Skip navigation.

Babies found in Iraqi mass grave

from the but-saddam-wasn't-so-bad dept.

Ask yourselves if just over 1000 dead Americans is worth removing the man who did this. 35 million free Iraqis are on the verge of never having to worry about this again.

A sobering quote:

The victims are believed to be Kurds killed in 1987-88, their bodies bulldozed into the graves after being summarily shot dead.

One trench contains only women and children while another contains only men.

The body of one woman was found still clutching a baby. The infant had been shot in the back of the head and the woman in the face.

"The youngest foetus we have was 18 to 20 foetal weeks," said US investigating anthropologist P Willey.

"Tiny bones, femurs - thighbones the size of a matchstick."

---

Mason, I don't know if this is up your alley here at ProvoPulse, but I'm submitting everything I can think of to try to help the site.

-Jordan


[Thanks Jordan. This is good stuff. And when it comes to stories, it's pretty much the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned. Now of course that doesn't me that I'll post just any submission but I think we're pretty much on the same wavelength here. Thanks again! -Mason]

Another sobering quote:

"Mr Kehoe said that work to uncover graves [of 300,000 people] was slow as experienced European investigators were not taking part. The Europeans, he said, were staying away as the evidence might be used eventually to put Saddam Hussein to death."

Our "allies" would rather not participate because Saddam is up for the death penalty. Give me a break.

wow...

I hope that this story will wake up some of the apathetic people in our country and make them see what an evil person Sadaam was. Sure, there were no WMD like they thought, but you know that the world is better off now because Sadaam is out of power.

only "just over 1000" have died?

it's easy to say that when you don't think of those "just over 1000" as individual human lives with names, lives, families, and friends.

what about the just over 15,000 iraqi civilians (parents, children, elderly, non-combatants) who we have successfully slaughtered?

what about the deaths of tens (or even hundreds) of thousands iraqi soldiers whom we've killed?

since when has a political end justified the means of war?

hmmmm, nice OPINION

first off, before you go brandishing the BoM as your sole source of what is right and what is wrong in the world, better do some more praying about this topic...and possibly listen to some of what our prophet has taught us.

second, it seems to me lobbing off Laban's head was a pre-emptive action, my friend. last time i checked, that was also in the BoM.

attacking first does not necessarily make it an unrighteous battle. you're using the BoM to justify your own beliefs, and it would be just as easy for me to throw a bunch of quotes and expamples out there proving my point. it would be a fruitless effort, so why even go there?

i believe Iraq was a righteous cause, you don't. i also believe more good has come out of it than bad, and, as long as we're throwing numbers out there, 16,070 dead is STILL a small price to pay for the freedom of 25 million and their posterity. you may disagree, and that's fine.

but don't make the mistake of using the BoM in defense of decisions that would have left millions of people suffering, with no hope for a future, while we have so much here in this country. freedom is a God given right to all of us in the human family, and we that have the power to help those in need have a RESPONSIBILITY to help them.

scriptoral case study is nice, but i think you'll find that this fundamental belief is strongly held among the leadership of our church.

you're right

you're right. the book of mormon is hardly a measure as how we should live our lives. moroni should have attacked the lamanites from day one and liberated the suffering lamanite people. ammon and his brothers should have listened to the nephites and just gone in and liberated the poor lamanites. jesus was wrong. he who lives by the sword has freedom.

nephi and laban are fine examples. just like nephi followed the spirit and killed one ruthless leader and saving his own life and the lives of his family, george bush followed the spirit in killing 1082 american soldiers (so far), 15,000+ iraqi civilians, and tens of thousands of misled iraqi soldiers (we seem to keep forgetting them). what of the ruthless leader? he's alive in a prison. great analogy.

has greater good come out of this? reports describe iraq's best possible scenario as prolonged civil unrest. how many us deaths does it take for your sick utilitarianism to decide that it's not worth it anymore?

yes saddam was an evil tyrant, but just as recent cia reports show, since the gulf war to the time of the current war, saddam was powerless. he was scared to death of sanctions against him. the guy only used a phone twice in the last several years because he feared we would be able to find him and assassinate him. he had done very little in the last ten years that would justify us attacking him. did he want weapons? yes, but reports show it was because he was scared of iran. reports show that he actually wanted to build a better relationship with the us incase he needed help from iran, but his pride kept getting in his way. the guy was pretty powerless and scared that anything he did would prompt a us attack, but we attacked him anyways.

you can argue that he didn't allow the un inspections as he promised, but blix himself said that things were getting better and waiting would have shown him to be no threat.

evidence shows that saddam was no threat to the us and not the threat he was to his own people as he was before. he still needed to face charges for what he had done in the past, but there were other methods of getting him to that.

all this aside, as you said, let us listen to what our leaders have said today.

"Now, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what does the Lord expect of us? As a Church, we must 'renounce war and proclaim peace.'"

