PDA

View Full Version : Arming Iraq And The Path To War



FatBastard
12-14-2003, 04:07 PM
In light of new developements, I thought you may be interested in the following.



Arming Iraq and the Path to War

A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.

September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]

November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

http://www.uploadit.org/BillyDean/14_iran_iraq_war.jpg
Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]

August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]

August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]

June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]

July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]

August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]

This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

References:

1. Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
2. Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
3. Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
4. Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
5. ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
6. Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
7. Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
8. Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
9. Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
10. Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
11. Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
12. Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
13. Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
14. Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
15. Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
16. Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
17. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
18. Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
19. Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
20. Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. www.gendercide.com

Source (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php)

cosmic doobie
12-14-2003, 04:16 PM
They all work for the same people anyway:the globalists (bankers,royals,corporate businesses) it's all a big illusion!
The fourth reich is already in place.

J'Pol
12-14-2003, 04:34 PM
Nice unbiased choice of source you used there.

FatBastard
12-14-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by J'Pol@15 December 2003 - 01:34
Nice unbiased choice of source you used there.
Why, thank you JP, an endorsement from you is high praise indeed.

You make your own judgement on the validity of this article. The contributor, John King, has no affiliation with this site, he is a reporter for CNN. This article has been published in many different places on the web. The reason I chose this one was because of the references under the article.

As for the Iranian site, this is their "about us" statement, here. (http://www.iranchamber.com/about_us/about_us.php)

J'Pol
12-14-2003, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by FatBastard+14 December 2003 - 17:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FatBastard @ 14 December 2003 - 17:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@15 December 2003 - 01:34
Nice unbiased choice of source you used there.
Why, thank you JP, an endorsement from you is high praise indeed.

You make your own judgement on the validity of this article. The contributor, John King, has no affiliation with this site, he is a reporter for CNN. This article has been published in many different places on the web. The reason I chose this one was because of the references under the article.

As for the Iranian site, this is their "about us" statement, here. (http://www.iranchamber.com/about_us/about_us.php) [/b][/quote]
Your style is similar to that of your "brother".

Are you also an anti-semitic, conspiracy theorist.

They say the fruit doesn&#39;t fall far from the tree.

FatBastard
12-14-2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@15 December 2003 - 02:46
They say the fruit doesn&#39;t fall far from the tree.
I wonder who "they" are. Are they out to get me, do you think?

Do you actually have anything constructive to say in this thread? Or are you just bored?

My guess is that you&#39;ve learned something here today, but because it came from a 13 stone dyke, you&#39;re too embarrased to admit it, so you&#39;re trying to chat me up instead.

Illuminati
12-14-2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by cosmic doobie@14 December 2003 - 17:16
They all work for the same people anyway:the globalists (bankers,royals,corporate businesses) it&#39;s all a big illusion&#33;
The fourth reich is already in place.
Damn, I&#39;ve been rumbled :o

Time to grab a ride on the Space Shuttle http://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/eekout.gif

J'Pol
12-14-2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by FatBastard+14 December 2003 - 19:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FatBastard &#064; 14 December 2003 - 19:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@15 December 2003 - 02:46
They say the fruit doesn&#39;t fall far from the tree.
I wonder who "they" are. Are they out to get me, do you think?

Do you actually have anything constructive to say in this thread? Or are you just bored?

My guess is that you&#39;ve learned something here today, but because it came from a 13 stone dyke, you&#39;re too embarrased to admit it, so you&#39;re trying to chat me up instead.[/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your style is uncannily like that of your "brother".

You never disappoint either.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

hobbes
12-14-2003, 06:28 PM
Did you just figure this all out today, or did you just feel the need to post it today in order to piss on the parade.

Hmmm. You really don&#39;t disappoint.

FatBastard
12-14-2003, 06:40 PM
Parade? I missed a parade? Shit&#33;

hobbes
12-14-2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by FatBastard@14 December 2003 - 19:40
Parade? I missed a parade? Shit&#33;
So that wasn&#39;t you sending a solid stream of warm yellow fluid from a 7th floor balcony?

