The world's most heinous crime

It would be nice if there was any actual concrete evidence to support the allegation that Saddam even was the one who gassed them. There's no question that we were selling him all kinds of stuff back when Reagan was pres.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by Barcs]

I have read that it wasn't actually Iraq that gassed the Kurds but Iran..

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Report Suppressed: Iran Gassed Kurds, Not Iraq

US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds.

by Raju Thomas

Times of India, 16 September 2002: The repeated American propaganda weapon to rationalise the deaths of more than one million innocent Iraqis since 1991 through economic sanctions is that Saddam Hussein used poison gas against Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war and against Iraq’s own Kurdish citizens. The accusation is now being invoked to launch a full-scale American assault on Iraq. This claim of Iraq gassing its own citizens at Halabjah is suspect. First, both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons against each other during their war. Second, at the termination of the Iran-Iraq war, professors Stephen Pelletiere and Leif Rosenberger, and Lt Colonel Douglas Johnson of the US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds....

It's no secret that the United States has a long and bloody history of supporting violent dictatorships...it got particularly bad during the 1980's under Reagan, but America throughout the Cold War backed military dictators and helped overthrow numerous democratically elected leaders in many countries.

A good example is Guatemala - in 1954 the CIA and Green Berets helped install a military dictator in a coup of the newly elected President; this triggered a 50+ long year civil war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths. Reagan had the guts to meet with one of the worst Guatemalan dictators (under whom something like 200,000 civilians were massacred) and claim there were no human rights violations occurring - then he sold them $6.5 million worth of weapons.

George W. Bush's two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, were fought against governments we personally helped arm, fund, and train...the Ba'athists in Iraq and the Mujahideen-turned-Taliban in Afghanistan.

Here's a good picture that shows it all - Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983.




[edit on 4-12-2008 by evanmontegarde]

All wars are political and are created to either make money for those in power or to give a political foothold in an area; anyone who believes the propoganda pumped out in order to make the public believe they are sending their husbands, brothers and sons to fight a noble cause eg instill democracy, bring peace etc is ludicrously naive.

May I cite the example of the atrocious Falklands War, manufactured by Blighty's dear Old Margaret Thatcher to increase her popularity after someparticularly nasty and unpopular policy making....

The Falkland Islands have been in British hands since 1833. The barren wind swept Island was home to some 1,813 inhabitants in 1980 as stated by the census for that year. The Islands are situated some 300 miles from Argentina who have always disputed British ownership, not surprisingly, seems as the islands are some 8000 miles from the UK. The ownership of the Islands has been a story of constant disputes between the English, Spanish, and Argentine Governments.

The Falklands War was 'arranged' between the Governments of Argentina and England. Arranging wars is common practice when a Country is in difficulty; patriotism is stirred up by the politicians and whipped up by the media. At the time, Argentina was going through an economic crisis which was devastating. There was also massive social unrest against the Military Junta which had murdered thousands of Argentines for political opposition to the unelected Junta.. Many of these people simply 'disappeared'. Hundreds of those who 'disappeared' were tortured and threw out of aircraft into shark infested waters. Death squads struck with impunity and terrorised working class union members and anyone opposed to the corruption which infested the Countries higher ranks. Throughout 1981, Argentina saw inflation climb to over 600%, GDP went down to 11.4%, and manufacturing output was down to 22.9%, and real wages by 19.2%. The Unions were gaining more support for a general strike every day. The solution was to install patriotism in the people by invading a disputed Island. It worked, Argentineans forgot about the crisis, they forgot, for a few short weeks about the murder of their own people by their own military, they waved the Argentinean flag and played into the hands of the Government.Whilst the Argentineans, under the leadership of Dictator General Galtieri were being whipped up into a patriotic fervor, the UK Government under the leadership of Maggie Thatcher seized at the chance to whip up the same patriotic fervor here. It wasn't going to be easy, as the average Brit thought the Falklands were maybe close to Scotland or just off the Isle of Man. The media helped by reminding us the Islands were indeed 'British' and the people who lived there, the Falkland Islanders, were British too. The media took up the cause, and the Argentineans were portrayed as blood thirsty opportunists who would destroy the British way of life on the Islands. Despite the Islanders having to rely on Argentina for post, education, supplies, medical treatment and almost everything else, we were fooled by some old Empire myth into accepting that we could actually lay claim to Islands 8000 miles away. Thatcher, like Galtieri was going through a massive loss of domestic support and elections were looming. Thatcher knew the patriotic cheer leading would lead to death , but politicians are more than willing to sacrifice others so that they can hold onto power.

Originally posted by Primordial
I have read that it wasn't actually Iraq that gassed the Kurds but Iran..

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Report Suppressed: Iran Gassed Kurds, Not Iraq

US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds.

by Raju Thomas

Times of India, 16 September 2002: The repeated American propaganda weapon to rationalise the deaths of more than one million innocent Iraqis since 1991 through economic sanctions is that Saddam Hussein used poison gas against Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war and against Iraq’s own Kurdish citizens. The accusation is now being invoked to launch a full-scale American assault on Iraq. This claim of Iraq gassing its own citizens at Halabjah is suspect. First, both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons against each other during their war. Second, at the termination of the Iran-Iraq war, professors Stephen Pelletiere and Leif Rosenberger, and Lt Colonel Douglas Johnson of the US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds....

Thanks for pointing out this study.
I knew nothing about it.

