Facts EVERY war supporter should have known, BEFORE the US attacked Iraq

[LynnTheDem]

On the "Hussein = mass murdering monster" rhetoric only; the "WMD", "ties to 911", and "ties to al Qaeda" have been thoroughly debunked by everyone on the planet already (except for the die-hard rightwing idiots) and have been well-documented as being known by most the world before bush's attack on Iraq.

-Who's killed the most Kurds?

The Kurds.
More Kurds have killed Kurds than the number killed by Turkey, Iran, and Hussein combined, during their 3 decades long "fratricide" war.
http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan3/2-6-04-opinion-zorab-sense-of-frustration.html

-Who made a surprise appearance in 1991 on Baghdad TV to hug and kiss Saddam Hussein?

Kurdish warlord and current Iraqi president Talabani. And this was long after the "gassed his own people", after Gulf War 1, after the uprisings in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4506507.stm

-Who danced & cheered in celebrations after Talabani hugged & kissed Saddam Hussein in 1991?

The Kurds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4506507.stm

-Who asked Hussein for help in 1996 to fight against Kurdish warlord Talabani and his Kurds?

Kurd and warlord Barzani.
http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2005/4/independentstate130.htm

-During the Iran-Iraq war, Halabjah was attacked with blood agent gas; how many Kurd deaths were originally reported until the number was increased several years later right before Desert Storm?

"several hundred".

http://againstbombing.org/chemical.htm

http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller10.html ***excellent***

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0788162098/mmn-20

http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/Khaledtext.html

The CIA's website still lists "hundreds", not thousands or tens of thousands, and as being "caught in cross-fire between Iranians and Iraqi forces". We call that "collateral damage".
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

-When doctors sent by France, the United Nations and the Red Cross examined gassed Kurdish refugees in Turkey, what symptoms did the doctors say were exhibited?

Non-lethal tear gas.
http://www.polyconomics.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=1967

http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/Khaledtext.html

-What city presented Hussein with the Key to the City in 1979?

Detroit, USA.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/26/iraq/main546287.shtml

-What nation won Humanitarian Awards for its literacy programs?

Iraq. Under Hussein's government.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/

-What nation had the highest number of citizens with PhDs on the world? And had more PhDs than America?

Iraq. Under Hussein's government.
http://www.bronxmall.com/norwoodnews/past/013003/opinion/page2.html

-Which nation was using much its burgeoning oil revenue to improve the daily lives of its people?

Iraq. Under Hussein's government.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/

-What did the rebels do in their 1991 uprising?

Slaughtered thousands of Iraqis.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/WR92/MEW1-02.htm

-What did the Hussein government do about the rebel uprising?

Slaughtered thousands of Iraqis.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/WR92/MEW1-02.htm

-Where did the figure of "300,000" originate as the number of Iraqis "killed by Hussein"?

The figure (originally 200,000-250,000 over 30 years) was an estimate of an estimate of a "general international concensus" the HRW used as an estimate for the number of Iraqis unaccounted for, ‘many of whom are believed to have been killed’— and not for the number buried in mass graves.

Hania Mufti, one of the researchers that produced that estimate, said: 'Our estimates were based on estimates. The eventual figure was based in part on circumstantial information gathered over the years.'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html

HRW itself refuses to use its figure of 290,000 as an estimate for the number of bodies in mass graves.

To date, aproximately 5000 remains have been found, dating from the 1991 rebel uprisings.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html

-Who "mass-graved" thousands of Iraqis by bulldozing over them?

US forces in 1991.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=45

-What nation defended this atrocity by saying a gap in international law allowed for burying Iraqis alive?

The USA.
http://jeff.paterson.net/aw/aw4_buried_alive.htm

-Saddam Hussein and his "woodchipper people-shredder"?

Long-time Iraq war supporter Ann Clwyd came up with this sequel to the "incubator babies" lie. Clwyd said; "We heard it from a victim; we heard it and we believed it."

One unidentified, unverified source; one person. That's her entire "proof".

Clwyd insists that corroboration of the shredder story came when she was shown a dossier by a reporter from Fox TV. On June 18, Clwyd wrote a second article for the Times, citing a "record book" from Abu Ghraib, which described one of the methods of execution as "mincing".

-Can she say who compiled this book?
"No, I can't."

-Where is it now?
"I don't know."