I should have known, as the stream was rather tight for a lady.

RAM%ROD
12-14-2003, 07:30 PM
He vowed never to be taken alive, if that is him what a pathetic piece of shit the "Butcher of Baghdad" is.

J'Pol
12-14-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by RAM%ROD@14 December 2003 - 20:30
He vowed never to be taken alive, if that is him what a pathetic piece of shit the "Butcher of Baghdad" is.
Typical bully.

I think we can pretty much say that he has been "taken down" now.

What a fitting end, found in a hole in the ground, looking like a bag of shite.

Illuminati
12-14-2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@14 December 2003 - 20:59
What a fitting end, found in a hole in the ground, looking like a bag of shite.
:lol:

FatBastard
12-16-2003, 02:20 AM
Edited:

Robert864
12-20-2003, 02:08 AM
Outstanding piece of research - shows up this war on Iraq as a disgusting farce...

It’s unbelievable that so many millions are fooled by this war on terror non-sense.

Robert864
12-20-2003, 02:24 AM
Why don&#39;t you ask your self that question?

Evil Gemini
12-20-2003, 04:11 AM
See ??

That proves that americans are hipocrits.

ilw
12-21-2003, 11:59 PM
Since BD has already done the US-iraq involvement, i think its worth mentioning some of the main detractors from the war namely France, Russia (and Germany):


... it is important to remember that Saddam Hussein&#39;s main supplier was the Soviet Union. He was sent its best equipment - Mig 29s, T 72 tanks, artillery, gunboats and Scud missiles.


France, however, was also a major supplier. When he was prime minister in 1974, Jacques Chirac went to Baghdad to see Saddam Hussein, then the power in Iraq, though not yet the president.

The following year, Saddam Hussein went to France and Prime Minister Chirac showed him round a nuclear plant.

They negotiated the sale to Iraq of two French nuclear reactors. One of them was destroyed in an air raid by the Israelis in 1981 amid fears that Iraq was developing a nuclear weapon.

France also agreed to provide Iraq with 133 Mirage F1 jet fighters over a 10-year period. It is reckoned that during the 1980s, 40% of France&#39;s arms exports went to Iraq.



Japan - &#036;4.1bn
Russia - &#036;3.5bn in original debt, &#036;4.5bn in post-Soviet interest
France - &#036;3bn
Germany - &#036; 2.4bn
US - &#036;2.2bn

but at least they&#39;re not hypocritical :rolleyes:

Source: BBC

(NB I dunno why Germany are owed so much, I think they were a major player in the oil for food deal, but if anyone has more info...)

Robert864
12-22-2003, 01:44 AM
The US is the main culprit by far.

The Iraqis should sue America for all its losses, including the collateral ones of the most recent and ongoing conflict.

That’s the deaths inflicted by Mr Hussein and those by US cluster bombs.

Alex H
12-22-2003, 07:24 AM
Good idea. Do you think they&#39;ll be as lucky as Japan and Germany?

fkdup74
12-22-2003, 07:32 AM
this american bashing is bullshit
FORMER administations built saddam
someone had to undo it
nobody else had the balls

keep in mind, with our military, we could own the middle east
and have the world by the balls, but we dont
nobody wants to look at that because then you might
have to admit that we arent that bad after all

tell me a country that doesnt have skeletons?

bet there wont be too many replies to that question ;)

FatBastard
12-22-2003, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by FKDUP74@22 December 2003 - 16:32
this american bashing is bullshit
FORMER administations built saddam
someone had to undo it
nobody else had the balls

keep in mind, with our military, we could own the middle east
and have the world by the balls, but we dont
nobody wants to look at that because then you might
have to admit that we arent that bad after all

tell me a country that doesnt have skeletons?

bet there wont be too many replies to that question ;)
Does your government admit it was former administrations that are to blame for the problems with Iraq? I&#39;d like to read about that, do you have a link?

So you think you could own the Middle East and have the world by the balls? And the world would sit back and let you do it? You&#39;ve been playing too many computer games.