Originally posted by budski

The only dirty work the US and other nations are doing, are the ones that benefit themselves.

All this prtecting democracy and freedom stuff is a red herring designed to invoke patriotism so that people don'tlook too closely at what's really happening.

I believe it is a combination of the two, but a lot of the "democracy" stuff is misguided- does anyone think that a place like Afghanistan, so steeped in a repressionist religious culture is really ready for the "freedom" we enjoy in the west (and yes, I am not saying the west is perfect, we started our cultural decline from the 1960s on)

reply to post by blueorder


I'm not sure that "democracy" in afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter is really the point.

The point is that our elected officials use these words as rallying points for the patriotic gullible to further their own ends.

A good case in point would be Tony Blair as a middle east peace envoy.

I mean, come on - does anyone really believe that?

Originally posted by budski


I'm not sure that "democracy" in afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter is really the point.

The point is that our elected officials use these words as rallying points for the patriotic gullible to further their own ends.

A good case in point would be Tony Blair as a middle east peace envoy.

I mean, come on - does anyone really believe that?

there is no single "point", it is one of the issues involved and no, I think Tony Blair as a middle east peace envoy is laughable

reply to post by blueorder


It is more than a single issue, but the fact is that our governments try to justify wars as being somehow good as they "free" people from tyranny, when in reality most tyranny and genocide goes ignored because there aren't resources they can steal from the countries where it is taking place.

Originally posted by budski

It is more than a single issue, but the fact is that our governments try to justify wars as being somehow good as they "free" people from tyranny, when in reality most tyranny and genocide goes ignored because there aren't resources they can steal from the countries where it is taking place.

yep, it is never just "tyranny", otherwise we would be fighting constant wars across the globe, it is a combination of tyranny and self interest (in most cases)

Perhaps a bit of honesty wouldn't go amiss, for example if the govt had said listen, we want to take out saddam

because

a) He is a nasty little tyrant who tortures and kills people
b) We would like to see if Iraq can adopt "democracy"
c) We wish to make sure he does not disturb the flow of oil, so vital to our economy

Id have a bit more respect


Wars have been fought over tiny pieces of land so fighting over something so important as oil isn't exactly a "no no" in my opinion, just be honest about it

reply to post by blueorder


You still seem to be missing my point.

Western nations have set themselves up as the arbiters of all that is good and great and make loud noises about fighting tyranny and promoting freedom around the globe, even going so far as to proclaim themselves "the worlds police" and their allies - and gullible people believe this.

To use an analogy, when was the last time you saw a real polieman refuse to arrest someone killing someone else in the middle of the street unless there was something in it for them?

Originally posted by blueorder
Yes, white soldiers "intervening" in hell holes such as Sudan and Rwanda, yes I can just picture the hysteria from the liberal/left.

Bad things happen in the world, people hate other groups of people over race, religion, ethnicity whatever in Africa, Asia, Europe etc.

This will always happen

True. But our government exploits this and uses it to their gains rather then try and stop it. We say one thing and do another. We aren't the first and won't be the last.

Karma is real and if these people running the show get what they want now, they will at some point have to pay for the bad they have done. Weather it be in this life or the next one.

We keep talking about people in government as if they were some special breed of evil doers. They may be a little worse than the average Joe, but not that much, in my opinion. The office that they hold tends to bring out the worst in them, a la "power corrupts" and all, but each of us might also be vulnerable to that if we were in office.
No, just blaming the individuals, while partially correct, is not enough. What we need to do is be sure that we have the right regulations, procedures and counter-checks in place that would limit the possibility of the corruption.
#1 Eliminate altogether the corruption that comes from campaign finance - ie. the ability of corporate bad guys to "buy" politicians of their choice.
Eliminate that one factor and you will have transformed America.
Imagine, with no wars being fought for spurious reasons how much money there would be to pay for advertising for any good person who sought office?
There would probably be enough to pay off your debt while you were at it, universal health care, and on ..... and on ......

Originally posted by Kailassa
Is it possible the CIA wanted the Kurds gassed?

The USA supplied the instructions, the raw materials, the technology, and possibly even helped build the apparatus in Iraq to make poison gas from the ingredients they supplied. And the Black Hawks it was sprayed from came from America.

Sources please, from what I have read, it was artillery shells, a tech that has been around since WW1. I am not saying that the U.S. didn't supply raw materials that could be used in the manufacturing, just that most of your claim has no documentation.

The point the OP makes is valid. Governments really don't care about the people, but more about the policy and end objectives. All governments collectively drag their feet while they allow despots to go psycho on their own subjects. Until it effects the outside world, other governments just shrug and look the other way.

Originally posted by budski

You still seem to be missing my point.

I am addressing them, just not agreeing with everything you are saying

Western nations have set themselves up as the arbiters of all that is good and great and make loud noises about fighting tyranny and promoting freedom around the globe, even going so far as to proclaim themselves "the worlds police" and their allies - and gullible people believe this.

that is why I said be a bit more honest about it, dont get too righteous, YES our way of life is clearly better than what existed in Iraq or Afghanistan, but be honest and say oil is vital and that is one of the reasons we are fighting

To use an analogy, when was the last time you saw a real polieman refuse to arrest someone killing someone else in the middle of the street unless there was something in it for them?

which is exactly what I have said, be honest, drop the over moralising stance, it is only part of it- with respect to your analogy, the cops are a politicised bankrupt force in the UK and I have long lost respect for them