-What was the name of the Fox reporter who showed it to her?
"I have no idea."

-Did Clwyd read the entire thing?
"No, it was in Arabic! I only saw it briefly."

Curiously, there is no mention of the book or of "mincing" as a method of execution on the Fox News website, nor does its foreign editor recall it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1155399,00.html

-What actual claims of human rights violations were made against Hussein's government in 2002?

-death penalty
-long (2 years) detentions without trials
-"some apparently tortured first"
-arbitrary arrests
-forced expulsion of Kurds from Kirkuk

http://hrw.org/wr2k2/mena4.html

-Who said attacking Iraq cannot be justified as a "humanitarian intervention"?

Human Rights Watch
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

Amnesty International
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140092002?open&of=ENG-IRQ

-What kind of torture did Hussein's son Odai perpetrate on Iraq's soccer team that war supporters often point to as justification for attacking Iraq?

Torture such as electric cables being attached to their bodies. (Oops, sorry, that's just frat-house party games.)

A missed penalty or other poor play entailed a ritual head shaving at the Stadium of the People, or being spat on by Uday's bodyguards.

Some players endured long periods in a military prison, beaten on their backs with electric cables until blood flowed.

Other punishments included "matches" kicking concrete balls around the prison yard in 130-degree heat, and 12-hour sessions of push-ups, sprints and other fitness drills, wearing heavy military fatigues and boots.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:puQH7yiyeg8J:www.iht.com/articles/95606.htm+A+missed+penalty+or+other+poor+play+entailed+a+ritual+head+shaving+at+the+Stadium+of+the+People,+or+being+spat+on+by+Uday%27s+bodyguards&hl=en&start=5

Maad Ibrahim Hameed, the assistant coach of the national team, said Odai had offered money as a bonus for winning and threatened prison for losing. "But it was only talk," he said. "They weren't tortured. Some were sentenced to jail if they didn't behave responsibly. But they all came back to play."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/07/MN175617.DTL

-How do the Iraq soccer team members feel now about bush's invasion?

Iraqi Olympic Soccer Teams Gives Bush the Boot
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0820-11.htm

"Bleeding-heart liberals" would have a hard time making a case for invading a nation and "shock & awe" bombing the crap out of them, let alone "tough" republicans.

Maybe that's why the vast majority of Americans DID say there's no "humanitarian" justification for attacking Iraq;

--Only 27 percent of respondents said they think that countries have the right, without UN approval, to overthrow another government that is committing "substantial violations of its citizens' human rights," although another 41 percent said that intervention could be justified if the violations were "large-scale, extreme and equivalent to genocide."

--In the case of Iraq, however, only 32 percent of respondents believed both that human rights abuses equivalent to genocide justified intervention and that such extreme violations were occurring under Hussein's rule. Asked, "Do you think that there are other governments existing today that have human rights records as bad as that of Iraq under Saddam Hussein?" an overwhelming 88 percent said there are.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1114-06.htm

Now that the shite's hit the fan on bush's "WMD" and "Iraq in bed with al Qaeda" lies and his "Iraq did 911" insinuations, and about to hit the fan on his lies proven by the Downing Street official minutes, the "Murdering Butcher of Baghdad" bullshit is bound to appear all over the "librul" media.

And like the "WMD, "ties to al Qaeda" and "ties to 911", it is bullshit.

[wtmusic]

1. Great list LTD

and...bookmarked. :thumbsup:

[LiberalVoice]

2. bookmarked. thanks nt

[stillcool]

3. Holy moley.....

my eyes just popped out of my head! Bookmarked and nominated...

[satya]

4. Outstanding! Mind if I email this to others? n/t

[LynnTheDem]

7. Please feel free.

:)

[knowbody0]

5. you are amazing LynnTheDem

i will use this tonight against a very loud mouth opponent of mine.
thanks

[stevedeshazer]

6. Nice job

Nominated

[Hissyspit]

8. Damn, Lynn. Hot stuff.

:7

[mike_c]

9. excellent list of inconvenient truths war supporters would rather...

...not acknowledge! Kick!

[LynnTheDem]

15. Let's hope the "librul" media bothers to list a few when bushCo start

on their "we destroyed Iraq in order to save Iraq" rhetoric.

[acmejack]

10. Thanx for all the research,. Lynn!

You continue to kick ass!

[LynnTheDem]

19. You're very welcome!

And thank you!

