THE SCOTSMAN: No morality in leaving Iraqis in the Republic of Fear (MUST, MUST READ!)

THE 199 MPs who voted against the Prime Minister’s hard-line stance against Iraq on Wednesday night - especially the 122 Labour MPs who rebelled against their own government - should read the following paragraphs and think again. It comes from The Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack, an American expert on Iraq who has the evidence and testimony to back up everything he writes about the government of the Butcher of Baghdad.

"This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all of the bones in the feet of a two-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father’s whereabouts. This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm’s length from its mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess. This is a regime that will burn a person’s limbs off to force him to confess or comply.

"This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will or simply as a means of execution. This is a regime that applies electric shocks to the bodies of its victims, particularly their genitals, with great creativity.

"This is a regime that in 2000 decreed that the crime of criticising the regime (which can be as harmless as suggesting that Saddam’s clothing does not match) would be punished by cutting off the offender's tongue.

"This is a regime that practices systematic rape against its female victims. This is a regime that will drag in a man’s wife, daughter or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him.

"This is a regime that will force a white-hot metal rod into a person’s anus or other orifices. This is a regime that employs thallium poisoning, widely considered one of the most excruciating ways to die.

"This is a regime that will behead a young mother in the street in front of her children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime.

"This is a regime that used chemical warfare on its own Kurdish citizens - not just on the 15,000 killed and maimed at Halabja but on scores of villages all across Kurdistan.

"This is a regime that tested chemical and biological warfare agents on Iranian prisoners of war, using prisoners of war in controlled experiments to determine the best ways to disperse the agents to inflict the greatest damage."

Read his words again - if you can bear to do so - and wonder why any person of goodwill, especially those of goodwill and sense on the Left with a long commitment against dictatorship and for human rights, would not grasp any possibility of overthrowing Saddam Hussein with both hands, rather than oppose it. Liberating Iraq from a terrible tyranny might not be the sole purpose of any Anglo-American invasion. But it would be one of the beneficial consequences to follow military intervention devoutly to be wished and as good a reason as any for going to Baghdad. Those who oppose it condemn the Iraqi people to indefinite incarceration in the Republic of Fear, where barbarism rules. There is no morality in that.

There are, of course, many other brutal regimes in the world. But none is worse than Iraq; and, unlike most of today’s nasty dictatorships, Iraq is presided over by a tyrant determined to spread his writ throughout his region by force, then hold the rest of us to ransom. He has tried before (Iran, Kuwait) and would do so again if he had the means and opportunity to do so.

Inaction will ensure that he does, as sanctions slip and containment frays at the edges - as they have over the past decade, allowing Saddam to generate new oil revenues and rebuild his weapons of mass destruction. A tyrant who tortures his own people is a stain on humanity who should be removed. An expansionist tyrant whose aim is to extend his evil must be removed.

Be in no doubt that Saddam’s ambition, which he has held for over two decades and still holds, is for Iraq to become the regional superpower of the Gulf, to use its oil wealth to develop his military might and dominate the Arab world, with disastrous consequences for Israel and the West. He sees himself as the new Nebuchadnezzar and Saladin rolled into one; indeed, in a children’s book about Saladin, Saddam had his image used for the cover and was referred to as Saladin II throughout. The dreams of a megalomaniac? Not quite: he has put them into practice.

He has attempted to increase Iraq’s wealth and power by forcibly taking first the oil-rich Khuzestan province in Iran and then Kuwait. Both invasions were part of his grand plan for Iraqi hegemony in the Gulf. In that role, he would use the oil weapon to assert his interpretation of Iraqi interests against the West. His dream is to "liberate" Jerusalem, a goal on which he constantly dwells because it would confirm his desire to be an Arab leader of historic proportions. He has been prepared to sacrifice his people and his country’s economic development to build the most formidable military machine in the region (it still is, despite the sanctions). Since the inspectors left in 1998 he has used illegal oil revenues to go on a global spree to acquire the paraphernalia needed for weapons of mass destruction.

Only a massive American military build up stopped him from re-invading Kuwait in 1994. Only another huge Anglo-American military deployment on his borders today has convinced him to allow the weapons inspectors back in. Now he will play his traditional game of playing for time, as a myriad of "useful idiots" in the chancelleries of Paris and Bonn and the Commons in London play into his hands by arguing for delay and giving the inspectors more time.

Saddam knows the more time he is given, the more likely he is to survive. The Americans and the British cannot keep their huge forces in the region indefinitely. If the inspectors are given an open-ended mission, he will bide his time, cheating and retreating, until he is no longer surrounded by forces that can destroy him. Then he will renew his efforts to dominate the region, courtesy of the peace party.

"It is the combination of Saddam’s intentions and his ceaseless efforts to enhance Iraqi capabilities that is most frightening," writes Pollack.

Those who airily dismiss him as a threat - or someone that can be perpetually contained - are kidding themselves, playing into his hands and condemning millions of Arabs to an indefinite hell on earth. The same sort of folk used to say that Mein Kampf was just an inconsequential ramble, not Adolf Hitler's blueprint for European domination. Millions of innocent people paid with their lives in the Second World War for that mistake. How many millions more will die if we make the same mistake again? And how many more Iraqi children have to have their eyes gouged out before those of us who still have eyes to see wake up and support military action?