Alex H
12-22-2003, 08:06 AM
You guys tried "owning the world" before and the Americans and Russians almost wiped out the entire planet because of it.

You&#39;ve got big guns. Good for you. Perhaps you can use them for proper peacekeeping missions - perhaps you could talk to the UN and see if they can think of anything useful you could do with them.

If you asked me I wouldn&#39;t be as polite as they would be.

fkdup74
12-22-2003, 08:13 AM
you f*ckers arent listening :angry:
the whole point of what i said is to show that shit isnt all you say
if the people in charge were so fuckin kniving and deceitful
they could convince the rest of the world that that was the way to go
and then swindle everyone outta the deal
i see no move towards that, do you?

well, if you keep readin what the democrats/left wing keeps tellin people....

fkdup74
12-22-2003, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Alex H@22 December 2003 - 00:06
If you asked me I wouldn&#39;t be as polite as they would be.
wtf good is the un?
bunch of p*ssies
they tolerated sadaams ass cause he had the oil
nothing more, nothing less
and because of that they didnt want to step in and remove him
when it was clearly necessary
guess what? hes gone and the world still has iraq&#39;s oil
so whats the big deal?
one less dictator, and the world keeps turning

FatBastard
12-22-2003, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by FKDUP74@22 December 2003 - 17:32
wtf good is the un?
bunch of p*ssies
they tolerated sadaams ass cause he had the oil
nothing more, nothing less
and because of that they didnt want to step in and remove him
when it was clearly necessary
guess what? hes gone and the world still has iraq&#39;s oil
so whats the big deal?
one less dictator, and the world keeps turning
Yeah, that&#39;s the way, let&#39;s get rid of the UN, and let 300 million Americans tell the other 6 billion of us what to do and when to do it. Why don&#39;t we have a vote on it? A poll maybe?

Robert864
12-22-2003, 08:18 PM
I’m sick and tired of these arrogant self righteous Americans, going around the world bringing misery and death with their misconceived crusades. Who on earth would ever want them as world leaders anyway? Look at the way they pronounce aluminium??

Its time they had another Vietnam to bring them down a peg or two. I say to the Iraqi resistance, who ever they are (and now it could be anyone), grit your teeth and choke the enemy’s neck.

Alex H
12-23-2003, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by FKDUP74+22 December 2003 - 08:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FKDUP74 @ 22 December 2003 - 08:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@22 December 2003 - 00:06
If you asked me I wouldn&#39;t be as polite as they would be.
wtf good is the un?
bunch of p*ssies
they tolerated sadaams ass cause he had the oil
nothing more, nothing less
and because of that they didnt want to step in and remove him
when it was clearly necessary
guess what? hes gone and the world still has iraq&#39;s oil
so whats the big deal?
one less dictator, and the world keeps turning [/b][/quote]
Look mate, a long time ago some very wise people decided that rather than having everyone running around, killing each other willy nilly, they could set up a big forum where everyone could talk about their problems instead of bombing them. They realised that diplomacy was a better way of resolving international differences.

Oh, so the UN didn&#39;t get Saddam. You didn&#39;t get Ho Chi Minh. Big deal.

It is clearly documented and well known that George W Bush didn&#39;t win the election (don&#39;t ask me for a "source", type "Bush didn&#39;t win" in Google and have a browse through the 1,290,000 pages on the subject.)

Now suppose I felt that this was a gross perversion of democracy, and I decide to forceably remove him from office. And I&#39;ve got big guns so nobody feels like stopping me. Would you still tell the UN to piss off? Seriously, I have my finger on The Button and give George 24 hours to vacate the White House. I&#39;m a bit of a loose cannon and I will blow up the whole United States in a second if people don&#39;t do what I want. You wouldn&#39;t get the UN to try to reason with me? Tell me to chill out a bit?

