Sadam killed Kurds wanting to seperate. We fought the Civil War to keep the South. So who is right?

How can we call Sadam a criminal for killing Kurds that were wanting to seperate from their country when the U.S. government fought the Civil War, which killed 10's of thousands, to keep the South a part of it's country? Buy the way, Lincoln was neutral on the salavery issue until well into the war so don't assume that there was any other reason other than keeping the Union whole.

3 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    You are leaving out a lot in your comparison, which is a far stretch at best.

    Saddam was a dictator. There was no form of government to break away from. There was no forum for the Kurds' voices to be heard. Many women and children were intentionally killed as a result.

    The Civil War came after many years of differences between the North and South that was kept together through compromise. It was a slow, pain-staking series of events that led up to it - didn't just erupt. Every state agreed to a pact, this Union, when they accepted the U.S. Constitution and were annexed. The reason for war was much different. It wasn't one race or religious sect against another. It didn't have anything to do with "ethnic cleansing" like the situation in Iraq.

    You can't be serious that you're comparing the two. I think your question is just meant to stun...

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The Kurds have been seeking a State for about a century

    The two other Authors are spot on.

    The Civil War in the United States was inevitable in the aftermath of the Missouri Compromise of 1854. Which was a Slavery issue. While Lincoln may not have been an outright Abolitionist you forget that John Brown led an insurgency in Kansas and later brought it to Harpers Ferry in the lead up to the war. On a political basis emancipation was inevitable so your statement is false. Lincoln was hated at the time worse than Bush by his own cabinet he had to emancipate to garner political support. 1862 was not a good year in the eastern theater of war, The Draw at Sharpsburg provided the means to damage the south and he did.

    Since the other Authors did a splendid job I won't add more about Saddam, I am astonished at your moral ineptitude. Lincoln was elected, Saddam Clawed his way to power by any means. Lincoln acted because of the war

    Saddam just Waged War.

  • You don't have complete facts in your statement. Firstly, as the previous answer stated, the governments of Iraq and the United States differed greatly, as did the their uprising. Now, here below is an excerpt from the wikipedia website on the topic of the conflict you ask about.

    The Anfal campaign, which began in 1986 and lasted until 1989, is said to have cost the lives of 182,000 civilians, according to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

    The campaign was headed by Ali Hasan al-Majid, a cousin of the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Anfal campaign included the use of ground offensives, aerial bombing, systematic destruction of settlements, mass deportation, concentration camps, firing squads, and chemical warfare, which earned al-Majid the nickname of "Chemical Ali".

    The 1988 Al-Anfar campaign resulted in this:

    During Anfal campaign, the Iraqi government destroyed about 4,000 villages in Iraqi Kurdistan

    The Iraqi government executed approximately 182,000 men, women, and children

    1,754 schools destroyed

    2,450 mosques destroyed

    48 churches destroyed

    270 hospitals destroyed

    around 75% of villages wiped out

    Another example refers to the aftermath of the Gulf War. Excerpt from wikipedia.

    Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions, together with the resulting postwar devastation, laid the groundwork for new rebellions within the country. In the aftermath of the fighting, social and ethnic unrest among Shi'a Muslims, Kurds, and dissident military units threatened the stability of Saddam's government. Uprisings erupted in the Kurdish north and Shi'a southern and central parts of Iraq, but were ruthlessly repressed. In 2005 the BBC reported that as many as 30,000 persons had been killed during the 1991 uprisings.

    You know, there is a lot more violations of humans rights I could name, but that would take up a lot of space (as if this were a lot already...). So, I suggest reading the three links below to get an idea. It might answer your question.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.