:hug:


The truth will out.

[TeeYiYi]

11. Thanks Lynn! nt *bookmark* :kick:

TYY:kick:

[dixiechiken]

12. Awesome post, LynnTheDem... absolutely AWESOME!!!

WOW... Thanks for this. You obviously put a lot of time and effort into compiling what is clearly the most comprehensive rebuttal to all of the lies, excuses, and historic revisions provided by this administration and their apologists for this war, that I have ever seen.

I'm in awe... complete, dumbstruck, speechless awe. :wow:




:yourock:

[LynnTheDem]

13. THANKS, dixiechiken!

Your very kind words made my weekend! :)

:hug:

[Tinoire]

14. Bookmarked

Thank you :hi:

[applegrove]

16. Let's let the Iraqis have their day (year) in court. n/t

[Deja Q]

17. AWESOME link!

Recommended.

[LynnTheDem]

20. Thanks, Hypno!

:hug:

Americans should have known these facts BEFORE they sent America's Children to kill & be killed.

HOW can proper decisions be made without knowing all the FACTS?!

[annabanana]

18. fantastic compilation!

Must reading for the uninformed!

[LynnTheDem]

21. Unfortunately, far too late for the 1800 troops and the 100,000+ Iraqis

And all the wounded, and all the families destroyed.

May God and Iraq forgive us.

[Disturbed]

23. Thanks and good report.

Saddam On Trial


Marsh Arabs. He could make the same argument for reclaiming the marshland that countries around the world do for hydroelectric dams. All in the name of progress. And he did have a rebellion to put down. Insurgents were attacking government troops during the night and hiding in the marshes during the day.

If that were happening today, what do you think the US would do? The first major marsh-draining scheme was proposed in the 1951 Haigh Report, "Control of the Rivers of Iraq," drafted by British engineers working for the Iraqi government. "The report describes an array of sluices, embankments and canals on the lower reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates that would be needed to 'reclaim' the marshes." The study's senior engineer, Frank Haigh, felt that the standing marsh water was being wasted, so he "proposed concentrating the flow of the Tigris into a few embanked channels that would not overflow into the marshes. He proposed one large canal through the main `Amara marsh." In this way, Iraq would be able to "capture the marsh water for irrigation" purposes to aid in feeding the newly created State of Iraq. Construction of the large canal, called the Third River, began in 1953. Further construction took place in the 1960's. It was not until the 1980's, however, during the Iran-Iraq War, that major work was resumed. Today, many of the water projects in the marsh area bear a striking resemblance to the Haigh Plan -- the only problem is that the projects are not being used for agricultural improvement!

<http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/ted/marsh.htm>

Mass graves

Group 1: Shiites and Kurds killed by the Iraqi govt before Gulf war (when he was an ally of the US. The US provided WMD and the means to deliver them to Saddam during that period. They were allies, and the US continued to supply arms and assisitance knowing that Iraq was doing this. How can the US say then it was ok, but now 20 years later it's bad. Aren't the countries who supplied the means for this murder just as guilty?)

Group 2: Iranians and Iraqis killed during the Iran Iraq war (Again, the US supported Iraq with WMD, helicopters and critical battle planning assistance, so it looks pretty foolish coming to him 20 years later and saying, but you shouldn't have helped us fight our enemy Iran)

Group 3: Masses of Iraqi soldiers and buldozed into mass graves by US troops during the Gulf War. If you think that is a crime against humanity, you know who to blame)

Group 4: Sunnis and Shites massacred by Shiites and Kurds in the pose Desert Storm uprisings encouraged by the US. You can't blame Saddam for this, and when you read about the situation, what choice did he have but to put the rebellion down, just as the US is doing in Iraq today.

As put forth by regional analyst Sandra Mackay: "The rebels utilized their guns and numbers to seize the civilian operatives of the Baath government while former Shia conscripts turned on officers of the army. They hung their captives from rafters of an Islamic school, shot them in the head before walls turned into execution chambers, or simply slit their throats at the point of capture.' (The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein, page 24) Dilip Hiro, another Iraqi historian, documents atrocities in the holy city of Kerbala: "Insurgents had attacked the army headquarters and seized weapons? They decapitated or hanged 75 military officials, some of them Shia, and tortured many more." (Desert Shield To Desert Storm: The Second Gulf War, page 402)

All said, several thousand policemen, clerks, military personnel and employees of the government were slain, according to Omar Ali, another regional authority. (See Crisis in the Arabian Gulf, page 147) Meanwhile in northern Iraq, Kurdish separatists were gearing up for their own shot at the regime. As far back as 1961 ? seven years before Saddam Hussein came to power - they had been staging violent attacks on Iraq's central government, trying to leverage off a piece of the country to form their own fledgling state.

