound #38 - DR RICE: "They then broke for a very brief period of time to take the family picture, if you will..."
[Link: www.whitehouse.gov...]

Robert Crawford #77 - "(Bugs #75) Mass-murdering psychos don't usually include personal effects with their victims (other than what they're wearing at the time of execution)

And your evidence for this is, what, exactly?"

Robert, maybe Bugs has some direct experience with psychosis.

#93 William

Well no, it's not realistic for the U.S. to take arms whenever and wherever in the world injustice is occurring -- Clinton thought all you had to do was show up with Rangers and Marines and the bad guys would evaporate without shots being fired...

...But Reagan and Bush did far less -- they changed the subject whenever it came up. They refused even to bring up the topic with Hussein. They refused to let their staff discuss it with the media. They challenged and discredited refugee reports.

And why? I can only speculate, but I fear that if the govt. confirmed they knew that the Kurds were being genocided by Iraq that the American people would demand the U.S. put a stop to it. And no, Iraq at the time was not a security threat to the U.S. Going to war with them over the Kurds, who were a "threat" to our ally Turkey, would have been a dangerous move diplomatically. And if Hussein hadn't backed down from us, we would have looked weak.

The Kurds are much more important, dead, than they were ever were, dying.

#72 Model 4

"But, but, the US didn't do something right/did something wrong X years ago, therefore we can't do the right thing now!"

Yeah, I hate that. What are they trying to say? That it's more important to point out some contradictory part of U.S. policy than it is to save lives? If we didn't act, who on God's green earth would have?

What the hell. We were allies with Russia once. Does that mean the cold war is our fault too? (You know, I think I've heard someone try to argue that -- that if we hadn't threatened the Russians into conquering all those "buffer states" we could have coexisted peacefully into the next ice age).

And after all, if we "created" Hussein, then it was our right to destroy him.

#18

The outrage is saved for the poor, poor detainees in Gitmo. I mean, to be alive and forced to eat all that fatty American food, to have to look at the infidel dogs each day after prayers, to have to take a bigger pair of jeans and a brand new Qur'an from the pig dogs when you're released...
THE FUCKING HORROR!
/sarcasm

This is why bin Laden and 99.9999% of the Muslim world laugh at the West and are confident in our destruction.
We quibble about reasons to protect our interests, whine about minutae while they send their children out to die in an "intifada" or murder thousands of their own

What are a few hundred dead kids -- just dirty Kurds anyway -- when JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS are still in the "Holy Land"?
What are empty nerve gas canisters and raped 10 year-olds when the world STILL isn't under Shari'ah?
Sure the evil colonialist American pig dogs ousted Saddam, but where is the Islamic government? Why are infidels still walking around in a Muslim country?
/death cultists
/Lefty Lackwit Boot-Licking Appeasement Monkey™

We need to parade the democrats(socialists) through these disgusting sites in iraq

Why?
So they can point the finger at America?

That's their answer for everything.
It can't be that some people are just fucked up.
Nope, it's America's fault that Saddam killed/Castro's people are starving/Uncle Fred's on crack.

It can't be that there is actual evil in the world, that sometimes right is right and wrong is wrong.
Nope.
It's America's fault that the Mad Mullahs™ rule Iran, that Saddam killed his own people, that Iraqi children starved.

It can't be that maybe all cultures/religions are not equal and that some practices should be shunned and ridiculed out of existence.
Nope.
It's America's fault that Pal kids ask for death (see Charles' post), that Christian missionaries are burned to death in Africa for trying to convert Muslims, that the Pope and his minions have no problem with kid rapers but a lot of problems with liberating Iraqis.

Frankly, I'm sick of it.
Although it's a little redundant: Fuck the America haters, UN, France, Islam, the ME (except Israel), Europe and North Korea.
Bring our troops home.
Let shit-hole countries clean up their own messes and settle their own disputes.
Stop spending my tax dollars on worthless, ungrateful, ingrates who would spit in my face or kill me if they had the chance.
/rant

Now, let's get this spittle cleaned up!
:)

The default U.S. response is silence, inaction and deliberate obfuscation of the facts to justify silence and inaction. And believe it, there will be a next time.

US: Look, that guy is killing his own people.
UN Human Rights Commission: So what? He's my cousin.
US: We can't let him do that? We have to take action!
UN: Imperialists! Hegemonists! You're trying to tell another country what to do! Koffi, Koffi, look at what the evil zionistpigdogcolonist Americans are doing!
**many years later, above scenario has occured x10**

US: Look, that guy is killing...
UN: So what?
US: ******************
UN: I believe that Libya was up next in our round table discussion on human rights?

#100 Andre,

And why? I can only speculate, but I fear that if the govt. confirmed they knew that the Kurds were being genocided by Iraq that the American people would demand the U.S. put a stop to it. And no, Iraq at the time was not a security threat to the U.S. Going to war with them over the Kurds, who were a "threat" to our ally Turkey, would have been a dangerous move diplomatically. And if Hussein hadn't backed down from us, we would have looked weak.

You even mention the Cold War in your post, but you don't seem to consider the fact the USSR might would have taken violent exception to American military intervention in Iraq.

Forget about Turkey, and the Kurds. The Soviets were pointing about ten thousand nuclear warheads in our direction. It sucks that some of it happened before the end of the Cold War, and we were nuts to listen to the UNicks at the end of the Gulf War and leave Hussein in power (other readers have pointed out the no-fly zones. That was as far as the UN would allow us to go. After 9-11 we don’t care what the UN allows).