RAM%ROD
12-23-2003, 06:30 AM
We armed Afghans,Iraqis and Iranians so they wouldn&#39;t be annexed by the soviet union. If the soviets controlled Iran or Iraq they could manipulate the USA&#39;s oil supply witch would ruin are economy. If the soviet&#39;s took over Afghanistan they would be in control of the worlds opium supply, both scenarios would generate enormous amounts of cash.
The USA won the cold war because the soviet economy collapsed, if they acquired anyone of those 3 pieces of real estate there economy might not have collapsed.

So I&#39;m saying in retrospect it was appropriate to give them the guns and missiles then and still now those actions were the right thing to do. The other choice was to just do a first Nuke strike on the Soviets.

j2k4
12-23-2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Alex H@23 December 2003 - 00:57
It is clearly documented and well known that George W Bush didn&#39;t win the election (don&#39;t ask me for a "source", type "Bush didn&#39;t win" in Google and have a browse through the 1,290,000 pages on the subject.)


Alex-

Could you break this down to the bits that concern you so that I might correct your mis-understanding about the 2000 U.S. Presidential election?

J'Pol
12-23-2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Robert864@22 December 2003 - 21:18

I say to the Iraqi resistance, who ever they are (and now it could be anyone), grit your teeth and choke the enemy’s neck.
What do you mean the Iraqi resistance.

Resistance is a group of fighters within the country, who act on behalf of the people of that country, to fight against an occupying force. If you mean something else please let me know.

a, I do not see the Allied Forces as being an occupying force. If they were they would not be assisting in setting up a new government and infrastructure. Both political and physical. They would not be encouraging the Iraqi people to Govern themselves representatively, a thing that has not happened for many years.

b, I do not believe that the people fighting against the Allied Forces represent the majority of Iraqi citizens. From what I can see, if anything they represent the deposed regime. Which the people are glad to see the back of. In essence they are fighting against the wishes of most of the citizens. However they don&#39;t care about that, they never have.

I find the part of your post which I quoted quite disturbing. It reminds me of George Galloway, the Glasgow MP.

RAM%ROD
12-23-2003, 04:46 PM
Muhammed the grateful Iraqi from Dearborn Michigan (http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3)

DWk
12-23-2003, 04:51 PM
lol....searched for "bush didn&#39;t win"....and went into first one i found

http://www.cafeshops.com/irregulargoods.5962701

funny :lol:

vidcc
12-23-2003, 06:37 PM
this topic reminds me of a bill hicks routine

the presidential adviser " iraq sir...terrible weapons "

president " how do you know ? "

the presidential adviser " well.....we looked at the receipt sir "

president " well as soon as that check clears we are going in "

Robert864
12-28-2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@23 December 2003 - 16:25

a, I do not see the Allied Forces as being an occupying force. If they were they would not be assisting in setting up a new government and infrastructure.


Your selective moralising really is nauseous. Assisting in setting up new governing institutions? What on earth are you talking about? It is obviously clear for all to see that the Iraq war is nothing other than theft - oil being the thief’s loot.

To steal the oil the US is subjecting Iraq to a repressive occupation. US forces are murdering and brutalising ordinary Iraqis every day – this is why so many US soldiers are dying. But the deaths of these civilians do not count in the eyes of the Americans, and are so often dismissed in the media as “collateral damage”, if reported at all.

The US does not, and never has given a damn about Iraq and its population, if they did they would not have supported Mr Hussein’s murderous regime. There was a chance to help the Iraqis at the end of the last gulf war, but the insurrection was not supported and thousands died. All the deaths caused by Mr Hussein are directly attributable to the US.

We can only hope that as the soldiers keep dying, the good Americans (and I believe that they do exist....somewhere) will be stirred into removing that crazy drunken despot that is Bush.

ilw
12-28-2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Robert864@28 December 2003 - 15:15
It is obviously clear for all to see that the Iraq war is nothing other than theft - oil being the thief?s loot.

Actually i&#39;m a bit hazy on that one...