Accepting Washington's pronouncements about a vanquished Iraqi military, up to 400,000 Kurds undertook a ferocious spree of mayhem that rivaled that of the Shia. According to Mackay, in Kirkuk "no one bothered to count how many servants of Baghdad were shot, beheaded, or cut to shreds with the traditional dagger stuck in the cummerbund of every Kurdish man. By the time Kurdish rage had exhausted itself, piles of corpses lay in the streets awaiting removal by bulldozers." (The Reckoning, page 26)

<http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/433> /

Group 5: Rebels killed by the Baathist regime when putting down the Shiite and Kurdish rebellions (Saddam would merely argue that he did exactly what the US is doing now in Iraq -- using all necessary means to restore stability. How do you convict him for that?)

Group 6: Victims of the current invasion, estimated to be between 35,000 and 100,000 Iraqis. The US and UK killed these people.


If Saddam had a fair trial it doesn't seem to me that it would be a slam dunk that he would be found guilty of the charges thus far put forth.

[LynnTheDem]

25. In a fair trial there would have to be;

Kurd warlord Talabani
Kurd warlord Barzani
Turkey
Iran
Shia
USA
UK
All standing in the dock beside Hussein.

And in a truly fair unbiased trial, I don't think Hussein would be facing the most charges.

There won't be any fair trial, most Americans will never know the real facts, they'll pat themselves on the back for their "good deeds" and ending the "butcher of Baghdad" (who the hell comes up with this comic book shit, anyways???) which gives carte blanche to the US government to blithely carry on as before.

[jaxx]

22. Great job on getting the facts together....and thanks.

By the way, I picked up this thread off of What Really Happened http://whatreallyhappened.com/ , looks like alot of people will be reading your hard work. Congrats!!

[LynnTheDem]

27. Thanks, jaxx, and thanks for letting me know about my post showing up

on WRH.

I better go get my flameproof undies on, just in case. :D

[Tinoire]

30. Whooa! If WhatReallyHappened.com picked up your thread

Skinner's in for several thousand hits on your thread! And most of them will be Progressive hits :bounce:

Congratulations Lynn!

[LynnTheDem]

34. Thanks!

Truth will out.

:)

[Mnemosyne]

24. I shudder at this fact in your post!

-What actual claims of human rights violations were made against Hussein's government in 2002?

-death penalty
-long (2 years) detentions without trials
-"some apparently tortured first"
-arbitrary arrests
-forced expulsion of Kurds from Kirkuk

These violations describe the current US human rights record and policy, with the exception of the last. Although, if you count the forced expulsion of Iraqis from they're homes, you can say all of the above, unfortunately, describe the US now.

:grr:

Great post Lynn!

:kick:

[LynnTheDem]

26. But we have the photos and video to PROVE our torture; under Hussein

they only had "some apparently".

Gawd, this shit's so depressing. :(

Thanks, vickiss :hug:

[BeFree]

28. Lynn, I've been watching you, and I gotta say...

I am impressed. Now this. What a great slice of reality you have delivered. The reality being Iraq has been at war for years and years, and now we've gone and stepped right in it.

Too bad our 'free press' didn't have the guts to do the work you've done. Peace.

[LynnTheDem]

33. Thanks, BeFree! Some of our "media" did pretty good. Too many did not.

Too many still aren't.

[Mnemosyne]

38. Back at ya Lynn!

:hug:

Many Iraqis themselves are claiming things were MUCH better when Saddam was in power, I find it quite telling.

Damn idiots, not in my name!!:kick:

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

32. DAMMIT I missed the nasty! I hate when that happens!

What is it about FACTS that scares them so?

[AuntiBush]

42. Same here! I always see "Deleted Message" and miss everything!

[LynnTheDem]

43. And it drives me wild trying to imagine what the "deleted message" was!

LOL!

:D :D :D

[Mnemosyne]

31. .

:kick:

[Colorado Blue]

35. I would like to append some in links in rebuttal, concerning

the Kurds and other crimes committed by Saddam Hussein.

