KRL - This is for you... (IRAQ)
 

Much of the stuff you read about Saddam is simply not true. The first step of any war is propaganda, demonizing the enemy. During World War 2, the British spread the rumor that German soldiers ate babies. During Gulf War 1 the US spread the rumor that Saddam killed Kuwaiti babies in incubators. Neither one of these stories was true.

Another lie that is constantly repeated is that Saddam supposedly gassed his own people. That is simply not true. Remember last week I posted several links to news sites and even to a US military college who invastigated the matter and it turned out that the Kurds had been gassed by Iran and not Iraq?

Well, recently even the New York Times finally picked up that story:

Iranian gas not Iraqi gas killed the Kurds
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/op...b6c3c76ea6ffe5

You can be the offcial GFY news poster..

:Graucho

People that are two lazy to signup for free with NY Times, here's the article...

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. ? It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent ? that is, a cyanide-based gas ? which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.


In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.


(Page 2 of 2)

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades ? not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition ? thanks to United Nations sanctions ? Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Just invite your buddy Saddam over for dinner and shaddaap already.



Here's some propaganda for you.... You're a moron.

:1orglaugh

that was a good one..lol

I've restrained from all this IRAQ bullshit on GFY for the whole month of February.. but you guys just prove such a shear ignorance to me that I just can't handle it anymore. When KRL posted those pics of what he supposedly thinks IRAQ gassed those people.. I just lost it. Accusing someone of something like that is rediculous.

You smoke a pack a day, eat beef & drive a SUV right?

Propaganda is everywhere. Enjoy.

More Canadian disinformation. You guys are next. :ak47:

MMMM, beef.::thumbsup

I wonder if the US looks at Canada like I look at the 2 empty ram slots in a server. Hmmmmm

You trust everything you read in print? Watch the last scene in the movie Three Days of the Condor.

"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

--Former CIA Director William Colby

In a Rolling Stone expose (10/20/77), Carl Bernstein reported that there had been over 400 US journalists on the CIA's books. He also named such high-level Operation Mockingbird operatives as Katherine Graham (Washington Post), Henry Luce (Time), William Paley (CBS), the Sulzbergers (New York Times) and "publishing magnate" Richard Mellon Scaife.

It's all about Toronto bro. Best night life in that I have ever experienced.

Lebenstraum?

hmm....never read that article. Mechanicsburg is about 15 minutes from me....and the Army War College is a few blocks away...
alot of the people who at some point serve there end up living someplace close to the college....mechanicsburg isnt too far away...and its a nice little town.
if the guy who wrote that article actually worked there, im pretty sure his info is right on the money.

You definately gotta get out more bro. There is a whole world outside your little hockey-ville. :1orglaugh

Stalin killed his own people too (he killed more people than Hitler), the Russians didn't (and still don't) seem to mind it either, lol

bikinihouse's logic: World powers should not have lied and should have left Stalin and Hitler in power. World would have been a much better place today because nobody would be trying to start a war with IRAQ.

KRL,

Do you believe everything Bush says?

You're hopeless. lol

haven't a couple people already invited you to go sit beside the great Saddam for the next couple weeks?

I surely second the motion - ship out dude and let us know how the war goes from yours and Saddam's side.

OK?




Stupid Fucker :1orglaugh

Quoting the New York Times is what's so fucking funny...

BULL SHIT -

You've been spouting off at the mouth with this same fucking nonsense, non-stop every chance you get - I've personally been calling you an ass hole for 2-3 weeks.


Ass Hole. :1orglaugh

i don't believe innocent people should die... but the fucker has to be killed. and whatever it takes should be done. and i'm sure an all out war isn't quite necessary, but if thats the way it must be done, then so be it.

agreed

2-3 weeks? lol. show me a post from 2-3 weeks ago regarding iraq that i posted about. i just started to enlighten u in march.

Stupid Fucker?? Nah man.. ur the one that thinks Iraq is a threat to the USA. lol. if iraq had missiles that can reach Israel I'd be surprised, nevermind the the USA. lol

Iraq's in shit for missiles that go 160km, when N Korea has ones that can reach ur pacific coast. go figure...

But then America are the guys that drop depleated Uranium in yugoslavia and kill 25,000 innocent civilians in their bombin campaign. plain and simple.. if you dont live in the USA, america is a threat to ur living.

Enlighten?

So far you've done a fairly poor job of just being mildly amusing.

Your warped view of Saddam is just plain sad.

Your lack of knowledge when it comes to what Bush and America is doing is nothing short of amazing in this day and time.

You quote articles from newspapers as though they were fact. Articles who don't even have a byline to their author. An author you know nothing about - but quote as though they know more and have more access to the "truth" then all the news agencies in the world.

You name has become one with foolishness.....


Have a nice day.

You've done it again - totally misunderstood the situation.

Iraq has to get rid of the missles because they weren't allows to have them.

NOT because they were a threat to America - Don't you realize what he can do with a ton of anthrax? - In an envelope mailed to Washington DC - a few pounds in the water system in the town YOU live in? Gas during a NASCAR race.....

Get real dude - the guy is worse than you can imagine and what he has the potential to do is sacry as hell and you're blind if you don't see it. Missles have nothing to do with the threat he posses.

WHY am I wasting my time?