US forces are murdering and brutalising ordinary Iraqis every day ? this is why so many US soldiers are dying. But the deaths of these civilians do not count in the eyes of the Americans, and are so often dismissed in the media as ?collateral damage?, if reported at all.
I saw a depressing article in the Independent sometime last week about the apparent giving up of the US military of the usual &#39;hearts and minds&#39; campaign in parts of Iraq, they had instead opted for a policy of fear and intimidation in order to make the locals cooperate in giving information about suspected anti-coalition combatants. It also added that there have been a number of civilian deaths that went largely unreported due to logging them under non-combat deaths e.g as "road traffic accidents" one example given was when a prominents cleric was killed when a US tank drove completely over his car. Hardly the most common RTA...


The US does not, and never has given a damn about Iraq and its population, if they did they would not have supported Mr Hussein?s murderous regime.
Governments will always act in what they consider their countries best interests, in this case it meant making hard choices about supporting leaderships who are morally repugnant to you, but if the alternative is detrimental to the country you have been elected to protect and serve then occasionally ethics will be overlooked.


There was a chance to help the Iraqis at the end of the last gulf war, but the insurrection was not supported and thousands died.
why didn&#39;t we (Britain US etc) support the last uprising? Why is it right to have toppled Saddam? Personally i am glad he&#39;s gone, but that doesn&#39;t mean it was right to do it.


All the deaths caused by Mr Hussein are directly attributable to the US.
what a load of bs

Billy_Dean
12-28-2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by ilw@29 December 2003 - 02:49

All the deaths caused by Mr Hussein are directly attributable to the US.
what a load of bs
Agreed. They are, however, responsible for 10&#39;s of thousands of them.


:)

1234
12-31-2003, 07:46 AM
Fat Bastard, despite your criticism of the US you (and the author of your article) have fallen for a piece of US propaganda.

Iran invaded Iraq to kick of the Iran-Iraq war, not the other way round. Iran had been running border raids to ferment revolution within Iraq (Iran having just had the revolution that ousted the Shah) and Iraq finally retaliated. By any measure of international law, Iran started the conflict and Iraq was entitled to attack in self defence.

Interestingly, when the US supported Iraq (though of course the US also armed Iran at the same time) they referred to it as the Iran-Iraq war. It got changed to the Iraq-Iran war to try and reinforce the propaganda of Iraq being the guilty party.

As for the rest of this thread, I have only one thing to add really.

The UN is not a sovereign nation with a standing army. When the UN fails to act, it is because the member states refuse to act. Once example is Rwanda, where UN workers asked for more military assistance and were told to piss off by the US and other countries. Of course, now americans use Rwanda as an example of why the UN is worthless. Funny old world :)

Billy_Dean
12-31-2003, 08:59 AM
This issue is far more complicated than border skirmishes, and goes back forever.

Here is one view, there are many more.
The Iran-Iraq War was multifaceted and included religious schisms, border disputes, and political differences. Conflicts contributing to the outbreak of hostilities ranged from centuries-old Sunni-versus-Shia and Arab-versus-Persian religious and ethnic disputes, to a personal animosity between Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini. Above all, Iraq launched the war in an effort to consolidate its rising power in the Arab world and to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Phebe Marr, a noted analyst of Iraqi affairs, stated that "the war was more immediately the result of poor political judgement and miscalculation on the part of Saddam Hussein," and "the decision to invade, taken at a moment of Iranian weakness, was Saddam&#39;s".

Iraq and Iran had engaged in border clashes for many years and had revived the dormant Shatt al Arab waterway dispute in 1979. Iraq claimed the 200-kilometer channel up to the Iranian shore as its territory, while Iran insisted that the thalweg--a line running down the middle of the waterway--negotiated last in 1975, was the official border. The Iraqis, especially the Baath leadership, regarded the 1975 treaty as merely a truce, not a definitive settlement.
Source. (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm)

Whatever happened, and whoever was implicit, Sadam will get all the blame, such is politics.


:)

1234
01-01-2004, 11:50 PM
Oh I know of the complex background, I was referring to the events immediatly preceeding the war. The historical causes go back centuries.