I will start with Noam Chomsky:

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19980312.htm

In this interview, from 1998, Chomsky is speaking about the moral obligation of the US to intervene in cases of egregious human rights violations. Here are the relevant quotes regarding Saddam Hussein, who received arms - including WMD's - from the US and who most certainly used them against the Kurds as well as against Iran.

Chomsky, as we ALL should be, is concerned that the US and her allies have empowered such monsters. Craig Unger's book, "House of Bush, House of Saud," cited by Michael Moore in Farenheit 9/11, is also must reading on the dark deeds of the Reagan and both Bush Administrations.

Chomsky: "During these years, Saddam Hussein has also carried out major crimes. The worst by far were committed in the 1980s, including his gassing of Kurds at Halabja in 1988, chemical warfare against Iran, torture of dissidents, and numerous others. His invasion of Kuwait, though a serious crime, in fact added little to his already horrendous record. Throughout the period of his worst crimes, Saddam remained a favored ally and trading partner of the US and Britain, which furthermore abetted these crimes.

The Reagan Administration even sought to prevent congressional reaction to the the gassing of the Kurds, including the (failed) plea of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Claiborne Pell that "we cannot be silent to genocide again" as the world was when Hitler exterminated Europe's Jews. So extreme was Reaganite support for their friend that when ABC TV correspondent Charles Glass revealed the site of one of Saddam's biological warfare programs a few months after Halabja, Washington denied the facts, and the story died; the State Department "now issues briefings on the same site," Glass writes (in England).

There were no passionate calls for a military strike against this brutal killer and torturer. Quite the contrary: much of what was known, including US support, was downplayed or not reported. After the Gulf War, the Senate Banking Committee found that the Commerce Department had traced shipment of "biological materials" of a kind later found and destroyed by UN inspectors, continuing at least until November 1989. A month later, during his invasion of Panama, Bush authorized new loans for Saddam: to achieve the "goal of increasing U.S. exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record...," the State Department announced, facing no criticism in the mainstream (in fact, no report). The Bush Administration continued to support the mass murderer up to his invasion of Kuwait, which shifted his status from ally to enemy, much as the Suharto coup and slaughters of 1965 shifted Indonesia from enemy to friend. In these and many other cases, the criterion that distinguishes friend from enemy is obedience, not crime.

Immediately after the Gulf war ended in March 1991, Washington returned to support for Saddam. The State Department formally reiterated its refusal to have any dealings with the Iraqi democratic opposition: "Political meetings with them would not be appropriate for our policy at this time," the Department spokesman declared. "This time" was March 14 1991, while Saddam was decimating the southern opposition under the eyes of US forces, which refused even to grant rebelling Iraqi military officers access to captured Iraqi arms, to defend the population and perhaps overthrow the monster. Had it not been for unexpected public reaction, Washington might not have extended even weak support to rebelling Kurds, subjected to the same treatment shortly after. The official reason for protecting Saddam was the need to preserve "stability."

Here are other links on the topic. These are serious papers and should be taken seriously. The fact that the Kurds quarrel with each other does NOT get Saddam off the hook.


http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn

http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistanobserver/2-7-02-88-gassing-still-killing.html

http://slate.msn.com/id/2111888/


We should be THE MORE outraged because these crimes were committed with the assistance of the USA, which ALSO helped arm Iran and ALSO helped trap the Soviets into the brutal war in Afghanistan, which ultimately led to the destruction of that nation as well as the empowerment of radical Islamic factions like the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The underlying motives in all cases were geostrategic. Our primary partner, the British, have been playing "The Great Game" in Asia for centuries now. Their prime enemy was Russia. When the Soviets fell apart, GHW Bush saw an opportunity for the US to move boldly into this vital region.

The key resource, oil, and its attendant industries, are of course prime motivators as well.

NONE of that means Saddam Hussein was innocent, that radical Islamic terrorists DON'T exist, that the Ba'ath Party - still ruling in Syria, isn't a fascist dictatorship, and so forth.

I'm disturbed that people are buying into this line of "thinking". It's a serious form of denial.

More to the point, we should be worrying about why the US and Great Britain, supposedly defenders of liberal virtues, are playing such deadly games.