But you can't seriously believe that fighting a Global Thermonuclear War would have been preferable to what happened to the Kurds.

If we had invaded Iraq they way we just did in 1985, that is how it would have ended. It would have been far too aggressive a move (think of what our reaction would have been like if the Soviets had invaded Canada, for G-d's sake).

If the Soviets had allowed it, we'd have American troops in Western Europe and in Iraq, ready (if we were allowed to consolidate our position) to invade the Motherland (the great pincer attack that Hitler could have had if he'd reinforced Rommel instead of launching Operation Barbarossa, but I digress). There's no way the Soviets would have allowed it.

At the very least, they would have driven south to back their ally Saddam Hussein. Then you have US and Soviet troops shooting at each other on the ground in Iraq. It would have been somewhat dumber than playing Russian roulette with five rounds in the cylinder. Khrushchev blinked, but he was the guy wading into our sphere of interest.

Mikhail Gorbachev wouldn’t have. Not in this scenario.

[Growl]
..they way.. == ...the way...

It looks like some guy named Liberal Ostrich is raising waves with the mass grave story over here:
[Link: www.indymedia.org...]

Celissa....its even more horrible...

its genetically modified food.....

aaaarghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

#106 PDM

oy....its not nice to tease the mentally challanged....

these indymedia tyoes twist like pretzels to blame everything on the USA....

LOL

#108 ploome,

I think I like that ostrich guy. I really loved this one:

I'm ashamed (english)
Liberal Ostrich 8:34pm Tue Jun 3 '03
comment#324142

I'm ashamed for protesting the war and giving my support to the Saddam regime after seeing this story and others like it.

You can all cry "troll," but you can't do what I've done and admit error in supporting crap like Saddam.
I even got naked for my misguided cause! I will never take off my clothes for a dictatorship again!!!!!!!

One thing I've always been curious about is the Morlocks obsession with "COINTELPRO". Now I'm assuming that means "Counter-Intelligence Program" and since they like to throw that term around so much, are they accusing those who post dissenting comments to be agents of the US government?

Oh, and they're calling BS on this, just like they did with the Children's Prison.

OTOH, "sirius" gave them a fine slap in the face. PDM, that wasn't you, was it?

#110 Spiny Norman,

I am not "sirius". But that is one silly thread over there.

Oh, check your email.

Well, I guess we shouldn't have sold him all that machinery for making mustard gas, then.

It would be nice if we could, perhaps, learn a little from this with respect to our involvement in Uzbekistan.

#112 Kimmitt

Well, I guess we shouldn't have sold him all that machinery for making mustard gas, then.

Yep, you Germans really fucked up.

Maybe they were Kurdish midgets... with doll fetishes.

ROFL

Here's an interesting account of life on the Kurdish front line written at the beginning of the Iraq war. It seems to me that the Kurdish angle in the Iraq situation has been mostly neglected by the media (at least in Europe), perhaps because the Kurds were so pro-war and pro-American.

(from the article I linked to above)

Last week, on a freezing night in a blacked-out bunker outside Halabja, a city in the mountains of northeastern Iraq, the officers of a Kurdish guerrilla unit drank tea and laid out in vivid detail what they would do to President Bush if he fell into their hands. “I would kiss him one thousand times,” the company commander, Sheikh Fattah, said. “I would carry him on my shoulders and shout songs to him,” another officer, Farouk Khaled, added. “I would sacrifice one thousand sheep and two thousand chickens for him,” a third officer, Mam Siamand, said.

(Hands over eyes)

"It's all about oil..."

--What a bunch of maroons!

#113:

No, Caton, Kimmitt is coming to us courtesy of The Anti-idiotarian Rotweiller. He's a regular over there. Comes to bring his message of enlightenment to us unwashed cretins.

The Other Elizabeth

#118 Elizabeth

You mean he's not German?

Then why does he say "we" when Dräger-Ballings has been fined heavily for selling Iraq the equipment and technology to mass-produce sulfur mustard gas?

I saw a bumper sticker today.
"I tried to stop the war."

And I thought, what kind of ass puts that on their car? Have they no shame.

Maybe the people who supported liberating Iraq and the Kurds should slap, "This loser tried to stop the war, almost helping Saddam stay in power." on peoples cars.

But no, that would be wrong.

If I ever see a bumper sticker that says:
"

"I tried to stop the war."

I don't know what I'm going to do. That very idea makes me seethe.

Sure, up above I tried to draw attention to the U.S.'s (and the world's) hands-in-their-pockets attitutude vis-a-vis the Iraqi slaughter of the Kurds, but I do it to make that point that the death of civilians and children, especially, makes the blood of civilized people boil but it doesn't automatically spur governments into saving lives.

And now we know the brutal consequences of inaction. There is no bottom. There is no point at which it cannot get worse

The very fact that someone could know this, and take pride in trying to stop the removal of the man who commissioned these actions -- is a show-stopper. I'm in vapor lock here.

I read the Indymedia thread and there was plenty of sniffing about "as much as I abhor any dictator, I was opposed to the means of his removal."

Which means one thing -- if anybody but the U.S. had removed him, they'd support his removal.

As if.

If the U.S. doesn't act, no one acts.

#119

Sorry, Caton, all I know is that Kimmitt is the name of a liberal troll over at Misha's site. This one just talked the same way. He might be different. Don't know.

The Other Elizabeth

#122 Elizabeth

Oh, too bad. I hoped s/he was German. Each time a misinformed German reads LGF for a while, s/he learns and changes.