-elder nelson, october 5th 2002 saturday afternoon session
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showpackage/0,15367,3899-1---2-651,00.html

you're being untrue to yourself

tyler, with how you feel about this, how could you possibly vote for Bush, as you say you are? what a cop out to vote for the "lessor of two evils"

it all really comes down to intent. your reply has made my point exactly -- anything, whether scripture, or a political speech, or an action designed to provide freedom to an enslaved people can all be twisted around to make any point of view, to meet any intended result. you've proven that. every point above can be argued the other way, and just as passionately.

so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

if you feel this strongly against bush, you should not vote for him. and don't vote for kerry either, cause he's just a shmuck. you and every person who shares your beliefs should go find a third-party candidate that best meets those beliefs.

i plan to vote for Bush this fall because i think it was the right thing to do to go into Iraq. i stand behind the president because he is a good man, and he did the only thing we as a nation could have done -- the thing that should have been done.

and i see no conflict with my beliefs. my advice to you is to not be in conflict with yours.

get a grip

since when has a political end justified the means of a war? what political end are you talking about? the political end of getting rid of a dictator and mass murderer? getting rid of a guy who has attacked the world community repeatedly, who rewarded suicide bombers with cash, who supported terrorism? do you really think ousting him was about making Bush look good back here at home, or abroad?

1070 lives is a SMALL price to pay for the freedom of millions, and ridding the world of a very evil dictator.

as members of the true church here on the earth, we have a special responsiblity to do all that we can for the weak, the destitute, and needy. if you come across a person in need and you have the ability to do something to help that person - and don't - you will be judged on that. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT. the United States has a moral responsiblity, no matter what your political ideology may prescribe, to help other nations find freedom. period.

there is more than a war going on

perhaps you haven't been paying too much attention to the political scene lately, but there is much more going on than the war in iraq.

yes, i believe that the war was wrong. i believe it goes against the gospel of christ. i've shown where the scriptures denounce it. please show me where the scriptures support such an effort.

i don't feel "strongly against bush". i feel strongly against his actions in iraq. i'm voting for bush for other reasons, i believe his capitalist economnic policy is better than kerry's capitalist policy. i like bush's focus on education. i don't like kerry's push for a raised minumum wage. i like bush's desire to overturn roe vs wade. and more

there is no conflict with my beliefs. perhaps some need to check their beliefs about this war and it's conflict with the gospel of christ taught in the scriptures

gripping reality

"what political end are you talking about?"

democracy. until 4 years ago, collin powell, condoleeza rice and the rest of the crew held a position that war was justified only as a means of defense (the view taught in the book of mormon) and that war should not be used as a means to a political end (the view condemned in the book of mormon). donald rumsfeld, dick cheney and their buddies in the american enterprise institute have thrown powell and rice into the backseat as mere figure-heads and have implemented their theory of war as technology... that war can and should be used as the means to bring about political and social ends.

is the war in iraq a defensive war? clearly it has not been the case. recent cia reports show that saddam had no wmd's, did not have the ability to make wmd's, was not working with al qaida, and was no threat to the united states (all of which powell had been saying previous to 9/11).

"do you really think ousting him was about making Bush look good back here at home, or abroad?"

no. i never said that. i think bush was using war as a technology towards political ends... meaning that bush is using war as a means of implementing democracy in the middle east.

was saddam a ruthless dictator? yes he was, but his actions fair in comparison to attrocities comitted against the peoples of other countries by their ruthless tyrants (ex. sudan).

"as members of the true church here on the earth, we have a special responsiblity to do all that we can for the weak, the destitute, and needy."

i totally agree with you here. that is what king benjamin taught. that we should give to those in need until we have no more to give. yet, our materialist greed keeps us from doing that. in fact, christ taught that as long as one person has more than another, the world is in sin (d&c 49:20).

the book of mormon teaches quite contrary to your desire to use war as a means for political ends. pre-emptive strikes are condemned in 13 nephi 13 (especially vs 20-21). the righteous nephites never attacked the lamanites to liberate them. ammon's adventures make it clear that they were oppressed and murdered by their ruthless leaders. alma, his sons, and the sons of mosiah made it clear that war was not the means to liberate the lamanites, but that expressions of love and the word of god was the means.

1070 is not a SMALL price to pay. that's one thousand-seventy individual american parents, siblings, children, cousins, uncles, aunts, friends, etc. we've already killed over 15,000 iraqi civilians. THAT OVER 5 TIMES THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE DEAD FROM 9/11... AND THE IRAQIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! tens (or hundreds) of thousands of involuntary soldiers have died by american forces. what kind of sick utilitarian view do we need to justify all of this?

i think democracy is great (although our idea of democracy is nowhere in the book of mormon). it's unfortunate that today we have to practice under a bureaucratic republic. i'm voting for bush. why? he's the lesser of the two evils we have to choose from. we've got the republican who led an immoral war and the democratic who would have.

oddly, the only time that governmental take-over is justified in the book of mormon is when christ kills the bourgeoisie and dissolves all politcal, social, and economic structures among the lehites in 3rd nephi.

can't find it

I'm chewing on this ...

I looked in 3 Nephi 13:20-21 and in 1 Nephi 13:20-21 but can't find what you're referring to. What's the reference supposed to be?

my bad

it should read 3 nephi 13. sorry.