[LynnTheDem]

36. It's nothing to do with "letting Hussein off the hook". It's just FACTS.

I agree with you absolutely about being outraged at US support of Hussein in the way the US supported Hussein.

Of course.

And the US has a very long history of such support & then stabbing people they supported in the back; ask Osama bin Laden & the Taleban, among a very long list of others.

Most recently it's the MEK. Always the same MO, and it's because of America's MO that we're so hated. Of course.

But that doesn't change the FACTS that I posted in my original post. Nothing will change them, because they are FACTS. And in fact, more Kurds have killed Kurds than Hussein's actions ever did. So are we also overthrowing the 2 main Kurdish warlords responsible? Hell no, one of them is now the president of Iraq.

Hussein wasn't innocent, he was brutal and ruthless. As he had to be. As Talabani is and will be. As any leader of Iraq will have to be. And as the Iraqis will demand any leader be. They do not have the same society as we do, nor the same culture, and at this point in human history, they don't want ours.

Hussein managed to rule Iraq and keep Iraq together for 30 years. America can't manage 30 minutes.

Hussein managed to restore electricity and water 6 weeks after 110,000 aircraft sorties had dropped 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq, the equivalent of seven and a half atomic bombs of the size that incinerated Hiroshima.

Yet under the USA, the electricity & water is still less than it was under Hussein...going on 3 years later.

As Iraqis are quoted every day; if you didn't threaten Hussein's government, you were left alone to get on with your life. And compared to most nations in the ME, Iraq was way ahead of the game, especially for women.

No longer. Life is WORSE now for the Iraqi people, and we had no damn right deciding for the people of Iraq who can and can't be their government.

And yes, the US keeps on playing the same old games. Ask the Haitians what happened to their democratically elected president they want back.

The government of Syria is the business of the people of Syria, not ours. No one I've ever seen has said radical Islamic terrorists don't exist. There are plenty of radical Christian terrorists too. None of which has anything to do with attacking sovereign nations that hadn't been doing anything to anyone.

It's not an "either or" thing. Saddam Hussein was not all evil. He also was not a sweet lovable guy. How can you make life & death decisions when you don't know the facts? Simple; you can't. I'm posting FACTS that Americans should have known before they decided on allowing an attack on Iraq. I'm not "letting Hussein off the hook", I'm ADDING war supporters to the hook.

[oblivious]

37. Wow Lynn! Thank you. Great list. whatreallyhappened sent me here.

Since this is such a nice reference thread, I'd like to add the 1998 Iraq essays from 'World Socialist Web Site'.

Scroll down to the 1998 articles at the bottom to see that anyone who ever believed in the various administrative conveniences put forth to justify the war is dumb as a tree stump. This was going to happen no matter what. Democrat or Republican administration.

List of Iraq articles 1998 to 2005
http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/news/me-iraq.shtml


Examples:
Why is the US going to war in the Gulf? (Feb, 1998)

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/feb1998/iraq.shtml

US Congress brays for war
5 February 1998

The US Congress has given overwhelming bipartisan support to the Pentagon’s plans for a massive and sustained bombing attack on the civilian population of Iraq. On Wednesday Democrats and Republicans alike swept aside the latest concessionary proposal from Iraq as well as objections from Washington’s allies to the impending bloodbath.

Defense Secretary William Cohen told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the coming attack “would be far more than what has been experienced in the past, certainly since the Persian Gulf war.” Cohen’s statements only heightened what the New York Times described as “war fever” gripping the Capitol. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said, “If we’re going to do this, let’s go all the way.”

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/feb1998/congress.shtml

Once again on "weapons of mass destruction"
17 February 1998

The World Socialist Web Site has frequently pointed out the fraudulent character of the Clinton administration's claim that its motivation in the conflict with Iraq is to prevent Saddam Hussein's government from acquiring or making use of "weapons of mass destruction."

This phrase has become a buzzword in media propaganda in favor of war with Iraq, employed to prevent any critical thought about the real imperialist interests which are at stake in the region. These revolve around Iraq's strategic geopolitical position and its proximity to Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea oil supplies.

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/feb1998/weapons.shtml

The truth behind the White House lies
18 February 1998
By the Editorial Board

The Clinton administration is preparing a cowardly attack on the people of Iraq in which countless innocent lives will be sacrificed to further the interests of American big business. This is the reality behind the efforts of the president and his top advisers to create the illusion of a popular consensus for savaging an already shattered nation.