The problem with the liberal left is they compartmentalize the issues on this and as such - pointing out these atrocities is nothing more than a war-mongering proof-text. Their response? Why are we then not addressing China or North Korea in the same way we're dealing with Iraq? The answer? The reality is that we are not dealing with Saddam singularly on this issue alone. Conservatives are looking at the whole picture whereas the appeasers are dealing with each issue as singular unrelated points.

When you deal with Iraq you must take into consideration his record on human rights, his record on how he deals with his surrounding countries, his record on WMDs and much more. But most importantly to the US we must deal with him in context of the War on Terror. The liberals have made an art form of bifurcating these issues. They do not see Saddam as any more of a threat than any other given country based on these 'singular' issues. If they can ever get their small minds around the larger picture then there might be some hope for them. Until then let's stay focused on what the real issues are.

We are dealing with the War on Terrorism which fully involves more than Iraq. We must deal with each country in its turn and we must deal with Iraq first as they are the logical choice. Saudia Arabia/Iran is next although North Korea is trying its best to force the issue. We must deal with Iraq first to secure the oil fields, we must deal with Iraq first to have a better foothold on the region and we must deal with Iraq first because when in the Middle East we must play by their rules. Or, as Thomas Friedman puts it, we must play by Hamas rules. You earn respect (doesn't mean they'll love you) by demonstrating strength - not diplomacy.

"Of course, the office liberals, when told of the torture that is performed in Iraq said "prove it". "

Ask them if they would believe it if the UN reported it. Then produce this...

UNSCR 688 (UN Security Council Resolution 688) “condemns” Saddam Hussein’s repression of the Iraqi civilian population -- “the consequences of which threaten international peace and security.” UNSCR 688 also requires Saddam Hussein to end his repression of the Iraqi people and to allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to help those in need of assistance.

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated these provisions and has: expanded his violence against women and children; continued his horrific torture and execution of innocent Iraqis; continued to violate the basic human rights of the Iraqi people and has continued to control all sources of information (including killing more than 500 journalists and other opinion leaders in the past decade).

Saddam Hussein has also harassed humanitarian aid workers; expanded his crimes against Muslims; he has withheld food from families that fail to offer their children to his regime; and he has continued to subject Iraqis to unfair imprisonment.10

REFUSAL TO ADMIT HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORS

§ The UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly issued a report that noted "with dismay" the lack of improvement in the situation of human rights in Iraq. The report strongly criticized the "systematic, widespread, and extremely grave violations of human rights" and of international humanitarian law by the Iraqi Government, which it stated resulted in "all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror." The report called on the Iraqi Government to fulfill its obligations under international human rights treaties. § Saddam Hussein has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors and the establishment of independent human rights organizations.

From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.11 § In September 2001 the Government expelled six UN humanitarian relief workers without providing any explanation.12

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

§ Human rights organizations and opposition groups continued to receive reports of women who suffered from severe psychological trauma after being raped by Iraqi personnel while in custody.13 § Former Mukhabarat member Khalid Al-Janabi reported that a Mukhabarat unit, the Technical Operations Directorate, used rape and sexual assault in a systematic and institutionalized manner for political purposes. The unit reportedly also videotaped the rape of female relatives of suspected oppositionists and used the videotapes for blackmail purposes and to ensure their future cooperation.§ In June 2000, a former Iraqi general reportedly received a videotape of security forces raping a female family member. He subsequently received a telephone call from an intelligence agent who stated that another female relative was being held and warned him to stop speaking out against the Iraqi Government.15

§ Iraqi security forces allegedly raped women who were captured during the Anfal Campaign and during the occupation of Kuwait. 16

§ Amnesty International reported that, in October 2000, the Iraqi Government executed dozens of women accused of prostitution.17

§ In May, the Iraqi Government reportedly tortured to death the mother of three Iraqi defectors for her children’s opposition activities.18

§ Iraqi security agents reportedly decapitated numerous women and men in front of their family members. According to Amnesty International, the victims’ heads were displayed in front of their homes for several days.

19 TORTURE § Iraqi security services routinely and systematically torture detainees. According to former prisoners, torture techniques included branding, electric shocks administered to the genitals and other areas, beating, pulling out of fingernails, burning with hot irons and blowtorches, suspension from rotating ceiling fans, dripping acid on the skin, rape, breaking of limbs, denial of food and water, extended solitary confinement in dark and extremely small compartments, and threats to rape or otherwise harm family members and relatives. Evidence of such torture often was apparent when security forces returned the mutilated bodies of torture victims to their families.20

§ According to a report received by the UN Special Rapporteur in 1998, hundreds of Kurds and other detainees have been held without charge for close to two decades in extremely harsh conditions, and many of them have been used as subjects in Iraq’s illegal experimental chemical and biological weapons programs.21

§ In 2000, the authorities reportedly introduced tongue amputation as a punishment for persons who criticize Saddam Hussein or his family, and on July 17, government authorities reportedly amputated the tongue of a person who allegedly criticized Saddam Hussein. Authorities reportedly performed the amputation in front of a large crowd. Similar tongue amputations also reportedly occurred.22

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.