The onslaught against Iraq was decided long ago behind the backs of the American people, and a massive military strike force has already been assembled to carry it out. The White House and the military are counting on the lack of opposition in Congress, the subservience of the media and the distracted and politically disoriented state of mind of a misinformed public to block the emergence of any organized opposition.

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/feb1998/lieseb.shtml

New Caspian oil interests fuel US war drive against Iraq
By Barry Grey
16 November 1998

...Powerful geo-political interests are fueling the American war drive. In many respects US policy in the Persian Gulf is driven today by the same considerations that led it to invade Iraq nearly eight years ago. As a "senior American official"--most likely Secretary of State James Baker--told the New York Times within days of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait in August of 1990: "We are talking about oil. Got it? Oil, vital American interests."

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/nov1998/casp-n16.shtml

A shameful chapter in American history
By Martin McLaughlin and David North
19 December 1998

Those who are responsible for the bombing of Iraq are writing a shameful chapter in American history. Hundreds of Iraqi men, women and children have already been killed or maimed by American bombs and cruise missiles. The death toll from the air war will mount far higher. Even the Pentagon had predicted more than 10,000 would be killed in an onslaught of only medium intensity, let alone in the full-scale attack which was unleashed on December 16.

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/dec1998/iraq-d19.shtml

[LynnTheDem]

39. Thanks, oblivious!

Thanks for the links; have added them to my collection. I wonder what the blowback will be for what's done and being done in our names to Iraq this time.

:(

[AVID]

40. Things you won't hear about on CNN

Nominated

[LynnTheDem]

41. Actually one of my links is CNN. The MSM did report most of what's in

my original post. They just reported it once, quietly.

And then carried on with their 85% pro-war commentators.

[Taxloss]

44. Recommended and bookmarked.

Thnks Lynn.

What do you think of the stories that the Iranians were actually responsible for the gassing deaths during Anfal?

[LynnTheDem]

45. Sure, ask a tough one! lol!

Well, there's evidence Anfal never happened. Halabja we know happened, there's just disputes over the number of "collateral damage" and who used what.

On Halabja, I believe the Iraqis used mustard gas -they admit that & always have admitted that, it was a field commander's decision to use it.

There's no evidence -actual evidence- that Iraq used lethal gas. There is some evidence the Iranians did. I won't just take the word of the Kurds who blamed the Iraqis, because it's too biased; the Kurds were the enemy of the Iraqis and aligned with the Kurds.

So I lean towards believing the Iranians did the gassing, just on balancing what evidence there is. BUT it doesn't make much difference to me, actually, because "collateral damage" dead is dead, regardless of the method of death. I can't see much difference in dying from 2000lb bombs dropped on my head, versus being gassed, or riddled with bullets.

It was during a war. As pro-war people love to chant, "war is hell, people die". Unfortunate, but true.

It happened a long time ago (and again, during a war) and no action was taken against Iraq at the time or at any time shortly afterwards, so imo it is despicable to use it now as an excuse to invade and occupy and "shock & awe" bomb the crap out of Iraq.

Hmm what was the question again? :D

Bottom line, at this point in time, with what evidence there is, and especially taking in the circumstances of Halabja at the time (Iranian forces thought the Iraqi forces had captured the town and were unaware the Kurds had), I believe Iran is more likely to blame.

What's your opinion?

[bigtree]

46. yeah

that's the stuff!

[sojourner]

47. Now, that's what I call a list!!!! Thanks for doing the footwork!!!

[Vladimir]

48. By jove!

this is getting its ass bookmarked - I need to find time to read it mind, the amount of stuff you have found.

[satya]

49. Now appearing in Information Clearing House -- our own LynnTheDem!!!

thanks to Dangerman for spotting this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=129755&mesg_id=129755


:yourock:

[LynnTheDem]

50. Thanks to Dangerman for spotting it, & to you, satya, for letting me know!

:hug:

OMG OMG OMG OMG...

:D

[Submariner]

51. It's folk like LTD

that do the legwork that counts and matters to get the issues in the forefront. Thanks for the hard work. :applause:

[slipslidingaway]

52. Wonderful, thank you and another site that has posted

this link

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=12319&hd=0&size=1&l=x

[LynnTheDem]

53. Thanks, slip!

And thanks for letting me know about uruknet! :)

[RBHam]

54. An educated kick

boot 101